Uh, he totally did kill people. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nanping_school_massacre
And I like how you completely ignored the bomb example. Cherry pickin' gotta enjoy it.
-
Check out the relaunch of our general collection, with classic designs and new ones by our very own Pissog!
-
Welcome to Smogon! Take a moment to read the Introduction to Smogon for a run-down on everything Smogon, and make sure you take some time to read the global rules.
Your thoughts on gun violence in video games?
- Thread starter Avatar Korra
- Start date
Uh, he totally did kill people. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nanping_school_massacre
And I like how you completely ignored the bomb example. Cherry pickin' gotta enjoy it.
Perhaps the relationship is the other way around, and those with a disposition likely to commit violence enjoy violent video games (and violent tv, violent books, etc etc -- people always pick out the newest media to target in these situations because people forget the problem isn't actually *new*).
When most other classically masculine pursuits have been either demonised by the majority of society or are no longer considered masculine then yes, you will end up with scenarios of men looking for something 'male' to do. Firearms manufacturers are selling guns on that basis.
Oh I was thinking about this story. Simple misunderstanding chief.
I didn't respond to the bomb example because I agreed with you, I thought that was obvious...
He means there is plenty of unscientific literature based on experiments without proper control subjects. If I'm somehow not still up to date on this, he had better show his proof.
When you are a video gamer this is just something you know to be false. Video games are not about violence, they are about death and change. Contemplating death is not a bad thing, in fact in times like this it might be all the more important.
I never got stopped trying to buy m rated game as a kid. Well teenager I guess, I didn't even own any m rated games before the age of 13 (not for any particular reason though). I never had my parents with me?
although I do agree that parents should be more aware of what their kids are doing in both the internet and videogames
VKCA I get stopped now and I'm 24. I don't think its a problem anymore. Not that I have any problem with children playing M rated games.
If children are experiencing something mature they need parents to help give it context, and in regards to almost any media parents these days just use it as a babysitter.
If children are experiencing something mature they need parents to help give it context, and in regards to almost any media parents these days just use it as a babysitter.
Having done about five semesters with subjects discussing this issue it is pretty damn stupid to say that there is a causality that says that violence is a byproduct of violent video games. The people for which this effect happens are a microscopic minority and they aren't exactly perfectly sane to begin with so it could have been anything.
Contrary to popular belief violent video games can quite often stop people from being violent irl because katharsis is legit.
Contrary to popular belief violent video games can quite often stop people from being violent irl because katharsis is legit.
There were myriad differences beyond the fact that the American had guns and the Chinese didn't. For example, there were several security guards at the Chinese school while there were none at the American. The American was familiar with using his weapon while the Chinese was not. It's also unreasonable to compare the mental states of the two attackers. It's doubtful that their disorders were comparable.
This is a plausible explanation. It is a perpetuating cycle for a person with an inclination for violence to gravitate towards violent media. However, the research done on violent video games indicates its effects on the people who play them regularly. Regardless of disposition, they were desensitized to the violence. The effects were consistent with everyone who played regularly. That brings me back to my original point: People will react differently to the things they are exposed to depending upon a number of factors.
Yeah, they are really quite similar items there is no real difference of danger between guns and knives. I heard US military have decided scrapping buying guns because knives are a cheaper alternative.
Games, along with any violent media, act as catalysts to the problems already present in our society, without directly causing the problems in most cases. However, the combined proliferation of violence by all sources can increase the number of problematic individuals, especially when children are exposed to all this violence. At the end of the day though, you can't keep violent games out of the hand of kids with bad parents, just as you can't keep guns out of the hands of people who want them (why gun control was even mentioned in this thread is beyond me). I live in Kentucky and know several hunters, so I'll hesitantly defend gun rights in most situations, but personally I don't enjoy super-violent games that much (haven't seriously played an FPS since SW Battlefront II). I don't see the need for games to be graphically violent to the extent that they are, especially when kids like several that I know are getting wrapped up in this culture of violence that I don't even see among the hunters I know.
I'd say that violent media in general (with games not really being different than movies/tv/rap/etc imo) serves as a contributor to these problems, but not a direct cause. We need to pull the weeds in our culture by the roots, not the stem. The problem there is that I can't really see a way to remove dangerous individuals directly, and that's why so many people try to identify tools of violence or background causes in the media as the problem. The real problem I see is that we've been raised in a culture with lots of unstable individuals, and most are trying to find some scapegoat instead of admitting that we're not as "civilized" as they would hope.
tl;dr= games are probably a little too violent, but it wouldn't be a problem if our culture wasn't so fucked up and inclined to violence already
Edit- realized something that seems important but doesn't change my view. Mortal kombat is probably one of the most violent games out there, but it doesn't get complained about nearly as much as the first person shooters. I think that's because the fps cause more problems due to trying so hard to simulate real violence, while mk is outlandishly, impossibly violent. So among the wide spectrum of violence in games, I think "murder-simulator" type, realistic violence is the main culprit of whatever problems violent games cause.
I'd say that violent media in general (with games not really being different than movies/tv/rap/etc imo) serves as a contributor to these problems, but not a direct cause. We need to pull the weeds in our culture by the roots, not the stem. The problem there is that I can't really see a way to remove dangerous individuals directly, and that's why so many people try to identify tools of violence or background causes in the media as the problem. The real problem I see is that we've been raised in a culture with lots of unstable individuals, and most are trying to find some scapegoat instead of admitting that we're not as "civilized" as they would hope.
tl;dr= games are probably a little too violent, but it wouldn't be a problem if our culture wasn't so fucked up and inclined to violence already
Edit- realized something that seems important but doesn't change my view. Mortal kombat is probably one of the most violent games out there, but it doesn't get complained about nearly as much as the first person shooters. I think that's because the fps cause more problems due to trying so hard to simulate real violence, while mk is outlandishly, impossibly violent. So among the wide spectrum of violence in games, I think "murder-simulator" type, realistic violence is the main culprit of whatever problems violent games cause.
I mentioned it because I firmly believe blaming video games, goth culture, Marilyn Manson, and every other entertainment form stupidly blamed every time there's a shooting is a misdirection to try and detract from the relatively easy availability of near-military grade firearms being a principle factor in the vast majority of these tragedies.
It's also night and day between a 30 shot semi automatic rifle and a 4 shot bolt action hunting rifle (and anyone who needs a 30 shot semi auto to hunt should quit hunting because they're really bad at it).
It's basically confirmation bias in action. People with violent tendencies will gravitate to things that argue violence is ok, the desensitisation will come the more people look into violent actions regardless of the medium. There's always going to be crazy violent people in the world, unfortunate as it may be.
Guns are designed to kill & wound, not defend.
Gun culture is fucking stupid.
When someone has a high kill number in media such as video games and movies we shouldn't say "Oh wow what a badass" because that places gun culture on a pedestal & even if you think you aren't affected & don't exhibit violent behavior, there are people that do.
Society glamorizes gun culture & stigmatizes the importance of mental health. Let's reverse those two.
Humans can be so stupid sometimes.
Gun culture is fucking stupid.
When someone has a high kill number in media such as video games and movies we shouldn't say "Oh wow what a badass" because that places gun culture on a pedestal & even if you think you aren't affected & don't exhibit violent behavior, there are people that do.
Society glamorizes gun culture & stigmatizes the importance of mental health. Let's reverse those two.
Humans can be so stupid sometimes.
I like getting high kill counts with swords and giant teddy bears too. Don't hate.
To elaborate, there's something to said about the relationship of sportsmanship and KDRs but in a competitive game a high KDR still means you are doing something right. Get out of here with this "gun culture" nonsense, asking us not to "put it on a pedestal" you might as well just remove the concept of skill and rewards from video games. You are practically one foot in the "violent video games are bad" camp, which many of us in this thread have demonstrated to be the uninformed camp.
To elaborate, there's something to said about the relationship of sportsmanship and KDRs but in a competitive game a high KDR still means you are doing something right. Get out of here with this "gun culture" nonsense, asking us not to "put it on a pedestal" you might as well just remove the concept of skill and rewards from video games. You are practically one foot in the "violent video games are bad" camp, which many of us in this thread have demonstrated to be the uninformed camp.
I'm assuming you weren't including yourself in that final sentence, even though you clearly should have been.
All you gun-control freaks need to ask yourselves one simple question: If you have a gun and you're looking to victimize someone, are you going to go after someone you know is armed or someone you know is unarmed?
I live in a city where possession of loaded firearms outside of designated hunting areas and shooting ranges is completely illegal. You go to jail for 5 years if you're caught with an illegal firearm. Does that stop people from shooting places up?
Not in the middle of the busiest mall in the country: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toronto_Eaton_Centre#2012_shooting
Not in the middle of a packed block party: http://www.thestar.com/news/gta/cri...gs-2-killed-19-hurt-in-gunfire-at-block-party
In fact, last year, for example, more than half of the homicides in the city were shootings: http://www.cbc.ca/toronto/features/homicide2011/
Clearly, many, many people in society live in some kind of fantasy land where no-one ever does bad things (or, as is likely in the poster's mind, guns cause people to do bad things) so the idea of defending yourself against some crazy/stupid fuck trying to rob you or just kill you for fun is ludicrous.
I prefer to stay firmly rooted in reality, which means I would prefer to have a handgun firmly rooted in a holster in my belt, because I would prefer to be the one calling 911 saying I shot a criminal than to be the one having 911 called for them so I can be taken away in a body bag.
In a society where guns are criminal, only criminals have guns. Nothing wrong with leveling the playing field.
Also, since this so obviously revolves around the Newtown shooting, I'll say this: those kids lives could have been saved if teachers with concealed carry permits were allowed to do what they were legally entitled to - carry weapons. Only a coward would shoot up a school full of kids. A coward would have a harder time going to shoot people if he knew he was going to get shot.
I think this graph is pretty telling
But in a society where guns are legal, more criminals have guns than would normally.
If you look at this chart you can see a rough correlation between the amount of gun violence and the right to bear arms.
You've linked to examples where gun violence occurs in Canada despite laws against guns. But right across the border where guns are legal you've got a dramatically higher gun murder rate, as well as a much higher murder rate overall. Guns as defense doesn't seem to be working, judging by these figures.
Also, remind me never to go to Colombia holy fuck everyone's shooting everyone over there.
This is the most stupid, played out, intellectually dishonest argument I have read opposing gun regulation.
Seriously, how many people do you think get so angry they organise an arms deal with an organised crime group just to put a bullet in that guy who pissed them off last Tuesday, how many of these mass shooters do you think have the sanity (and balls) needed to actually purchase their equipment in this way.
In countries with gun regulation you *can* get a non-licensed gun, if you really want one, but it has associated risks; the end result is that the people who have guns are: farmers and hunters (who have hunting weapons), cops (on duty), criminal organisations (Mafia etc, who don't randomly shoot civilians because it blows their whole operation), armed guards (like these guys), and the occasional target shooter with a handgun.
Third world shitholes with no law enforcement and absurd poverty rates aside, the US has the highest per capita incidence of gun homicides in the world. If you're not willing to acknowledge the incredibly high rate of gun ownership and the type of guns as a major factor you're simply not connecting the logical dots.
Sorry if we're getting off topic, but it seems to be the flow of discussion.
To be fair to video games, the mentality of "There are bad guys who are only bad and shooting them is the only way to deal with them" has been around since before the turn of the last century. "Dime novels" about those awfully manly cowboys in the wild west were also full of "bad guys" whose sole purpose in the hero's life was to cause mischief, and they were usually "rightfully" shot at the end. These "bad guys" made it to the silver screen, to TV series, and eventually to video games. Nothing new here. They probably weren't that uncommon before the "Dime novels" came either.
And for some reason, the mentality has ingrained several places in the US. Some seem to believe the world is chock-full of "bad guys" who want to come to your place and take your life, your family, your belongings and probably your constitution while they're at it. In most other western countries in which guns are commonplace, the usual reasons why people have them are either "For hunting", "For competitive shooting", or "I was in the armed forces and am required to keep a gun at home in case of invasion". In the US, however, the main reason people cite when they buy guns are "for protection". Protection from whom? What causes US criminals to be so much worse than their counterparts elsewhere, that you require a gun to protect yourself from them? I hardly doubt "our criminals play video games" is the answer.
On the other hand, it's been observed that excessive Tetris playing sometimes causes people to arrange stuff as closely packed as possible...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tetris_effect
And for some reason, the mentality has ingrained several places in the US. Some seem to believe the world is chock-full of "bad guys" who want to come to your place and take your life, your family, your belongings and probably your constitution while they're at it. In most other western countries in which guns are commonplace, the usual reasons why people have them are either "For hunting", "For competitive shooting", or "I was in the armed forces and am required to keep a gun at home in case of invasion". In the US, however, the main reason people cite when they buy guns are "for protection". Protection from whom? What causes US criminals to be so much worse than their counterparts elsewhere, that you require a gun to protect yourself from them? I hardly doubt "our criminals play video games" is the answer.
On the other hand, it's been observed that excessive Tetris playing sometimes causes people to arrange stuff as closely packed as possible...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tetris_effect
Correlation doesn't imply causation fucking jesus. We say it all the time about videogames you have to say it about everything else too.
Im not saying its a fact, but the evidence certainly does point that way.
What would you propose as an alternative cause? I've compared the US with Canada. They are similar countries in a lot of ways; They're both developed nations who's population consists mostly of caucasions. They are both predominantly English speaking, and the average citizen has a similar level of education. They are both democratic countries with similar views on human rights and law and order.
But America has a fucking lot more killing, especially by guns. So why?
Is it because America has a higher population (more targets?)? Is it because of the warmer temperatures? The stronger economy (I think?)? The higher level of involvement in international politics? Are Americans just shitheads?
Some of these may be valid. But surely the fact that the general populace can acquire firearms is a far more likely option to consider.
And even if it isn't the cause, I still don't see how its a good idea to grant those who are already predisposed to violence easy access to a very deadly weapon. You can't possibly dispute that guns are very good at killing people. It's what they are specifically designed for. It's why no-one arms their military with steak knives and rat poison. If you have a gun, it is easier to kill people than it is to do so without a gun. And if its easier to get a gun, then its easier to kill people.
Yeah, and those kids lives could have been saved if the criminal didn't have a gun either. Your point? Fight fire with fire? Talk about levelling the playing field.
You seem to be forgetting that this is a mentally unstable guy who shot himself after killing those children. What kind of a fuck does he give if he thinks he'll be shot when he knows he'll shoot himself anyway? He's going down in a blaze of bullets regardless.
Name me one school shooting where someone carrying a concealed firearm managed to shoot and stop the psycho.