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...

Originally posted by ShakyMo
Americas odd, the general violence seems lower there than over here.

I've had American colleagues over and they were genuinely shocked at the drunken brawls and what have you when I took them out. But to me is the norm. If anything was worse in the 80s when I was a kid, my city nowadays feels a lot safer than other UK cities.

Where as when I've been over there I'm shocked at how quiet and well mannered your sort of general lower middle class / working working class neighborhoods are. (i mean your inner city ghetto areas are way scarrier than ours, but your average working guy areas seem milder.

I wonder if there's a cultural thing of having this mannered, calm, well behaving attitude and bottling things up until they explode.

You nailed it but it will never be in public discussion. There is a link to what you have said and violent crimes. Look at our crime statistics. There is a common denominator.

- demographics

- inner city

- States/cities with more gun control have more gun related murders.

The further you move away from those 3 things, the more guns people have, less gun laws, and the demographics change. Less violent crimes.

An armed society, is a polite society. Government crime statistics proves this.

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

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...

I do agree.

However, I have a hard time blaming inanimate obects for people's actions. Mass murder didn't just pop up out of nowhere after video games. It's going on since the beginning of man.

But yes, if there is to be a discussion, than all information should be on the table.

You know, I think it's better if we the people got together and worked this out instead of a group of politicians who are lobbied by one group or another. We really don't need them, they just look out for themselves not us.

Originally posted by NorseGod

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...

I do agree.

However, I have a hard time blaming inanimate obects for people's actions. Mass murder didn't just pop up out of nowhere after video games. It's going on since the beginning of man.

But yes, if there is to be a discussion, than all information should be on the table.

You know, I think it's better if we the people got together and worked this out instead of a group of politicians who are lobbied by one group or another. We really don't need them, they just look out for themselves not us.

I think, personally, that people are far more suceptable to influence from media then you seem to... and I don't think we are discussing the 'inanimate object', but the media that object delivers.

I also don't think the fact that people have always been violent or not is the question, I think it is 'has extreme material shown in certain video games over an extended period ever acted as a desensitiser/ normaliser or catalyst to move inviduals to violent acts that might not have gone there otherwise?' 

I am right there with you on your views about politicians, but I won't discuss that here past this (forum rules and all that).

Everything but blaming their own laws that allow to sell weapons to citizens like Candies....

As usual...

Originally posted by Quirhid

Its not the video games. Its the guns.

It has nothing to do with the guns. If someone has made up there mind to kill people, don't you think they are going to do it at any cost? If not with guns, it would be with explosives or some other means. Besides...

"You cannot invade the mainland United States. There would be a rifle behind every blade of grass"

~Isoroku Yamamoto~ Japanese Admiral

Originally posted by Scot

One thing for you US guys to realise. Here in the UK with the gun laws we have, we still have the media bringing up the link between video game violence and gun crime every few years.

No matter what your laws and crime rate is on guns, drugs or the sex trade the finger gets pointed at video games. Video games are the new comics, which used to get blamed for the downfall of morals and responsibility in society. Quite simply, if teenagers have an activity like reading comics which their parents did not have, then that activity is to blame for societies woes.

We will not see an end to blaming video games until today’s 30 something gamers are all in their 70’s.

You mention the UK Scot, and I find it really interesting how many countries, countries that love their video games (like Germany, South Korea and the UAE), have taken steps to limit the consumption of indecent content in video games.

Here in the United States, video games are some of the best protected forms of expression in the history of expression.  We have multi-billion dollar media conglomerates who work night and day to put these games out there.  Frankly, even when we pass laws--like we did in California--the courts strike them down.

So you see, I'm not really sure why we are so agitated over this whole issue.  I don't see our seven video game animations that will make you puke going away any time soon.  In fact, I only see better death scenes, more of an emphasis on gore and more prevalent in the titles to come.

And you know what, the violence is so pervasive, and so overdone, it really isn't anything "special" anymore.  You see the kind of one-upmanship that occurs between the publishers at things like E3, each one trying to make the gore more shocking than the next guy, so they can get their games noticed.  It ain't "shock and awe" to see Kratos decapitate a zombie in a fountain of blood.  It's shock and yawn.  Seeing a person's head explode isn't even "cool" anymore.  It's just normal.

In short, gore is just...boring.  One wonders what...if anything...is shocking to a guy who plays games anymore.

And despite the opinions of our mothers, our educators, our medical experts and our media experts that perhaps...just perhaps...it isn't a good thing when a person finds depictions of exploding heads "boring," they have been--for the most part--successfully ignored and marginalized for the entire history of this issue.

Don't worry.  Our gorefests are safe.  Those who are running this hyped up "crackdown" on violent video games don't have the money or the political clout to truly crack down on them.  But are mothers safe from the "crackdown" of manchildren on them?

I find it really funny that we give exploding headshots a pass, but we ought to get tough on mothers instead...as if being a mother isn't "tough" already, and as if they don't already hold themselves responsible for the children they raise.  But what isn't funny is that, given the huge moneyed interests that make a living by selling us ammo, firearms, $60 first person shooters, and virtual guns in the item stores, we might actually get our wishes granted.

But getting tough on parents isn't going to make exploding heads any less boring to us.

They say that guns don't kill people, people kill people, I call bullshit on that guns were designed to serve one purpose and one purpose only, and that is to kill, someone or something. Assult rifles and large capacity anmunitions do not belong in the hands of the public at large, bambi doesn't pack heat.

When it comes to overthrowing a tyranical government what's an assult rifle going to do against a drone with a nuke? Why not be more productive and address the issues that cause crime in the first place, say like poverty? the monetary system? Living in a state of scarcity? Why do we tolerate it? Only living organizism on the face of the planet that chooses to live in scarcity, think about it.

I do agree.

However, I have a hard time blaming inanimate obects for people's actions. Mass murder didn't just pop up out of nowhere after video games. It's going on since the beginning of man.

But yes, if there is to be a discussion, than all information should be on the table.

You know, I think it's better if we the people got together and worked this out instead of a group of politicians who are lobbied by one group or another. We really don't need them, they just look out for themselves not us.

 

I think, personally, that people are far more suceptable to influence from media then you seem to... and I don't think we are discussing the 'inanimate object', but the media that object delivers.

I also don't think the fact that people have always been violent or not is the question, I think it is 'has extreme material shown in certain video games over an extended period ever acted as a desensitiser/ normaliser or catalyst to move inviduals to violent acts that might not have gone there otherwise?' 

I am right there with you on your views about politicians, but I won't discuss that here past this (forum rules and all that).

I don't agree with all of that because I think people are focusing on inanimate objects and not the actions of people, themselves. However, I am interested in your view. I wouldn't rule it out and I would like to hear more opinions from all of us.

It is we who have the authority over games over those who have never picked one up. Those people shouldn't be allowed to pass judgement for the rest of us.

Much as I hate John Smedley, what he said at the time of Shawn Woolley's suicide in 2008, allegedly from playing Everquest is true today in terms of the violence and games debate:

"It's entertainment. Is a book dangerous? Is a TV show dangerous? I think the answer is no. People need to take responsibility and say, 'Hey, you know, this is too much. Enough's enough.' It's a game."

(Source: CBS News http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-18559_162-525965.html)

Originally posted by MagikrorriM

They say that guns don't kill people, people kill people, I call bullshit on that guns were designed to serve one purpose and one purpose only, and that is to kill, someone or something. Assult rifles and large capacity anmunitions do not belong in the hands of the public at large, bambi doesn't pack heat.

When it comes to overthrowing a tyranical government what's an assult rifle going to do against a drone with a nuke? Why not be more productive and address the issues that cause crime in the first place, say like poverty? the monetary system? Living in a state of scarcity? Why do we tolerate it? Only living organizism on the face of the planet that chooses to live in scarcity, think about it.

I'm going to reply to this. Don't take it as coming down on you, I really want you to do some research on your own. Because when you repeat these misinformed, scripted lines that we have been hearing for weeks, you sound no different then these old guys blaming video games for mass murder. You're replacing one inanimate object for another and not holding the actual criminal accountable for their actions. Sir, I am not a criminal because I own video games and firearms. Neither of them has killed anyone on their own, all by themselves.

The 2nd Amendment isn't about hunting. It's about securing a basic human right to defend ourselves. This is not my opinion, this has been ruled many times by the US Supreme Court. It was written many times by the authors of the US Constitution. It isn't to be interpreted or infringed.

What an individual chooses to do with this specific right, is their choice, not yours or mine. Firearms kill people, well, ya! But firearms are also used to deter crimes, hunting, sporting, people collect them, etc etc.

Wasn't it the fact that there is "a rifle behind every blade of grass" is what prevented Japan from invading in WW2?

Your term "assault rifle" is all wrong. Although there is a legal abilty to own automatic weapons (assault weapons), the debate is over semi-automatic weapons. Please research the difference between the two. Or look up if the military uses AR-15s or not and why.

Let me address converting semi-auto to automatic. You can find older lower receivers that you are physically able to replace or modify a part to fire as an automatic. This, however, is a Federal crime. Newer lower receivers are manufactured in such a way that won't allow those parts.

Bump firing. Look it up. I mean really research it. You will find out that bump firing trashes your $1000-$2000 firearm. Yes, there are people that still do it anyways. The most common technique is to use a shoelace. Should we regulate or ban shoelaces? This is a real question.

As far as "high-capacity magazines" go,  30rd magazines are the standard. A "high-capacity magazine" would be a 75-100rd drum. You know, like they show in movies or a book you have read. I, on the other hand, have used them. But here's a little secret, everyone with firearm experience knows that these fail and often. Not even the military uses these drums for the M-16A2/M4.

You can push for smaller capacity magazines all you like. I'll just carry more smaller ones. Takes no time to dump a mag and reload, especially for those of us that are experienced shooters and had training in the military and/or law enforcement.

Another thing to consider. This talk about "assault rifle AR-15 war machines" (that are not even used by the military). Did you know that most units have a Designated Marksman (DM) in their unit? The most common weapon used is a Remmington 700 bolt-action rifle? Did you know this? Did you also know that this same rifle is sold in any Wal-Mart across America?

This kind of talk is no different than the "blame violent video games" talk. Should we limit how many violent video games we are allowed to own? Should we limit the amount of time per day a person can play a violent video game? How about ban all violent video games all together and turn them over to the government. I mean, they are responsible to mass murder and it's for the children, right?

In closing, I will address your "overthrow the government" statement. As I have stated already, the purpose of the 2nd Amendment is pretty clear. It was to protect ourselves from from the government. What individuals choose to do with that right is their choice, not ours. By the looks of sales, they are not arming to the teeth to just hand them over later. But why not address poverty instead? Because my rights, our rights, are more important to fight for. We shouldn't be so eager to throw away our rights that so many have died for for centuries. Poverty isn't even a problem here. They have free homes, utilities, cellphones, cars, bus passes, school, food. All free. The homeless? They made a choice. They don't want to live in a shelter because they would rather use drugs, so be it, but that's the rules. Live by the rules, get shelter. Pretty simple. If poverty was real. If poverty is to blame, then why are NFL players shooting people? Are they not rich? What's their excuse? maybe it's the people? Can we finally hold people accountable for their actions?

Hope this helps you get started, I'll help you if you have questions.

Originally posted by DarthMajin

Originally posted by superniceguy

I think TV has more influence than Videogames. There is just way too much of it these days, and backstapping, and even the good guys of the show are at each others throats.

In all the years I have played games and watched TV, I have never had the desire to act out a videogame, whereas TV I do all the time, because it is more real with real people, and not pixels.

In The Mentalist, he kills a guy he thinks is his arch enemy, which is not, and then gets away with it. He has to get away with it, otherwise the show would end!

If any of the Law shows is any indication of real law, too many guilty people get away with murder, and innocent people go to jail, all because of the game lawyers play in court.

Videogames have helped me spot details, and be on the look out for trouble, basically be more observant, and I did prevent a real crime of fraud from happening, and I put that down from playing videogames.

Violence on TV, violence in videogames, it doesn't matter. The main fault for ANY child getting hold of adult content is their parents/guardians. Parents either don't understand or just don't care about ratings. They think their 10 year old should be able to play Call of Duty. If the government wants to crack down on the so called "videogame violence" getting to kids, they need to start punishing parents for letting their children have it. Instead of taking that damn $500mil or so that Obama spent on research into videogame violence, use that money to educate parents. I have played violent videogames since I was like 8 years old, and I am not violent nor do I want to, or have thoughts of, hurting others. Parents need to stop blaming media and start looking at themselves.

Care to define "adult content" ?