On December 20 2012 09:23 Darkhoarse wrote: People need to realize that the fact that a killer playing violent video games is not a cause, its a correlation. This person is obviously messed up and desensitized to violence as it is, so he plays violent video games. The video games did not cause him to shoot up an elementary school. If they did, we would have a hell of a lot more school shootings then we already do. And of all the games to label a culprit, Starcraft? Really? Maybe Grand Theft Auto or some of those ridiculously bloody games out there but blaming Starcraft is a ridiculous notion. I don't get it. I play Starcraft all of the time and I've never had any inkling to go shoot up a school. The only thing I've wanted to do recently is shoot myself from watching all of the American media's ridiculous coverage and explanations of the event.
Why does the US government think that have games that are too violent or "war-like" will cause people to become murderers? Even if that was the case, (which it isn't) how can they worry about games like call of duty being too "war-like" when they are sending US citizens to actual war. I think fighting in an actual war and ending up with PTSD has to be the more serious problem if they are worried about people fighting "virtual war" in video games.
I am in no way claiming that video games cause one to do violence, pretty sure there are other emotional background issues that there should be more available care for... I'm also pretty sure a survivalist mom having a closet full of automatic weapons around a kid she already knew was a little on edge (had warned baby sitters not to turn their backs on him) wasn't a great idea either and that these types of weapons shouldn't be as available as they are. I'm also against trying to both use this as a reason to arm teachers or to find our own politically motivated scapegoats (including video games). All that said, I run an after school program and I have a lot of 2nd and 3rd graders who go home at night and play first person kill the terrorist type games and are pretty into making everything into a weapon and threatening others with similar language to the games in the afternoon. I played a lot of video games growing up and don't see an issue with them in general, especially for kids who are a little older, I would however encourage parents to not start their young kids too early on the most graphic ones. It may not cause them to actually commit murder, but man does it make for a culture of aggressive play and effects the array of scenarios they are able to imagine in how people should interact. It's certainly mine and others jobs to help facilitate these more creative interactions/conversations, but seriously, there's a lot of games out there that don't involve highly realistic simulation of automatic weapons. Mix some of em in..
On December 20 2012 13:54 zwitter wrote: I am in no way claiming that video games cause one to do violence, pretty sure there are other emotional background issues that there should be more available care for... I'm also pretty sure a survivalist mom having a closet full of automatic weapons around a kid she already knew was a little on edge (had warned baby sitters not to turn their backs on him) wasn't a great idea either and that these types of weapons shouldn't be as available as they are. I'm also against trying to both use this as a reason to arm teachers or to find our own politically motivated scapegoats (including video games). All that said, I run an after school program and I have a lot of 2nd and 3rd graders who go home at night and play first person kill the terrorist type games and are pretty into making everything into a weapon and threatening others with similar language to the games in the afternoon. I played a lot of video games growing up and don't see an issue with them in general, especially for kids who are a little older, I would however encourage parents to not start their young kids too early on the most graphic ones. It may not cause them to actually commit murder, but man does it make for a culture of aggressive play and effects the array of scenarios they are able to imagine in how people should interact. It's certainly mine and others jobs to help facilitate these more creative interactions/conversations, but seriously, there's a lot of games out there that don't involve highly realistic simulation of automatic weapons. Mix some of em in..
right the real problem is the parents who work too much and just let there kids sit in front of the TV/computer for hours on end because the alternative is spending time with him and doing there job as a parent
Sometimes i feel lucky about living on a country which its people doesn't care about gaming and somewhat realizes that games are not "the devil's presence!".
At this point I'm sure the US go full blown moral panic on it due to the fact this time it was a particularly terrible incident involving young children.
But in the grand scheme of things, mass killings by random nut cases is NOT that big of a problem here in the US and I predict a massive over-reaction.
It's a lot like after 9/11 how insane everyone got with combatting "terrorism" or whatever, despite the fact you or your family dying of terrorism is almost non-existant. But instead we spent trillions of dollars, threw a way a bunch of civil liberties, destroyed a few dozen cities, killed a few hundred thousand people, ruined the lives of millions, all to combat a minor nuisance that the media and politicians had turned into a gigantic scary boogie man.
When you just do cold analysis in terms of problems facing society, in terms of cost of dollars and lives, these type of incidents are not particularly high on the list and I don't think stripping away more civil liberties and giving the government a monopoly on weapons is a particular smart play to combat something so small.
I'm aware that to the families of the dead (either 9/11 or the Conn. shooting) that this sounds like the tragedies are being marginalized but that's really not the case, it's just very important to keep everything in proper perspective in the grand scheme of things. As poker players we should all be familiar with the importance of not over-reacting to a single particularly terrible outcome.
It's also not to say that we should do nothing, clearly if there are legit things that can be done to reduce the number of these shootings in some way that should be explored, but those efforts must be proportional to the actual problem.
Maybe someone should point out to all the people hanging on to the second amendment that the threats aren't really the same 2012 as in the 1780s. Limiting the ease with which a random, slightly mentally disturbed person can get his/her hands on a fire-arm might be a good idea. NRA is killing eSports, letting us take the blame!
On December 20 2012 13:54 zwitter wrote: I am in no way claiming that video games cause one to do violence, pretty sure there are other emotional background issues that there should be more available care for... I'm also pretty sure a survivalist mom having a closet full of automatic weapons around a kid she already knew was a little on edge (had warned baby sitters not to turn their backs on him) wasn't a great idea either and that these types of weapons shouldn't be as available as they are. I'm also against trying to both use this as a reason to arm teachers or to find our own politically motivated scapegoats (including video games). All that said, I run an after school program and I have a lot of 2nd and 3rd graders who go home at night and play first person kill the terrorist type games and are pretty into making everything into a weapon and threatening others with similar language to the games in the afternoon. I played a lot of video games growing up and don't see an issue with them in general, especially for kids who are a little older, I would however encourage parents to not start their young kids too early on the most graphic ones. It may not cause them to actually commit murder, but man does it make for a culture of aggressive play and effects the array of scenarios they are able to imagine in how people should interact. It's certainly mine and others jobs to help facilitate these more creative interactions/conversations, but seriously, there's a lot of games out there that don't involve highly realistic simulation of automatic weapons. Mix some of em in..
right the real problem is the parents who work too much and just let there kids sit in front of the TV/computer for hours on end because the alternative is spending time with him and doing there job as a parent
I'm trying not to comment before I make my 2k blog, but this post is worth it. As a kid I never saw the point of this, but as a more mature kid I do see the reason my parents did not let me have call of duty at age 12. The games do not make people violent, but they increase the amount of violence tolerated or normalize the language and activities presented; this is especially true for younger children who mimic the activities to the tee. Even 7th graders do it, not as much as 3rd graders, but I've seen that games do have an affect. Will it make someone go out and shoot up a school? No. Will it it make younger kids more belligerent and aggressive? Maybe in some cases. Will it increase children's tolerance for violence and normalize activities presented the video games before they can differentiate the differences between what is acceptable in video games compared to real life? Most certainly.
Well everyone in the younger generations plays video games.
Maybe the Senate should be asking instead, "Why do Americans want to kill each other so much more than in other Western countries?" Might also be interesting to note all the video-game playing that goes on in said other countries.
It's a wonder that we haven't yet had idiots blaming chess for promoting Machiavellian ideals, manipulation, and an obsession with materialism. These politicians are worthless jokes.
I just sent a message containing the following text to the senator that has proposed this. Chances are he will not read it, however it might be helpful.
I recently have noticed a large trend of news outlets putting forward various notes how gaming can cause a person to become a murderer.
I would like to state my displeasure at this recent bill you have proposed. I feel that the studies have already been done many times over, and have shown that there is absolutely no correlation between gaming and crime. In fact, studies have shown an INVERSE relationship. Studies have also shown that the majority of killers cite literature as the key motivator, followed by movies, and games being the last medium stated at only about 15%.
I would like to point to a quick anecdote, that if you plan to pass this legislature would be best to consider. South Korea has one of the highest game consumption rates of any country in the world. Many games there have actually become televised sports, watched by millions. The recent proleague broadcasts had over 1 million concurrent viewers just in south korea alone. In the entire history of South Korea, there has not been a single school shooting. South Korea also has one of the lowest crime rates of any country.
I would request you take a brief moment and view the following YouTube video, which I feel correctly states some facts that I hope are an oversight. The creator of the video does go a bit overboard with the attack on mass-media, however the facts are still 100% true and can be found in many studies.
Lastly, I ask that consider the propensity for a "study" to be corrupted and simply show what is expected, or to fail at showing the difference between correlation and causation. Games desensitize people to violence, but the do not cause it.
Well I don't mind a study if it is conducted correctly and professionally. It should only show what every other study has shown, that video games have a minor correlation to aggression in children (no causation proven) and none to actual violent behavior.
We see these come and go. Aside from the mandatory labeling on boxes, not much has changed in the US. I'm not expecting much to come from this unless a bigger lobby gets behind it with more money and studies to push through bigger legislation. Stuff like showing photo ID before buying violent video games, specifically making "M for Mature" require 18+ years have been goals in the past (though its more Moms/Dads/Relatives buying for minor children, but I digress). That partially addresses his quote from the article:
“Major corporations, including the video game industry, make billions on marketing and selling violent content to children,” Rockefeller said in an e-mailed statement. “They have a responsibility to protect our children. If they do not, you can count on the Congress to take a more aggressive role.”
And then sterner warnings on the back directed at parents. For a contemporary example, look at South Korea's mandated warnings currently existing on every SC2-Korea game launch (18+ drugs alcohol scary situations, and 12+ as well iirc). Those are my predictions to what we can expect from bills in the next 2 years if the lobbies get even more political power.
EPT
