U.S. Senator Says Violent Games Are "Practice Simulators"

[rob_simple]

Sorry, wasn't the Sandy Hook guy the one with the Christian nutter of a mother who trained him how to use guns?

Aside from that, all the most depraved acts of violence I've ever witnessed have come from books, and I don't look this shit out; read any crime novel and I guarantee the murders in it will be more graphic than anything you find in a movie, song or video game.

Then again, books are the old enemy, so why waste time on them.

 

[Xanex]

Sorry, wasn't the Sandy Hook guy the one with the Christian nutter of a mother who trained him how to use guns?

Aside from that, all the most depraved acts of violence I've ever witnessed have come from books, and I don't look this shit out; read any crime novel and I guarantee the murders in it will be more graphic than anything you find in a movie, song or video game.

Then again, books are the old enemy, so why waste time on them.

After books it was movies. After that was the internet. I'm sure there will be something after games to take on the role of boogyman to cast blame onto.

 

[Ilikemilkshake]

Practice simulators eh? Spot on.

I'm currently training to be a Witcher right now, To think my dream of becoming a genetically enhanced monster slayer is all thanks to videogames Practice simulators, Truly we live in a wondrous world.

 

[EeviStev]

Hey, Democratic Senator Dianne Feinstein? You know what's more of a "practice simulator" than video games? Shooting ranges.

 

[Farther than stars]

The thing is, she doesn't want to ban all guns from games, so this will never work. The Supreme Court has recognized video games as being protected by the first amendment. And you can ban certain proclamations or images from falling under the first amendment entirely, but you can't set an upper-limit quota for them.
If you ban them you assume that they're so damaging to society that they can't be used at all, but since guns are allowed in art and film, they're deemed unharmful, so they can be used in video games as well. And the government can't set a certain quota, because then that would mean that individual developers might be constrained by social trends which they have no power over (precisely the interest which the first amendment seeks to protect).
But I do love news stories like these. It makes the comments section the ideal place for target practice. Let's see what I can bag this time...

Isn't violent crimes at an world history low?

Actually, speaking worldwide, crime is estimated to be higher than throughout history, owing to the rapid growth of populations in countries and regions which are more susceptible to crime (read: corrupt nations and cities). Also, the rise of video surveillance and computer technology has affected the way in which we monitor crimes and process associated records so that more crime can be documented and thus attributed to statistics. This separates modern crime figures from older ones. However, taking all that into account, it is true that there is less recorded crime in the United States and most other Western nations.
But even if there were fewer crimes your argument would still be a very weak argument, considering that there is no causal link between the two trends of more people playing video games and fewer violent crimes being committed. It's like saying: "It rains more often the morning after we do this rain dance." It might be a factually correct statement, but it doesn't prove any scientific causality. So scientifically speaking, it's entirely possible that video games stimulate aggressive behaviour on an individual and psychological level, while not showing up in sociological studies (although it's worth noting that there is no scientific research which proves the psychological link either).

People usually commit murder, theft, rape etc on the basis of lacking decent living standards.

Again, as far as poverty and crime are concerned, although there is academic consensus that the two are related, the cause and effect are very much disputed among scientists. It is entirely possible that crime is the basis for "lacking decent living standards", rather than the other way around. On which side of the argument you fall really depends on your position on the political spectrum and less on what is factually correct.

My entire mid to early highschool was spent playing GTA and CoD, and I almost fainted when I sliced the side of my finger while pairing an orange. I'm totally a sociopathic killer, obviously, desensitized to blood... yeah right.

Right, because your individual perception is the way things are. "I own a gun and I never shoot people with it, so no other gun-owner ever shoots anyone." Or: "We had the coldest winter ever, so obviously Global Warming is a myth."

"First Amendment rights protection! Come at me bro!" ~Violent Videogames.

That's what I'm talking about! Or... writing about at least.

It is not an American thing, it is an idiot thing. They happen to be all over the world, we just have a bad habit of electing them into office.

I think that might say quite a lot about Americans as well, though...

I would feel better if we just had randomly selected people picked up off the street and forced to serve to two years...

Except Hippies.

Never Hippies...

Right, because who the hell wants leaders who are dedicated to everlasting peace? Of course, I say that sarcastically now, but I'd be singing a very different tune if when China invades and my own country no longer has a formal military.

Yeah, problem with that is that most of the hippies back then are the people in power now.

Not most, "some", maybe... Thing about power is, there isn't much of it to go around, or else it wouldn't be power.

You know if there was a law against stupidity passed first things would move along much quicker.

There is. It's known as Darwinian evolution. It's just that it doesn't look very fast in a human lifetime.

Maybe if senators were force to retire before 50 we'd be led by people more in touch with reality and life.

So... people over 50 have nothing left to offer to a society? I'll remind you of that when you turn 50. Also, in theory people on the Hill are older because they've been around longer and are thus more experienced. Do you really want to sacrifice all people who are more qualified because some of them are "out of touch" with your own demographic on one single issue?

 

[DrunkOnEstus]

These statement always make me think of that kid who played "violent" video games almost daily, and cried his eyes out, begging for his mother when he was asked to shoot a real gun. Found in this video, of which the whole thing is very applicable and entertaining.

 

[rob_simple]

After books it was movies. After that was the internet. I'm sure there will be something after games to take on the role of boogyman to cast blame onto.

It's gonna be smartphones. I'm calling it now: we're going to hear about terrifying social network hiveminds that are turning our kids into Children of the Corn.

 

[Dryk]

This makes me rage real hard.


I cant stand ignorance. If someone doesn't know what the fuck he is talking about, then shut up. She should disappear from politics.

If knowing what the hell you're talking about was required for politics we'd have no politicians... but governments would probably still run more smoothly

 

[Reyold]

You know if there was a law against stupidity passed first things would move along much quicker.

Are you friggin' kidding me? Do you know how many people we'd have to throw in jail if we did that? I don't think we have enough prisons for that... unless you mean politicians in particular, in which case, we have to get that law passed as soon as possible.

Also, I find this appropriate for this thread:

Well, it would be, but I think I messed up trying to type the tags or whatever they're called at the ends of a image or a video. Can someone help please?

EDIT: Fixed

 

[BrotherSurplice]

Also... Am I the only one who thinks she looks like professor Umbridge?

You are not alone good sir. Umbrige's grim visage was the first thing to pop into my mind when I saw the OP.

On-topic, when are these old and clearly out of touch politicians going to pull their heads out of their arses and give their jobs to someone who can actually do their job?

 

[BoogieManFL]

The thing is, she doesn't want to ban all guns from games, so this will never work. The Supreme Court has recognized video games as being protected by the first amendment. And you can ban certain proclamations or images from falling under the first amendment entirely, but you can't set an upper-limit quota for them.
If you ban them you assume that they're so damaging to society that they can't be used at all, but since guns are allowed in art and film, they're deemed unharmful, so they can be used in video games as well. And the government can't set a certain quota, because then that would mean that individual developers might be constrained by social trends which they have no power over (precisely the interest which the first amendment seeks to protect).
But I do love news stories like these. It makes the comments section the ideal place for target practice. Let's see what I can bag this time...

Isn't violent crimes at an world history low?

Actually, speaking worldwide, crime is estimated to be higher than throughout history, owing to the rapid growth of populations in countries and regions which are more susceptible to crime (read: corrupt nations and cities). Also, the rise of video surveillance and computer technology has affected the way in which we monitor crimes and process associated records so that more crime can be documented and thus attributed to statistics. This separates modern crime figures from older ones. However, taking all that into account, it is true that there is less recorded crime in the United States and most other Western nations.
But even if there were fewer crimes your argument would still be a very weak argument, considering that there is no causal link between the two trends of more people playing video games and fewer violent crimes being committed. It's like saying: "It rains more often the morning after we do this rain dance." It might be a factually correct statement, but it doesn't prove any scientific causality. So scientifically speaking, it's entirely possible that video games stimulate aggressive behaviour on an individual and psychological level, while not showing up in sociological studies (although it's worth noting that there is no scientific research which proves the psychological link either).

People usually commit murder, theft, rape etc on the basis of lacking decent living standards.

Again, as far as poverty and crime are concerned, although there is academic consensus that the two are related, the cause and effect are very much disputed among scientists. It is entirely possible that crime is the basis for "lacking decent living standards", rather than the other way around. On which side of the argument you fall really depends on your position on the political spectrum and less on what is factually correct.

My entire mid to early highschool was spent playing GTA and CoD, and I almost fainted when I sliced the side of my finger while pairing an orange. I'm totally a sociopathic killer, obviously, desensitized to blood... yeah right.

Right, because your individual perception is the way things are. "I own a gun and I never shoot people with it, so no other gun-owner ever shoots anyone." Or: "We had the coldest winter ever, so obviously Global Warming is a myth."

"First Amendment rights protection! Come at me bro!" ~Violent Videogames.

That's what I'm talking about! Or... writing about at least.

It is not an American thing, it is an idiot thing. They happen to be all over the world, we just have a bad habit of electing them into office.

I think that might say quite a lot about Americans as well, though...

I would feel better if we just had randomly selected people picked up off the street and forced to serve to two years...

Except Hippies.

Never Hippies...

Right, because who the hell wants leaders who are dedicated to everlasting peace? Of course, I say that sarcastically now, but I'd be singing a very different tune if when China invades and my own country no longer has a formal military.

Yeah, problem with that is that most of the hippies back then are the people in power now.

Not most, "some", maybe... Thing about power is, there isn't much of it to go around, or else it wouldn't be power.

You know if there was a law against stupidity passed first things would move along much quicker.

There is. It's known as Darwinian evolution. It's just that it doesn't look very fast in a human lifetime.

Maybe if senators were force to retire before 50 we'd be led by people more in touch with reality and life.

So... people over 50 have nothing left to offer to a society? I'll remind you of that when you turn 50. Also, in theory people on the Hill are older because they've been around longer and are thus more experienced. Do you really want to sacrifice all people who are more qualified because some of them are "out of touch" with your own demographic on one single issue?

I wouldn't take that much from what I said, but in general I don't as often see younger people making outright idiotic statements that are more their personal opinion(and outright wrong) than any proven fact about things like this.

 

[FalloutJack]

Also, I find this appropriate for this thread:

Like that, yo.

OT: Oh look, more politicians talking about video ga-

[HEADING=1]BORING!!![/HEADING]​

Hah... I WISH I were that good, you jumped-up mouthpiece of stupid! After all the Doom, Rage, Fallout, Duke Nukem, Half-Life, MDK, Evil Dead, Saint's Row, GTA, Devil May Cry, and MUCH MUCH MORE that I've played in my life, I could take care of ALL your military problems and the rest of our boys could GO HOME! As it stands, I am not trained, but I'll sure as hell hit a target better than someone who only ever played games.

Heh, silly morons in office...

 

[I.Muir]

There is no real evidence of any link between violence in video games to actual violence and guess what there never will be. She is wrong and there is no reason to get worked up about it until she tries to implement something she does not fully understand to damage the industry.

Watch out for when they start to say things like gaming has it's good points followed by a small list. They are about to dismiss all of it in an attempt to implement some ill thought out plan to destroy games.

 

[NeutralDrow]

Try hearing something like this as someone who voted for her. In my defense, she does good things in other aspects of politics.

Maybe my being one of her constituents would lend my words some weight if I told her that, no matter how hard I practice, I can't shoot a fireball from my hands.

 

[Atmos Duality]

I dunno...I shot some real guns when I was in the army, and I've played a few games with guns in them (even worked on a few!). I wouldn't consider them comparable experiences. At all.

Wait wait...you mean video games do not build the required muscle memory and physical experience for becoming proficient with firearms?!

What a stunning revelation!

 

[Farther than stars]

--snip--

I think a more important question is whether it's even possible to be objective about this kind of thing. There's a fun Douglas Adams quote: "Anything that is in the world when you're born is normal and ordinary and is just a natural part of the way the world works. Anything that's invented between when you're fifteen and thirty-five is new and exciting and revolutionary and you can probably get a career in it. Anything invented after you're thirty-five is against the natural order of things."
By that logic there will probably be some new trend, by the time we're Feinstein's age, which we don't fully understand and doesn't fit in our own view of the world. My point being: we're all affected by biases dependent on what age group we're in. And I don't think it's fair or legitimate to fault someone for something which we're all susceptible to.

 

[I.Muir]

After books it was movies. After that was the internet. I'm sure there will be something after games to take on the role of boogyman to cast blame onto.

It's gonna be smartphones. I'm calling it now: we're going to hear about terrifying social network hiveminds that are turning our kids into Children of the Corn.

THERE WAS PHONE CANCER AND NOW THERE IS SMARTPHONE CANCER!
BY GOD WHAT HAVE YOU DONE!
YOU MADE THE CANCER SMARTER!

 

[Canadamus Prime]

Oh yeah, because the operation of a video game controller is just sooooo much like the operation of an actual real life firearm. ¬__¬

 

[Reyold]

Also, I find this appropriate for this thread:

Like that, yo.

Ah, I see. I thank thee, fellow Escapist, for assistance in my crusade against political stupidity.