(This is something I decided to write up after seeing all the posts on reddit and an article blaming the shootings on violent video games. I'm not proposing anything pro or anti-gun. Enjoy.)
With the recent shootings in Oregon and Connecticut, the debate on gun control and violent video games resumes. After all of this talk about the causes of people to suddenly turn violent, people are going back to the irrational notion that the increase of popularity of violent video games is leading to the increase in shootings. As I have learned in Psychology class, correlation is not causation.
In the article, Republican Representative Jack Kingston from Georgia, who is also a long time member of the NRA said, "Put guns on the table, also put video games on the table, put mental health on the table". Along with these comments from Representative Kingston, a recent segment on CNN talking about how the Newtown shooter played video games, and showed background videos of the games Starcraft II and Warcraft during the segment.
Everytime there is a shooting, violent video games are always pointed at as the cause of the shooter to want to commit violent crimes. To me, this is not only silly but outrageous, classifying anyone who plays a violent video game as psychotic, violent, and mentally ill. The research that says this is true is only sporadic, and not well proven or accepted. Reddit user Controversially put it really well: (original post: http://www.reddit.com/r/starcraft/comments/151iur/wtf_cnn_just_revealed_that_serial_killer_adam/c7ig4w4)
"Video games are not to blame, countless studies have shown that non-violent people do not turn violent because they play "violent" games. Violent and aggressive people are drawn to "violent games", yes that is true and demonstrated in studies, but it does not trigger them.
It would be like blaming the series Dexter for serial killers, sure serial killers are naturally drawn to shows like Dexter and might even be inspired, but that's because they already are serial killers. Again the trigger is just not there.
Mass-media on the other hand can act as a trigger. Everyone crave attention and recognition, noone more so than lonely sociopaths, so they know that one way to instant fame is to spreekill. Why do they know this? Because the media ALWAYS make the killer the most famous person of the year. All forensic psychologists have gone out and warned the media about it because their studies show that everytime the media goes on a frenzy like this, expect another shooting or two in the next week. As is evident already by the 2 threats made in the aftermath of this tragedy, one of them was a crazed 60 year old with 47 weapons. So while the media wants to place the blame on guns, video games, action movies and the like, they should really take a look in the mirror"
Some people only want to commit these senseless acts of violence only to get attention, along with any other problem they would have. Video games cannot be placed as the sole or main cause for a shooting, and the government should not be worrying about stopping violence in video games, they should be focused on more gun control or helping mental patients to prevent them from commiting these terrible acts of violence.
There are many gamers out there who play games such as Call of Duty, Starcraft, Battlefield, and more. If violent video games was the cause of shootings, there would be hundreds every day, and most likely none of us would survive hundreds of shooting sprees every day. I like to play Call of Duty a lot, so would that mean I am some crazy lunatic that is going to strike at any time? No. In fact, gamers are some of the nicest people I have met, whether it be in person or online. Don't hate on gamers just because someone goes out on a shooting spree and it's found out they liked to play Call of Duty. There's no "they wanted to do everything just like they did in the game", you join the army or go to a gun range for that.
It's gotten a bit rambly in the end, but the basic thing to take away from this is: Violent Video Games don't kill people, guns don't kill people, people kill people. Don't start making conclusions based off of nothing (big news companies). Keep your guns locked away and keep tabs on your friends and people around you, and don't be afraid to seek professional help if you or a friend needs it. Stay safe guys.
On December 19 2012 13:34 vOdToasT wrote: All of them watched TV. If we take away TV, we'll see a decrease in murder. Also, they all took shits. Let's take away toilets.
All of them breathed air, let's take that away too =P
On December 19 2012 13:34 vOdToasT wrote: All of them watched TV. If we take away TV, we'll see a decrease in murder. Also, they all took shits. Let's take away toilets.
I disagree. I believe that it was the toilet paper, and not the toilet. The rough texture of toilet paper, when applied to sensitive skin like the skin of your anus may cause slight irritation, polluting one's mind with thoughts of murder and rape. We must take away all toilet paper and force people to use more peaceful methods such as washlets.
I fucking hate Jack Kingston. He is the typical Republican nutjob and he actually represents my district, embarassing to read what this moron has to say and know he is representing me. Not suprised to hear that he would point his finger at this shit. Just looking at his stances on Guns:
- Voted YES on prohibiting product misuse lawsuits on gun manufacturers. (Oct 2005) - Voted YES on prohibiting suing gunmakers & sellers for gun misuse. (Apr 2003) - Voted YES on decreasing gun waiting period from 3 days to 1. (Jun 1999) - Rated A by the NRA, indicating a pro-gun rights voting record. (Dec 2003) - No United Nations taxation on firearms. (Sep 2003) - National cross-state standard for concealed carry. (Jan 2009) - Loosen restrictions on interstate gun purchases. (Oct 2011) - Recognize heritage of hunting & shooting on federal lands. (Sep 2011) - Ban gun registration & trigger lock law in Washington DC. (Mar 2007)
I have been playing violent video games and been watching violent movies since I was a child. I haven't shot up a school, hell I don't even own a fucking gun because I see no point to it. According to them I should be a mass murderer by now.
Whenever a tragedy like this happens and the culprit is no longer around to blame, human nature causes people to point at pretty much everything else... guns, video games, mental health, etc, etc.
The simple fact is that nothing and no one is to blame but the shooter, and sometimes these things just can't be predicted or prevented. We live in a broken world.
On December 19 2012 13:34 vOdToasT wrote: All of them watched TV. If we take away TV, we'll see a decrease in murder. Also, they all took shits. Let's take away toilets.
While I don't agree that violent video games cause any sort of increase in aggression (maybe for only a short period of time), but this is a strawman argument. Video games are a different category than toilets and as someone else said, air.
I really do hate this idea though. It's just born of frightened and naiive ancients who don't know shit about the new culture of entertainment. I'm looking forward to all of these idiots getting pushed out of office and higher authority, making way for a new generation that will have AT LEAST a better understanding of the so-called issue.
I really wanted to make a blog about that article too. I can't add much more than I agree and there are gonna be a lot of people who can put into words my argument better than I can. It's especially unfortunate we feel the need to focus on the gunman as you stated, and something I wish the media would think about rather than go into such thin arguments as 'video games causing violence'.
Additionally, I'll leave this because it was funny and makes a good, obvious point:
One would think a comparison to other developed countries that play similar violent video games would make it clear what the single biggest factor making the U.S. an outlier in gun violence is...
I mean, Japanese kids play violent video games, Chinese kids play violent video games, Canadian kids play violent video games, English kids play violent video games, American kids play violent video games... but only in America are video games considered to be responsible for these shooting sprees. I'll give you a hint, it's the *guns*, and not the *games* that make the difference here.
Violent video games don't kill people because violent video games don't launch lead tips.Guns do kill people.
@Elmeanyo: That's fucking bullshit. Here's how you stop school shootings: Good economic policies, good funding for psychiatric hospitals, have well regulated public mental health system instead of being run by pharma companies, strict gun control (See: The rest of the western world), good school systems, charity and public funded social help schemes. There's no such thing as magically evil people getting a hold of magic guns magically to kill people. People with problems caused by society use weapons presented by society to kill people.
I don't think violent video games are really of any relevance to Newtown - but the discussion here is a bit silly. Violent Video games have been linked to increased aggression (though they haven't been shown to cause it - just that people who play them tend to be more aggressive). Guns enable people to kill people more easily and on a larger scale. If we're going to talk about the problem, let's do that instead of beating on strawmen until we feel better about our hobbies.
On topic, I think it's worth considering what the definition of "violent video game" is. I think games like SC2 are a bit different from FPS games or RPGs, which are yet different from games like Manhunt, which are yet different from horror games. You can't just say "games where there's things that get hurt-ish", because they convey different emotional states, give you control over different aspects of the game, and involve different skillsets (or in some cases, no skillset). There's violence in every game just like there's violence in nearly every TV show, because in real life, people are hurt occasionally.
Also, I think a gun (as the enabler) and a video game (as a potential promoter) are accused of different things, and by dismissing both under similar pretenses, we miss the crux of a lot of the argument. One is about altering a person's frame of mind (which is very difficult to judge), the other is about allowing certain actions (shootings) once a frame of mind to do so is already in place.
I bet they'll bring up that dark section in one of the call of duty games where you play as guy going through an airport killing innocent civilians with a machine gun. I was so shocked when they put that in the game, and kind of proud that a company had the balls to do it in today's politically correct world. If I remember correctly it was banned from Russia because of that (the airport in the video game was in russia). I wish more games had the courage to do that, it was depressing... but really interesting game play, kind of like watching a horror movie I guess.
So anyway, it is understandable that people might intuitively think "our kids are shooting people all the time in these games, how does that affect them as they grow up? What subliminal messages are they learning?".
I for one believe there is a danger in the form of video-game addiction, just like drinking or gambling can be addictive to a particular type of person. But I don't think you guys in the US have much to fear, it seems too unrealistic to suppose that they will get a group of biased scientists to conduct these studies. If its official enough, then it will have to be credible enough that they won't find any link. And once the results are publicized, then everyone will clearly know that video games are not to blame.
Or if the studies are forgotten as the massacre fades from memory, hopefully those same studies will be brought up the next time a massacre happens, unless the politicians themselves forget that they already conducted a study.
On December 20 2012 07:10 radscorpion9 wrote: I bet they'll bring up that dark section in one of the call of duty games where you play as guy going through an airport killing innocent civilians with a machine gun. I was so shocked when they put that in the game, and kind of proud that a company had the balls to do it in today's politically correct world. If I remember correctly it was banned from Russia because of that (the airport in the video game was in russia). I wish more games had the courage to do that, it was depressing... but really interesting game play, kind of like watching a horror movie I guess.
So anyway, it is understandable that people might intuitively think "our kids are shooting people all the time in these games, how does that affect them as they grow up? What subliminal messages are they learning?".
I for one believe there is a danger in the form of video-game addiction, just like drinking or gambling can be addictive to a particular type of person. But I don't think you guys in the US have much to fear, it seems too unrealistic to suppose that they will get a group of biased scientists to conduct these studies. If its official enough, then it will have to be credible enough that they won't find any link. And once the results are publicized, then everyone will clearly know that video games are not to blame.
Or if the studies are forgotten as the massacre fades from memory, hopefully those same studies will be brought up the next time a massacre happens, unless the politicians themselves forget that they already conducted a study.
+1
I do feel agree that video games, TV, and Movies have some impact on us. Sure we are desensitized to seeing violence on TV, but it does not make us want to commit these violent acts. I feel like watching Man vs. Wild will help me survive a bit better in the wilderness. I feel like if all I played was Cooking Mama I would like to. However, I'm not gonna throw myself in the middle of the jungle or go out and be addicted to cooking.
It really is taking attention away from the guns and from the mental health issues, which is the real problems with these shootings. They need to stop trying to persecute video games and focus on the real issues.
Totalbiscuit did a rather lengthy video of the subject, he has some really good points although pretty much what he is doing here is preaching for the choir. His audience are gamers and we all know that games do not cause violent behaviour.
The biggest problem is it is impossible to predict what the future killer is going to latch on to and then claim to have impacted on. Without that predictive element, how can you possibly know what to ban? Who knew that Charles Manson would consider "helter skelter" as his influence for killing.
It's always after the fact that we find the supposed item that led to the killing.
On December 19 2012 13:44 Enki wrote: I fucking hate Jack Kingston. He is the typical Republican nutjob and he actually represents my district, embarassing to read what this moron has to say and know he is representing me. Not suprised to hear that he would point his finger at this shit. Just looking at his stances on Guns:
- Voted YES on prohibiting product misuse lawsuits on gun manufacturers. (Oct 2005) - Voted YES on prohibiting suing gunmakers & sellers for gun misuse. (Apr 2003) - Voted YES on decreasing gun waiting period from 3 days to 1. (Jun 1999) - Rated A by the NRA, indicating a pro-gun rights voting record. (Dec 2003) - No United Nations taxation on firearms. (Sep 2003) - National cross-state standard for concealed carry. (Jan 2009) - Loosen restrictions on interstate gun purchases. (Oct 2011) - Recognize heritage of hunting & shooting on federal lands. (Sep 2011) - Ban gun registration & trigger lock law in Washington DC. (Mar 2007)
You're for extraneous taxation by a foreign body on items purchased domestically? Pick up a history book, not sure if you realize but THAT'S WHY THIS COUNTRY WAS FOUNDED. You object to prohibiting people from suing a manufacturer because someone used their product illegally? Makes perfect sense I should be able to sue Ford for that drunk driver hitting me with an Explorer. Object to standardizing conceal carry laws so a permit would be valid across state lines? Guess your drivers license or marriage license shouldn't be valid over state lines. Banning Gun registration because it's a giant waste of money with literally no benefits? Even CANADA recently got rid of their registration because it was costing 2.3 BILLION a year and never helped to solve a single crime. I could go on but it's too easy, there literally are not even legitimate arguments for any of these points and any further discussion simply promotes the ignorant perpetuating these failed hypothesis.
EPT
