The same old same old. VIDEOGAMES RATHER THAN OUR ENTIRE CULTURE ARE TO BLAME FOR RECENT TRAGEDIES.
Please, spare me.
Please, spare me.
U.S. Senator Seeks New Study of Violent Videogames
- Thread starter Andy Chalk
- Start date
Recommended Videos
The problem with this reasoning is that, while games very well might serve in training technical skills, ie how to properly operate a firearm, shot accuracy, etc (and it is important to remember that the military uses highly realistic simulations, different from games designed for entertainment which are likely less effective for this purpose), this is not the same thing as activating a desire to kill others.Gilhelmi said:
Similarly, whenever someone references one of those studies that DOES show a correlation between games and aggression, they merely demonstrate an elevated response shortly after the game ends. To say they cause some form of insanity from this is a rather bold and foolish leap.
I don't mind a study because perhaps science will show there isn't a link or perhaps it is only something about certain types of video games that can be changed. If nothing else perhaps we need to change how violence is measured as part of the rating of video games.
But what bothers me about these media studies is that video games are labeled as something foul and evil while Hollywood seems to get a free pass. A film like Transformers Dark of the Moon can get by with a rating of PG-13, but if you put the same amount of violence, death, and destruction into a video game people would be screaming how we must keep it out of the hands of children. It's like it's okay to make movies as violent as the ratings will allow and market violent films towards kids but video games are the evil industry.
But what bothers me about these media studies is that video games are labeled as something foul and evil while Hollywood seems to get a free pass. A film like Transformers Dark of the Moon can get by with a rating of PG-13, but if you put the same amount of violence, death, and destruction into a video game people would be screaming how we must keep it out of the hands of children. It's like it's okay to make movies as violent as the ratings will allow and market violent films towards kids but video games are the evil industry.
Studies - good.
Predisposed opinion about the results - bad.
Opinion that everyone think we should ban games - even worse.
This thread turning into a gun ban discussion - what did you expect?
Capcha: more chocolate. it expected more chocolate.
Predisposed opinion about the results - bad.
Opinion that everyone think we should ban games - even worse.
This thread turning into a gun ban discussion - what did you expect?
Capcha: more chocolate. it expected more chocolate.
This just in, reinacting or researching various methods of combat can grant people insight in how to perform said combat.
The reason why guns will be brought up is because both video games and guns play a "similar" role in violence. They both contribute to how efficiently the aggressor carries out their acts.
A gun will give him the capability, playing violent games will give him inspiration. Niether will actually make him pick up the gun then reenact the Russian Airport Scene from COD:BO1.
The reason why guns will be brought up is because both video games and guns play a "similar" role in violence. They both contribute to how efficiently the aggressor carries out their acts.
A gun will give him the capability, playing violent games will give him inspiration. Niether will actually make him pick up the gun then reenact the Russian Airport Scene from COD:BO1.
well, nice to see this brought all the rm chair politicians out, again. yippy ....
@everyone bitching about guns in my country; Fix the people FIRST, then worry about the weapons. Just banning one type of weapon isn't going to stop some ass hole from STILL going out and hurting/killing large groups of people at a time, Or have none of you heard of Improvised Explosive Devices and other such home made murder tools one can make with bewildering ease.
@everyone bitching about guns in my country; Fix the people FIRST, then worry about the weapons. Just banning one type of weapon isn't going to stop some ass hole from STILL going out and hurting/killing large groups of people at a time, Or have none of you heard of Improvised Explosive Devices and other such home made murder tools one can make with bewildering ease.
One thing I have to say to this guy is if parents knew violent video games caused problems for kids then we wouldn't be having this discussion because you could label any parent that buys call of duty for their kid a bad parent.
The USA had about 12.000 gun related homicides in 2009. In Japan it was a national scandal that in 2007, 22 people were killed by guns. Do the Japanese play a shitload of video games? Don't bother, that one was rhetorical.
It's guns. If you want to defend them, at least be honest with yourself and everybody else. By the way, the US government seems to be as corrupt as ever, so if you'd like to defend yourself against The Man in a well trained militia (that's the part of the second amendment everybody seems to forget, often) now is as good as ever.
And btw, there really should be no discussion about children playing violent games or too much video games for that matter.
It's guns. If you want to defend them, at least be honest with yourself and everybody else. By the way, the US government seems to be as corrupt as ever, so if you'd like to defend yourself against The Man in a well trained militia (that's the part of the second amendment everybody seems to forget, often) now is as good as ever.
And btw, there really should be no discussion about children playing violent games or too much video games for that matter.
Hey, I live in the same country as you so don't get all high and mighty. As I've said before your purposefully ignoring the point that easy (keyword here: EASY) access to firearms makes the possibility of mass violence that much more likely. People who say 'oh well you can't stab someone' or 'oh well you can make a bomb' fail to realize that is actually very difficult to do and most of the psychotics who go on killing sprees lack the focus to do anything beyond shoot a bunch of people. Every attempted bombing in the US in the last few years has failed because the attempted bomber was apprehended or they screwed up the bomb and it didn't work. As for the other possible weapons it's a lot harder to kill someone with a knife than a high powered rifle or handgun - you actually have a more than 1% chance of succeeding in fighting back in that case. Also excuse the fuck out of us for discussing politics in the wake of bad shit happening, it's not like a democracy is supposed to be able to let the citizens get involved but maybe you're right: the people have about as much effect on legislation as someone using a teddy bear to stop a bulldozer.Lunar Templar said:
So even if we don't do anything about it it's better to get people talking and concerned about things going on then continuing to be the apathetic dipshits that we are.
It#s a shame he's doing this in hope of confirmation, because otherwise this would be a good opportunity to move towards some sort of conclusitivity.
Since he is biased, to undo that he needs to also command the Academy to conduct a study on whether having access and playing/shooting with actual guns leads to an increase in violence. There are many people who are under the belief that possessing and using firearms as a hobby is no worse than watching violent cartoons.
So I guess I'm saying that before we look at the violent effects of videogames we need to look at the violent effects of actual weaponry
Since he is biased, to undo that he needs to also command the Academy to conduct a study on whether having access and playing/shooting with actual guns leads to an increase in violence. There are many people who are under the belief that possessing and using firearms as a hobby is no worse than watching violent cartoons.
So I guess I'm saying that before we look at the violent effects of videogames we need to look at the violent effects of actual weaponry
Perhaps the honourable Senator should instead consider an investigation into the physiological effects of bullets on the flesh, organs and inner workings of childrens' bodies as they pass through them at high speed.
Violent Video Games are the current boogeyman, like rock music was for previous generations. In the wake of a tradgedy like this, politicians want to be seen doing something, so kicking the most recent boogie man is the way to go for them. We've done this song and dance before. Hopefully intelligence will overcome fear and both recent backlash attempts at tighter gun control, and the whole "blame media" (especially video games) will disappear quickly. Especially seeing as they are scapegoats for the more contreversial societal issues that are actually responsible.
I'll also be honest, while I don't believe the world will end tomorrow, a decent number of people do believe something will happen. I kind of wish something cool would happen (albiet not an end of the human race) but it will just be another boring day. It's my theory however that the kid doing these shootings was probably someone who believed the world was going to end and freaked out over it. Sort of like what people feared from "Millenium Madness" back with Y2K, except in this case and situations like the mass slashing attack in China, we're actually seeing results. I actually recommend staying inside tomorrow, not because of any supernatural hocus pocus, or meteors hitting the earth or anything (and honestly if humanity is going to end that way, nothing you can do about it, so why worry?), but because of crazy people.
On the conspiricy theory front for those who must have one, I'm favoring the whole "liberal brainwashing" angle that was present going back as far as Columbine. The basic theory being that these kinds of school shootings are done to create public panic, weaken the gun lobby and sentiments for individual freedom, and cause people to sell out their freedoms for security, in a way big goverment democrats actually support. Now this is a nutso conspiricy theory and not one I'm actually selling, but it's oddly plausible especially if you start looking at certain patterns of behavior, especially in this case. Politicians like Obama himself were unusually prepped and ready to go, even stopping by to make personal apperances when clearing the schedule for disasters can be a chore in most cases no matter how sympathetic. Not to mention some rather hokey occurances like the teenage/child shooters always killing themselves, and things like the sabotages hard drive which is somehow so badly wiped/damaged that federal authorities who have been able to get data from terrorist hard drives after bombs have gone off can't recover the data. A lot of this started back with columbine when the shooters in that case who "offed themselves" were reported as having been cornered in the school library by the authorities, followed by some initial reports that they were found dead "execution style" which were never repeted. There are other tidbits but those are some of the big ones for anyone who wants some imagination fuel (unconnected to the point of this article). To be honest I'm not going to even consider conspiricy theories until we have a third big incident with these kinds of huge information gaps/matching the pattern. Once is fine, twice is coincidence, three times is enemy action and all that.
I'll also be honest, while I don't believe the world will end tomorrow, a decent number of people do believe something will happen. I kind of wish something cool would happen (albiet not an end of the human race) but it will just be another boring day. It's my theory however that the kid doing these shootings was probably someone who believed the world was going to end and freaked out over it. Sort of like what people feared from "Millenium Madness" back with Y2K, except in this case and situations like the mass slashing attack in China, we're actually seeing results. I actually recommend staying inside tomorrow, not because of any supernatural hocus pocus, or meteors hitting the earth or anything (and honestly if humanity is going to end that way, nothing you can do about it, so why worry?), but because of crazy people.
On the conspiricy theory front for those who must have one, I'm favoring the whole "liberal brainwashing" angle that was present going back as far as Columbine. The basic theory being that these kinds of school shootings are done to create public panic, weaken the gun lobby and sentiments for individual freedom, and cause people to sell out their freedoms for security, in a way big goverment democrats actually support. Now this is a nutso conspiricy theory and not one I'm actually selling, but it's oddly plausible especially if you start looking at certain patterns of behavior, especially in this case. Politicians like Obama himself were unusually prepped and ready to go, even stopping by to make personal apperances when clearing the schedule for disasters can be a chore in most cases no matter how sympathetic. Not to mention some rather hokey occurances like the teenage/child shooters always killing themselves, and things like the sabotages hard drive which is somehow so badly wiped/damaged that federal authorities who have been able to get data from terrorist hard drives after bombs have gone off can't recover the data. A lot of this started back with columbine when the shooters in that case who "offed themselves" were reported as having been cornered in the school library by the authorities, followed by some initial reports that they were found dead "execution style" which were never repeted. There are other tidbits but those are some of the big ones for anyone who wants some imagination fuel (unconnected to the point of this article). To be honest I'm not going to even consider conspiricy theories until we have a third big incident with these kinds of huge information gaps/matching the pattern. Once is fine, twice is coincidence, three times is enemy action and all that.
I don't think this guy is against violent video games.
I think he's against people ignoring age ratings for games.
Which, yeah, that's an issue.
Ultimately, I think it should be guidance, but, I think as he puts it, a lot of people aren't entirely aware of the content of these games exactly, and educating them on exactly what they're allowing their children to view is not a bad thing.
I think he's against people ignoring age ratings for games.
Which, yeah, that's an issue.
Ultimately, I think it should be guidance, but, I think as he puts it, a lot of people aren't entirely aware of the content of these games exactly, and educating them on exactly what they're allowing their children to view is not a bad thing.