U.S. Senator Seeks New Study of Violent Videogames

[charge52]

Oh and BTW China and Japan have had mass stabbings so gun control is a waste of time people will kill people if they want to.

http://nyctalking.com/mass-stabbing-in-china/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Akihabara_massacre
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Osaka_school_massacre

People got stabbed so that makes gun control useless?
In china, 22 injured with a knife, no deaths.
In Japan Akihabara with a knife, four deaths.
In Japan Osaka with a knife, eight deaths.
In America with a gun, twenty-six deaths.

Tell me again about how not having guns makes no difference.

 

[bearlotz]

My problem is that any kind of initiative to remove the rights of citizens to own guns is an example of hamstringing the majority in order to limit the potential damage of the minority. Most of these arguments are framed such that the only two choices are "remove all firearms from the civilian populace, end America's gun culture, etc." or "gun control doesn't solve anything, criminals will get them illegally, they would just knife each other if they didn't have guns".

As with most things in life, the answer is in moderation, an emphasis on personal responsibility and understanding the consequences of one's actions, and increased education in regards to the selected field. The last part can come from either state or local government in the form of reviewing their requirements for licensing and educating anyone who would like to purchase a firearm. These requirements should most likely include a recent psychological evaluation confirming that the applicant is not prone to aggressive or erratic behavior before any sale can take place. The right to bear arms is based on the assumption that the bearer is a rational human being, so I don't think that a rationality check prior to granting the right is a violation of the right itself. Each state has its own regulations on firearms licenses, but I don't think that some consensus on this point is too far out in left field. Maybe there could be some minimum requirements for licensing dictated by the federal government with the individual states allowed to require additional training/background checks/etc., but that gets into the territory of limiting states' rights and isn't an ideal solution either.

The other two points are a bit trickier since they have to do more with culture than with laws or regulations. The culture problem is like studying for an exam: if you space it out over a reasonable length of time and tackle it in smaller pieces it won't be too difficult, but if you wait until the night before then you're in for a long night and a lot of stress in exchange for uncertain results. As a whole, the world is a student on a cram session in this regard and barring some kind of grand cultural/intellectual awakening I don't see any easy solution. The only tool that government(s) have to affect a shift in culture is legislation, which is a blunt, inexact tool at best and a hopelessly misguided effort in completely the wrong direction at worst.

The best we can do is try to raise our own children (or eventual children, as the case may be) to be more understanding, contemplative people and try to prepare them as best we can for a world that has lost its common sense along the way. The only other solutions I can come up with are Draconian and rife with potential for corruption and abuse, so I seriously hope that someone else can think of something better.

 

[Erttheking]

I can't be the only one sick to fucking death of every thread on this website turning into one about gun control.

 

[Something Amyss]

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.

But are we going to get a "proper study" or a proper study?

I'm just saying, many of these "studies" end up being witch hunts anyway.

 

[Something Amyss]

I can't be the only one sick to fucking death of every thread on this website turning into one about gun control.

This is a weird place to make that statement, since this is kind of tied to the gun issue by default.

It's not like someone started talking about gun control in a MLP or CoD thread.

...Of course, if someone did, feel free to rant there.

 

[Erttheking]

I can't be the only one sick to fucking death of every thread on this website turning into one about gun control.

This is a weird place to make that statement, since this is kind of tied to the gun issue by default.

It's not like someone started talking about gun control in a MLP or CoD thread.

...Of course, if someone did, feel free to rant there.

I know I know, but this is really a debate meant for the R&R thread, that's kind of why it has its own section. This news is more about video games causing violence than anything else, so arguably, a gun control debate is derailing this.

 

[Somethingfake]

Yep. Wondered how fucking long it would take. Let's not blame the mental fuck that shot kids, noooo noooo, let's go after gears of war and call of duty. CALL OF DUTY SHOT THE KIDS! A person would never ever ever do this would they?

 

[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.

But are we going to get a "proper study" or a proper study?

I'm just saying, many of these "studies" end up being witch hunts anyway.

To be honest, I have no idea. Is the National Acadamy of Sciences an impartial organization?

 

[RhombusHatesYou]

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.

But are we going to get a "proper study" or a proper study?

At the end of the day it doesn't matter. Even if it turns out to be the most in-depth, multi-disciplinary, scientifically rigorous study ever done, the crapsacks-in-chief will ignore it or 'interpret' it via Very Special Logic if it fails to conform to their preconceived biases.

 

[Oinodaemon]

So...WHY, exactly, are video games worse than Saturday morning cartoons? People DIE in cartoons nowadays. Don't remember much of that when I was a pup. I propose a study where we make kids play violent videogames while other children watch violent television. I'd like to see the statistical differences.

Why does everyone look down on our medium? The only difference between a good movie and a good video game is how much the viewer/player gets to interact. I interact with the movie on only rudimentary levels, pure input, if you will, whereas I interact with a good video game in a balanced mixture of input to output. Well, unless it's Metal Gear.

 

[BroJing]

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.

What most of the studies show, that I've seen anyway. Is a short-term increase in aggressive tendencies. Similar to contact-sports and other things people use to 'get the blood pumping'. Even the latest study from Ohio State which seemed to show a long-term increase was of 'Aggressive Expectations' and not full-on aggression or violence.

Noone has so far proved a link between Violence (an act of aggression that effects another person physically) and media.

 

[Matthi205]

At least he has the decency to ask for a properly done study on how it affects children.

He also said something reasonable:

In a "Minute With Jay" video posted today on YouTube, the senator also called for a ban on "military-grade assault weapons" and a renewed "national dialog on improving mental health services."

Now that could make a difference, could it?

I think that the problem with "violent videogames" is only an issue if the person playing them is actually crazy (that is, suffering from a mental illness). They don't make normal people crazy. They do, however make crazy people crazier, which is the problem.

This very same discussion has also been happening about World of Warcraft when the game was found on the computer of a crazy guy that had shot a dozen people and then shot himself (he was obviously mentally ill, along with the fact that his father kept his hunting rifle in an unlocked container somewhere easily reachable).

 

[Slash2x]

Oh and BTW China and Japan have had mass stabbings so gun control is a waste of time people will kill people if they want to.

http://nyctalking.com/mass-stabbing-in-china/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Akihabara_massacre
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Osaka_school_massacre

People got stabbed so that makes gun control useless?
In china, 22 injured with a knife, no deaths.
In Japan Akihabara with a knife, four deaths.
In Japan Osaka with a knife, eight deaths.
In America with a gun, twenty-six deaths.

Tell me again about how not having guns makes no difference.

Sorry 1 hurt is still 1 too many. We need to solve the problem not blame the tools used. I am not going to play bait the troll and I have nothing else to say about this...

 

[Woodsey]

Weren't numerous studies thrown at the Supreme Court in the whole "artistic merit" debate? You've done this already, no need to go over it again.

 

[songnar]

Poor kids. Stay inside and play video games or watch tv, become a murdering psychopath; Go outside to play, get kidnapped, raped and murdered.

What, then, is a young person to do outside of their daily studies? All work and no play, you know...

 

[songnar]

The lunatics will get guns illegally, problem solved.

That's a myth. After a firearms ban, the black market goes dry. This is because the black market is almost entirely fully supplied from legal guns. No legal guns, then also no illegal guns.

Ergo the lack of hard drugs in the U.S.A.

No legal cocaine here, ergo the black market cannot find and sell it illegally.

 

[Something Amyss]

I know I know, but this is really a debate meant for the R&R thread, that's kind of why it has its own section. This news is more about video games causing violence than anything else, so arguably, a gun control debate is derailing this.

Yeah, how dare a real, related issue be brought up to derail this topic!

Since we are on the topic, how do you feel about the fact that someone in government is demanding studies on video games, when they have effectively banned studies on firearms through defunding and no longer release the information that is still gathered? Do you feel that video games are such speshul snoflaykz that they deserve far more scrutiny (government funded) than do weapons?

And if a kid came to your school/your kid's school/whatever, which would you rather he be armed with? Mass Effect 3, or a Bushmaster?

Sorry 1 hurt is still 1 too many.

Yes, it is, but to say gun control is pointless simply because you can't stop all harm is ridiculous. Do you wear a seatbelt? Do you shower with a toaster? Do you eat healthy? Do you dress weather appropriate?

We take measures in this country, sometimes measures that protect fewer people, with less of a fuss.

To be honest, I have no idea. Is the National Acadamy of Sciences an impartial organization?

I don't know enough about them to judge, which is why I'm curious.

At the end of the day it doesn't matter. Even if it turns out to be the most in-depth, multi-disciplinary, scientifically rigorous study ever done, the crapsacks-in-chief will ignore it or 'interpret' it via Very Special Logic if it fails to conform to their preconceived biases.

It matters to me because I want to see a real study done. I know that "haters gonna hate," and that even if there's a negative correlation they will still bray on. But out of curiosity, I do want to see what merit there is to the claim, if any.

And really, that's one of the things that should drive science in the first place. Not the political dick-waving contests we see about so-called "controversial" issues.

 

[Theminimanx]

To be honest, I have no idea. Is the National Acadamy of Sciences an impartial organization?

I don't know enough about them to judge, which is why I'm curious.

According to Wikipedia, new members are elected by current members. This probably isn't a good sign.
Luckily, a (admittedly very brief) Wikipedia search shows no immediate connection between Rockefeller and the Academy, so we can hopefully assume that the researchers doing the study won't be picked by Rockefeller.

 

[Ympulse]

A gunman without videogames still shoots people.
A gamer without guns doesn't.
A deranged lunatic without guns doesn't either.

I want to live in your world.

Out of curiosity, in your world, are drugs banned too? Because drug bans completely removed drugs from the US. Yes they did.


Take a look at the UK and/or Chicago. Some of the most stringent gun control laws in the world (In the UK guns are so illegal, the cops don't even carry them) and yet there are still shootings, violent crimes, and every other sort of Bad Thing that can happen.

So no, getting rid of guns only serves to lessen a law abiding citizen's ability to defend themselves.