It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Originally posted by Elsabolts Seems to me the problem is adult children 18 plus, under grads, grad students living in there mother and father's basement and off there health insurance. Or am i being crule too Mentaly challenged young people, who there whole life probaly have not fit in.
Again....the kids involved in these mass shootings are either on anti-psychotics or are otherwise not grounded in reality.
Secondly, there are FAR more perpertraitors of gun crimes that are under 21, highschool drop-outs, running the streets, with no stable home environment.....aka Gangsters / Thugs. In terms of gun related deaths, there has been the equivalent 20 Sandy Hooks in Chicago alone, during 2012. Coincidently, in a city with one of the most strict gun laws.
America is sure doing something wrong! When your murder rate is similar to some third world countries, and other countries ratio of people to murder to gun crime is so much smaller, you know something is wrong, the answer is obvious, but you need those guns just incase your government decides to engage martial law and treat you all like crap, because as everyone knows, V for Vendetta is just around the corner! I don't bother to argue it anymore, just let them get on with shooting each other!
One of the worst things is how the killers get plastered all over the news, then little Jonny who figures no one notices him decides to take daddies shotgun from over the mantle piece and go get himself on the 10 oclock news.
Originally posted by Enerzeal America is sure doing something wrong! When your murder rate is similar to some third world countries, and other countries ratio of people to murder to gun crime is so much smaller, you know something is wrong, the answer is obvious, but you need those guns just incase your government decides to engage martial law and treat you all like crap, because as everyone knows, V for Vendetta is just around the corner! I don't bother to argue it anymore, just let them get on with shooting each other! One of the worst things is how the killers get plastered all over the news, then little Jonny who figures no one notices him decides to take daddies shotgun from over the mantle piece and go get himself on the 10 oclock news.
More people have died from baseball bats than rifles. We have a lower violent crime rate than the UK. Better go check your facts from the .gov sites.
As for "little Jonny", Most of the gun crime in the US comes from those without fathers and they are defanately not using shotguns. But, this is an issue that some are afraid to address. When you check your facts, you'll find out exactly who I'm talking about. I think you already know since you likened them to third-worlders. At least we can agree on that.
Your concern for inanimate objects is no different than the concern for the other inanimate object (video games). Both refuses to identify the real issue to solve and takes away all responsibility from the actual cause of this, which is certain people.
Playing: 3D chess while while others play checkers.
Censorship is intended to create an illusion that one side of the debate is correct and unopposed. Silence is not consent.
Originally posted by Vesavius Originally posted by Scot Violence and Video games, here we go again Video games do not put guns into their player’s hands. They do not make parents want to leave their guns accessible to teenagers. This argument has been going on for decades. I loved GTA, remember the storm over that series? But it never made me want to steal cars, deal drugs or visit a prostitute. Politicians always need to find a solution, even when you don't need one. They need to be seen to do the right thing, which too often does not help. This is a problem today more than ever, with the news media clammering for answers and 24hr news raising those calls to fervour pitch. I don't know enough about the gun issue to make a comment on that, but I do know video games have been a scapegoat for years. Politicians and even more so the media have to blame someone.
Indeed, here we go again... with both extremes polarizing the debate with undebatable declarations of 'fact'.
I have not made my mind up about the full impact of desenstisation or violent games acting as a cataclyst for those pre disposed (but otherwise might not have acted on their impulses) to violent behaviour, simply because I have neither read or been part of enough studies on it to be sure either way 100%.
Have you? What do you base such a strong set of statements on?
Personally, I welcome the debate, as long as real information is bought to bear. Personal anecdotes and 'I play games and I am alright' from an individual do not count as valid information here... You do not represent everyone and what may be ok for you might not be for others.
Look, like on most things to do with life, I tend to not trust people who want to constantly tell me 'how it is'.
If you are not asking questions and exploring truth (not just *your* truth) then you are just another blow hard really. I get the need to defend what you love, and your choices and behaviours, from outside assault but... well, you get it...
If we're only talking facts here, we need only look at the history of our species. Which is full of senseless violence, ignorance and fear beig the prime motivator. All humans carry within them both good and evil, it's the individual who decides which controls them. We've killed each other since the dawn of our existence.
Do videogames cause violent/unstable people to become desensitized enough to become mass murderers? Possibly..., however, are they anymore influential and/or guilty of that compared to other entertainment mediums? Mark David Chapman cited a book as being his motivator as an example.
How desensitizing is showing a real war played out on national TV, showcased like a primetime sports event? How about the American Army's own combat simulator? Before our goverment starts going after these markets they need to take a hard look inward at their own practices IMO. I'll stop now as I don't want to turn this into a political rant.
For every minute you are angry , you lose 60 seconds of happiness."-Emerson
Originally posted by Distopia
This post is on the right path..
PM before you report at least or you could just block.
Originally posted by Scot Violence and Video games, here we go again Video games do not put guns into their player’s hands. They do not make parents want to leave their guns accessible to teenagers. This argument has been going on for decades. I loved GTA, remember the storm over that series? But it never made me want to steal cars, deal drugs or visit a prostitute. Politicians always need to find a solution, even when you don't need one. They need to be seen to do the right thing, which too often does not help. This is a problem today more than ever, with the news media clammering for answers and 24hr news raising those calls to fervour pitch. I don't know enough about the gun issue to make a comment on that, but I do know video games have been a scapegoat for years. Politicians and even more so the media have to blame someone.
Those shootings attract a lot of media attention, and what better way to cash in some votes for you rpolitical campaigns then voice your opinions as a politician?
"going into arguments with idiots is a lost cause, it requires you to stoop down to their level and you can't win"
Sadly, not all people can make a distinction between real life and pretend. What is perfectly okay for one person, may be dangerous to another.
Violent video games can be a dangerous learning tool for someone who has trouble makeing rational decisions.
Originally posted by Distopia Originally posted by Vesavius Originally posted by Scot
I think you're right and yes, it is hard to talk about some angles without drifting into political topics. But, if this is such a serious problem, shouldn't everything be put on the table? And if bringing up politics, pharma companies, and crime statistics is ignored or censored, then, they are not really serious about solving this issue and looks more like political witch hunts instead.
Look at the indiscriminate drone attacks all over the world going on because of our government. So article came out showing that for every 1 "terrorist" they bombed, 50 innocent by-standers were killed.
That's pretty bad. And the attitude that this indiscriminate killing is ok because it's the government is pretty hypocritical. I see no difference at all. Except one is frowned upon and the other is, "merica, f%#& yeah!
I think the focus should be on the types of people doing this. But, if they want to make this about inanimate objects, then let's examine all of them, not a select few.
Originally posted by NorseGod Originally posted by Distopia Originally posted by Vesavius Originally posted by Scot
All excellent points, I think the 'merica f%&# yeah line pretty much says it all. If I look back at my youth (born in '78) every influence around me was of war, and a desensitizing to it. So may movies, cartoons, etc... Were a glorification of being a trained killer. From Gi-joe to Full Metal Jacket and everything inbetween. The America I grew up in was one of ego driven %^&* waving, pardon the expression. We have been taught from youth that violence is the answer.
Kind of explains why so many were so easily convinced that this war was the only answer.
"I have only two out of my company and 20 out of some other company. We need support, but it is almost suicide to try to get it here as we are swept by machine gun fire and a constant barrage is on us. I have no one on my left and only a few on my right. I will hold." (First Lieutenant Clifton B. Cates, US Marine Corps, Soissons, 19 July 1918)
Trying to steer clear of the politics while looking at how politicians are targeting video games is not an easy thing to do.
I notice that the Obama administration has announced an investigation into the link between Video Games and gun crime. I was wondering if any other investigations have been called for? Posters on here have suggested rap music, TV, hunting with guns and so on.
If video games are the only thing that gets investigated then only video games can be found “guilty”. This question has been asked before and to my knowledge no link has been established. It seems successive governments around the world will just keep asking this question until a link is found. Then all the previous research will be thrown out the window and they will come down on the gaming industry.
You received 25 Agrees. You're posting some good content. Great!
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Now Doesn't That Make You Feel All Warm And Fuzzy? :P
Originally posted by birdycephon Sadly, not all people can make a distinction between real life and pretend. What is perfectly okay for one person, may be dangerous to another. Violent video games can be a dangerous learning tool for someone who has trouble makeing rational decisions.
If someone can't make the distinction between real life and pretend, that person has bigger issues than 'playing violent video games'.
Gdemami -Informing people about your thoughts and impressions is not a review, it's a blog.
what about tv series, CSI, Criminal minds, Dexter.
Or what about discovery channel or the history channel.
Heck what about the news.
Even cartoons can be very violent, some even promote it even though often it's bad against the good.
All these can be seen as learning tools for weak minded persons or even for highly intelligent people.
Sure everything could be "that" trigger for a person. Is there a correlation between violence and video games, sure there is likewise with every other form of media that could be a trigger. Should we ban all forms of entertainment now due to some people not able to see the difference between entertainment or real life?
The simple fact is this, humanity is influenced, angry, spitful, hatefilled, constantly capable of terrible acts. They don't need outward influences, then don't need much to do the worst we are capable of, you can point the finger wherever you want, its just a fact of life. Every 1-25 is a sociopath, plenty of people capable of great evil.
The best thing you can do, is take away there ability to do it so easily.
Originally posted by Reklaw Originally posted by birdycephon Sadly, not all people can make a distinction between real life and pretend. What is perfectly okay for one person, may be dangerous to another. Violent video games can be a dangerous learning tool for someone who has trouble makeing rational decisions.
Ofcourse, I'm not saying that video games are the sole cause, but they are a bigger part due to the immersion factor. There is a distinct difference between playing a game and watching someone else play.
The most interesting thing about recent events, with the Biden Comission and the call for study, is how "uneventful" it all really is.
Yes, a comission was called after Sandy Hook. Yes, the video game industry showed up to it. The film industry did too. They weren't subpoenaed to go, and they weren't required to go, but they went anyway.
This alone created qute a stir in the gaming press, from what I've seen. Some argued that the video game industry was wrong to go, because it made them look like criminals if they spoke to the commission. Others said no, that having a seat at the commission table was the right thing to do. Because you know the parent groups are going to have a seat, and the NRA too.
And when Biden released his report, the focus was on guns, not games. When the President got a hold of the report, he did nothing to restrict or ban the sale of games. He didn't even use his power as chief executive to send the CDC after games. He went to Congress and suggested that perhaps they ought to put forth some money to study the links between violence in all kinds of media (films included) and acts of violence.
The more unusual thing, for me, is how this non-event is spinned like the end of the world around here. The gaming sphere is the one who is overreacting here, and I wonder why. We haven't even had half of this discourse generated over the California criminal penalty for selling games to a minor, the one that was eventually struck down by the courts. Why is it that, all of the sudden, we are trying so hard to "de-couple" the link between violence and video games?
Perhaps it's because, deep down, we know that these things are too violent...perhaps unecessarily violent...and we are trying to collectively fool ourselves into thinking they aren't. Perhaps, deep down, we know these games are unhealthy, or create unhealthy habits. Perhaps, deep down, we know these games foster cruelty, and are venues for cruel acts. Perhaps, deep down, we know these games are exploitive: they make money by sucessfully manipulating the subconscious, base motives of naiive players.
This whole hoopla around violent video games--this thread included--looks more like a smokescreen than a legit concern. Because it's one thing to actually rally against some legislative action or policy change, but this thread isn't about that. It's about distracting us from the real questions that nobody around here seems to have the courage to ask: do we really need all the violence we see these days in the games? Who is attracted to the gore? Why is it that we are constantly told that realistic player housing and engaging non-combat professions are too hard and too niche for games to offer...but realistic decapitations, slo-mo death animations, and blood spurts are neither too hard, nor too niche?
__________________________"Its sad when people use religion to feel superior, its even worse to see people using a video game to do it."--Arcken
"...when it comes to pimping EVE I have little restraints."--Hellmar, CEO of CCP.
"It's like they took a gun, put it to their nugget sack and pulled the trigger over and over again, each time telling us how great it was that they were shooting themselves in the balls."--Exar_Kun on SWG's NGE
The idea that players can overact to such accusations because they secretly or unconsciously agree with the accusations is a fallacy.
You are basically saying, you do not agree with me, but you do really. In your heart of heart, you may not be saying you agree, but I am right and you do agree. Your argument seems to be intended to stop people taking a position other than yours by labeling them as deviant or lacking in personnal insight.
If I argue against you, I am either secretly a lover of gore and killing toons on screen even if I know it is morally wrong and is causing people to kill one another. Or perhaps I am a UK gun lover, who wishes we all could own automatic weapons over here?
I regard such an argument as misdirection, designed to make those who oppose your view seem sinister or unaware of their own motivations.
This is our hobby, that is why we are protective of it. Waiting until legislation has passed to react is a bit pointless.
As to selling video games to the underaged that is clearly wrong. It is no different to selling alcohol to minors, and should be prosecuted as such.
Why are so many people so protective of a medium that protects itself better than any media has in the history of media?
And protecting it from whom? Because I don't see any law or restriction coming out of these talks. All I see is a polite request to study them further.
But, you know, if we really want to "protect" our gorefests, the best way to do it is to come up with a case for why the gore is necessary. Why is the gore good? What is it about the death animations, the killing, and the simulated cruelty that is so beneficial?
But we won't hear that kind of statement on these boards.
Instead, we'll do as we have always done: answer the accusation by accusing the accusers of something malicious. I'm accused of misdirection, but is it any less of a misdirection than what we are saying about the people who say the games are too violent? We accuse them of using the violence in video games as a way to conceal their bad parenting. But this does little to answer the charge: that the games are too violent, and the violence is causing problems.
Is it? Well, if it isn't, we should have no problem with the notion that the games should be studied. But, apparently, we do. Why do you think that is? Perhaps (and I always say perhaps) because we suspect the accusers are right.
Beatnik59 if you imply that someone has an opinion for sinister reasons or an agenda, you can hardly be surprised when they call you out for it.
I am not here to defend gratuitous violence in video games, I often see no reason for it myself. But I do not think that graphic violence is making children violent. That is the crux here, does this sort of imagery and gameplay make people want to go out and commit violence? I think not and as far as I know no study has established a link. So you are phrasing the question to win your point, no one is seriously going to come on here and tell you why gore is good because they don’t have to.
You seem to be suggesting video games are exempt from the law, but they are rated just like other media.
I am not saying this is down to bad parenting, but I accept that as a possible contributing cause for what has happened.
Why do further studies into a link concern me? Because they are politically motivated, once politics gets involved the rigours of an academic study are put under pressure. Instead of looking at past studies and drawing a conclusion they want a new study because of media pressure, pressure that wants to name a culprit for this crime. Like I said why not investigate rap music or hunting with guns? If this investigation was fair, other areas of society would be looked at.
I saw the video clip of the Vice President, "even though you had the Supreme Court ruling go your way... just because you have that on your side doesn't mean you have public opinion on your side." - In other words your highest court may have looked at all the research and legal arguments and found no link between video games and violence, but that does not matter. “Public” opinion, for which you can read media opinion is not on the gaming industries side.
Fancy a witch hunt anyone?
10 Million Dollars will go towards studying the "Link" between real-life violence and video-games. This is truly a waste of the hard-earn tax-dollar money that could be use for better mental-health care options than wasting it on electronic entertainment.
Not only have video-games from time to time again have been proven to have no link to any serious real-life aggression or promotion of such aggression, but it is simply condeming the game-player as a criminal based on his hobbies alone. Not his record or the content of his character.
A normal and responsible citizen does not play a video-game, suddenly become so mesmorized or easily influenced by a fictional game to the point he or she will go out into society and cause damage. The majority of players playing video-games are 30-year olds, not a child playing games which are not made for his age (M+17 games given by parents for 9-year olds to play with). In other words, adults and older teenagers with brain-cells who know the difference between right and wrong, real-life and video-life.
Those who do act out are those who's sons or daughters have gone out of control(most commonly known as spoiled) and the parent either allowed it to esculate, or didn't take the proper measures to cool their heels while they were young. Also consider how the current system handles mentally disturbed individuals with evil agendas or who cannot control themselves.
These recent real-life shooters playing video-games have been adults(who graduated from college, therefore in no way ignorant or stupid) with calculated agendas and planning. Who did not care about the consequences and focused simply on the execution of their plans. Them playing video-games have very little to nothing to do with their henious crimes against society no more than water condemned because a criminal drank from a faucet.
The gaming world has donated thousands of hundreds of dollars supported by players to national child-funding organizations. By condeming video-games, the USA government is potentially cutting off thousands of those extra dollars that would have not been possible had it not been for the existance of the games or gamers themselves.
Obliviously players can make a distinction between real-life and gaming life. Not all video-games however are meant for children, nor should they be played by children due to their content(which is why the rating system exsist with the defined age printed clearly on both website and box). Just as television or books are not only meant for kids but for a range of audiences both adult or teen. The same should be considered in gaming, as it is also another entertaiment venure.
I can only speak from personal experience. I've been playing video games since age 5 when I was stomping on the head of Koopas. I had no desire to stomp on anyone's head in real life. I have played every kind of game since then. I don't even want to get into fist fight with anyone. Heck, I don't even enjoy getting into arguments with people.
Video games have been used as a scapegoat for as long as I can remember. It's a convenient excuse. That's all there is to it.
Enter a whole new realm of challenge and adventure.
Violence is a part of human nature. It has always been and will always remain.
My ancestors did a Holocaust, and none of them grew up with evil video games or TV.
People don't ask questions to get answers - they ask questions to show how smart they are. - Dogbert