U.S. Senator Seeks New Study of Violent Videogames

[Andy Chalk]

U.S. Senator Seeks New Study of Violent Videogames

U.S. Senator Jay Rockefeller is calling for a National Academy of Sciences study on the effect of violent media on children.

In the wake of last week's devastating attack on Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Connecticut, West Virginia Senator Jay Rockefeller has introduced a bill calling for new research into the impact of violent videogames and other media on children.

"At times like this, we need to take a comprehensive look at all the ways we can keep our kids safe. I have long expressed concern about the impact of the violent content our kids see and interact with every day," Rockefeller said in a statement. "As Chairman of the Senate Commerce Committee, I have introduced legislation to direct the National Academy of Sciences to investigate the impact of violent videogames and other content on children's well-being."

Rockefeller's bill would see the National Academy of Sciences conduct a comprehensive study into the harmful effects of violent games and videos on children, specifically whether they "cause kids to act aggressively or otherwise hurt their wellbeing, and whether that effect is distinguishable from other types of media." The NAS would have 18 months to complete its investigation and submit its report to Congress, the FTC and the FCC.

"Recent court decisions demonstrate that some people still do not get it. They believe that violent videogames are no more dangerous to young minds than classic literature or Saturday morning cartoons," Rockefeller said, presumably reference the United States Supreme Court decision confirming that videogames deserves the same First Amendment protections [http://www.escapistmagazine.com/news/view/111300-Supreme-Court-Rules-in-Favor-of-Videogames] as other media. "Parents, pediatricians, and psychologists know better. These court decisions show we need to do more and explore ways Congress can lay additional groundwork on this issue."

In a "Minute With Jay" video posted today on YouTube [http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=Zt9-5mNSujQ], the senator also called for a ban on "military-grade assault weapons" and a renewed "national dialog on improving mental health services."

Source: rockefeller.senate.gov [http://www.rockefeller.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/press-releases?ID=63bfd4cf-24f5-46f6-ae89-a054c733752c]

(photo [http://www.flickr.com/photos/jrockefelleriv/8097444046/in/photostream])


Permalink

 

[Eric the Orange]

well that's slightly better than the usual finger pointing. At least he's looking for a study rather than the usual video game scape goating we get after things like this happen.

 

[Theminimanx]

On one hand, this guy is clearly biased against games.
On the other hand, at least he has the decency to ask for a proper study instead of immediately trying to ban stuff, which is more than I can say for most politicians.

 

[ritchards]

Sweet, I'd apply for that money! We already know the answer is "no", so free money!

 

[SNCommand]

Oh how he will cherry pick the results

 

[LordLundar]

This article could be renamed "U.S. Senator gives a textbook example at how to kill a career" and it would be no less accurate.

 

[Shadowsetzer]

Nothing to see here, folks, just another politician looking to say he's 'looking out for our children' by making video games into a scapegoat.....

 

[snowfi6916]

The usual "video games cause violence" BS.

Sorry, but I play violent video games, and I've never shot an entire classroom of 6 year old children.

When are we gonna stop blaming video games and other stuff (like how it was the fact that the shooter had Asperger's), and put the blame where it belongs: on the shooter themselves?

 

[jetriot]

Yay more wasting money on stupid shit. I can't believe Democrats like this one continue to get reelected. I know Republicans aren't any better but jesus, third parties people.

 

[Entitled]

I'm less and less worried about these moves.

Let's say that he actually goes through with new legislation against violent games.

In the cases when a violent game has any importance as a culturally relevant piece of art, (Spec Ops, Dishonored) it's already being supported by hardcores who heard about it online anyways, so further limit on sales to children, or on store sales, wouldn't cause much if any harm to them, it might even encourage bringing other genres forward. Advnture games, strategy games, etc.

If EA and Activision would make less money from pandering to millions of teenagers with their gun-glorifying "realistic miliatry shooters", so be it. For all I know, it might even really help the USA's fucked up cultural mentality about guns and shootings.

 

[Scars Unseen]

So now that the media circus has had its fun, the political vultures have come in to pick at the bones. People like Sen. Rockefeller should be fucking ashamed of themselves. They aren't, of course, put they damned well should be.

 

[jetriot]

First legislation to be proposed. This man gets zero points from me. ZERO. YOU FAIL. No matter how eloquently he managed to put it, he still proposed THIS first instead of anything related to guns.

Reacting to this with gun legislation is no different than what he really wants to do. Limit liberty by putting up unneeded safeguards. Just like after 9-11 with airport security. We learn to live with less liberty for an illusion of more security. Reactionary politics are wrong no matter your political beliefs.

 

[Gilhelmi]

I use to believe there was nothing to the video game and violence link until I read "On Combat" (see link below). OK, Here we go. I did not want to do this, I fear yall. But the truth needs saying...

Video Games will not make you into a murder, they take a person (predisposed to murder) and make them a MASS murder.

You see, it is the same technique the Military uses to train soldiers, except they program in a "safety switch". Treating all controllers as real weapons, drilling in Laws of War, Shoot/No-Shoot scenarios, These are safety switches to teach the soldier to Stop Firing when the enemy is neutralized.

In Video Games, You shoot everything and if you want to just start over.

In the Army, You get one chance at the Shoot/No-Shoot and Law of War trainers. If you fail, you are disciplined (usually by having a long boring class).

In Video Games, You rarely have "Noncombatants". In the Army, Most of the scenarios have noncombatants, again you are punished for shooting.

http://www.amazon.com/Combat-Psychology-Physiology-Deadly-Conflict/dp/0964920549/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1355960395&sr=1-1&keywords=on+combat

PS: Remember Civility.

EDIT: That book might have been his other work "On Killing" http://www.amazon.com/On-Killing-Psychological-Learning-Society/dp/0316040932/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1356047205&sr=8-1&keywords=on+killing

 

[Gilhelmi]

First legislation to be proposed. This man gets zero points from me. ZERO. YOU FAIL. No matter how eloquently he managed to put it, he still proposed THIS first instead of anything related to guns.

Reacting to this with gun legislation is no different than what he really wants to do. Limit liberty by putting up unneeded safeguards. Just like after 9-11 with airport security. We learn to live with less liberty for an illusion of more security. Reactionary politics are wrong no matter your political beliefs.

Amen

Also, who is talking about limiting video game YET. He is just proposing a study, The study will be denounce by the Pro-Game side if it shows a link. It will also be denounced by the "anti-game" side if it does not show a link. I feel bad for those researchers.

 

[Scars Unseen]

First legislation to be proposed. This man gets zero points from me. ZERO. YOU FAIL. No matter how eloquently he managed to put it, he still proposed THIS first instead of anything related to guns.

Reacting to this with gun legislation is no different than what he really wants to do. Limit liberty by putting up unneeded safeguards. Just like after 9-11 with airport security. We learn to live with less liberty for an illusion of more security. Reactionary politics are wrong no matter your political beliefs.

We have a winner! The best thing we can possibly hope for here is that the usual divisive nature of our government will prevent any of this shit from going through. I'm not too worried since there is no strong bribery lobbying incentive to push it through. This is mostly assholes playing for tragedy votes.

 

[Maze1125]

Sweet, I'd apply for that money! We already know the answer is "no", so free money!

No, we already know the answer is yes.
There are hundreds of studies that show that violent media of all kinds has significant effect on developing minds and not a single one that shows no effect.

Quite frankly, any good parent knows it too, as that's the whole point of childhood, taking in things you experiences and being affected by them. What the hell would the point of being a child be if you weren't affected by things?

A lot of gamers are very quick to dismiss this studies out of hand (and, for some reason, the simple concept of being a child) but, last time I checked, that doesn't make the studies untrue.

 

[Scars Unseen]

First legislation to be proposed. This man gets zero points from me. ZERO. YOU FAIL. No matter how eloquently he managed to put it, he still proposed THIS first instead of anything related to guns.

Reacting to this with gun legislation is no different than what he really wants to do. Limit liberty by putting up unneeded safeguards. Just like after 9-11 with airport security. We learn to live with less liberty for an illusion of more security. Reactionary politics are wrong no matter your political beliefs.

Amen

Also, who is talking about limiting video game YET. He is just proposing a study, The study will be denounce by the Pro-Game side if it shows a link. It will also be denounced by the "anti-game" side if it does not show a link. I feel bad for those researchers.

I don't. They'll be getting paid good money to rehash the same tired arguments that have been made time and again, ultimately taking the side of whoever is holding the purse strings. I guess it might suck if they wanted to do anything significant with their education, but I'm guessing most of these guys already have PRO and ANTI templates ready to go so that they can have more time to play Minecraft or beer pong or whatever it is that researchers do when the government asks them to research bullshit and spit out politically convenient responses.