# Ban or Censor Video Games, Not Guns?



## Foxfyre

NOTE:  Clean debate zone thread here. . . .

This morning I was listening to a concept put out by a military psychologist who suggests that it is not guns that are the problem in a 'violent America', but rather the changed American culture.  Violent concepts are prevalent in our television programs, movies, comic books, music, and most especially in video games that are available in large quantities to very young children.

His theory is that this is desensitizing young people to violence and even exalting and promoting it.

Are video games conditioning kids to accept violence as virtue?  As the way to get things accomplished?  To win?  To reach the pinnacle of success?  In many/most of video games out there, it is necessary to be ruthless in order to win the game.  Does this change the way people view their world in an unhealthy way?

If you do see this as a problem, how do you get around censorship as being somehow better than gun control?  Do you want the government to have power in that area?

Or is there a way for the public/radio/Hollywood  to self censor itself as it once did?  And should we push for that?

Or maybe you don't see it as a problem at all?


----------



## AmyNation

Ban guns
Ban Hollywood violence
Ban antidepressants 


It's all the same blame game.


----------



## Katzndogz

He's right, it's a changed American culture.  It just doesn't have anything to do with video games.  It's a culture of entitlement and imagined rights.   It's the transformation of freedom into license.  Sadism is now just another form of having fun.   There is now a form of crime that includes dousing the victim with flammable liquid and setting them on fire.   The perpetrators didn't learn this in video games.  They learned this by doing the same thing to dogs and cats as "fun" and getting away with it.    

In the past, it used to be comic books, television cowboy shows, it was kids playing cops and robbers, cowboys and indians.  It was flag football and games of tag.   None of it was ever true.  When you have a population raised from infancy without morals, without a sense of right and wrong, where good and evil are equal and completely without the ability to make judgments, you will get the culture we have with or without video games.


----------



## Swagger

Personally speaking, I don't that computer games are as much to blame as is commonly made out. I think these children and young adults crave something that's being systematically stripped away from Western society: traditionalism.

It&#8217;s interesting to me, and keep in mind I am largely unfamiliar with the gaming world being from the Pong and Space Invaders generation, that the games I seem to hear about most are either first-person shoot 'em up games, representing a chance to vent against dehumanized humans, or fantasy worlds decorated generously with traditionalist themes &#8211; hierarchy, rites of passage, heroism, monarchy, holy or elite orders, priest and warrior castes, and the existence of extra-material worlds and beings. Some of the biggest franchises in the video gaming industry, HALO and The Elder Scrolls being two that I am aware of, are overflowing with the traditional.

Video games companies aren't transforming these avid young gamers into throne and alter types, they're simply exposing them for the throne and alter types they already are (without any real world thrones or altars to kneel before).

Am I making sense here?


----------



## Foxfyre

Not only did that pyschiatrist make me ponder this topic, but also a contentuous exchange between Piers Morgan and Alex Jones the other night on CNN, followed by an analysis in this video:

[Video] Local News Investigates Piers Morgan's Claims - Thoughtful Women

The video was to fact check some of the numbers being thrown around in that exchange but it offered some interesting statistics summarized as follows:

The USA has the most guns per capita of any country in the world with 88 guns per 100 people.   We're No. 1 in that category.

The U.K. has some of the strongest gun controls of any developed country.

In 2011, the U.K. had 59 gun related homicides within a population of about 63 million.
.
The USA had 853 gun related homicides; however 400 of those are documented as justifiable homicide by law enforcement and 260 of those as justifiable homicide by private citizens leaving 193 criminal homicides in a nation of more than 300 million people.

Despite being #1 in gun ownership, the USA is 28th in the world in gun violence. and well below the U.K. in violent crime in general.

The U.K. has the 2nd highest crime rate in the E.U. and is rated the most violent country in the E.U. with 2,034 violent crimes per 100,000 people in 2011.

By comparison the USA documented 466 violent crimes per 100,000 people in 2011.

*****************************

All this suggests to me that guns are not the problem.  As given in the video, the hearts and minds of the people themselves are the problem.

Perhaps we--all of us everywhere, not just in the USA--need to look again at the overall affect of gratuitous violence promoted in our music, our television programming, our movies, our video games, and even the most popular comic books.


----------



## Foxfyre

To Amy, Katz, and Swagger, all pertinent observations.

But don't you think people can be desensitized to what they would otherwise deem unacceptable.  You see it in boxers--they have no problem inflicting as much pain and suffering as possible upon their opponent when most of us would recoil at the idea of striking somebody.   Military types become unaffected by the mayhem they inflict on the enemy or even some of the collateral damage done in the heat of battle.

Wouldn't it follow that constant exposure to people doing violence to other people necessary to win a game could change the psyche of the most vulnerable to the point they would use violence in order to feel like the hero in the game?


----------



## Katzndogz

Swagger said:


> Personally speaking, I don't that computer games are as much to blame as is commonly made out. I think these children and young adults crave something that's being systematically stripped away from Western society: traditionalism.
> 
> Its interesting to me, and keep in mind I am largely unfamiliar with the gaming world being from the Pong and Space Invaders generation, that the games I seem to hear about most are either first-person shoot 'em up games, representing a chance to vent against dehumanized humans, or fantasy worlds decorated generously with traditionalist themes  hierarchy, rites of passage, heroism, monarchy, holy or elite orders, priest and warrior castes, and the existence of extra-material worlds and beings. Some of the biggest franchises in the video gaming industry, HALO and The Elder Scrolls being two that I am aware of, are overflowing with the traditional.
> 
> Video games companies aren't transforming these avid young gamers into throne and alter types, they're simply exposing them for the throne and alter types they already are (without any real world thrones or altars to kneel before).
> 
> Am I making sense here?



I like to play video games, although they are a little to sophisticated for me today.  I've played some of the older Elder Scrolls games.   Even the most shoot em up of shoot em up games are really games of strategy.  The end is always the triumph of good over evil.  Like Star Wars, or Lord of the Rings.  They have a definite story line and goal.   It's more like being an interactive character in a good movie than simply a game.


----------



## AmyNation

Let's say I agree with the premise that video games desensitize the young and promote violence.

Now what?


Now that we've all agreed "what's bad" you move to ban them for the good of the public?


----------



## Foxfyre

Katzndogz said:


> Swagger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Personally speaking, I don't that computer games are as much to blame as is commonly made out. I think these children and young adults crave something that's being systematically stripped away from Western society: traditionalism.
> 
> Its interesting to me, and keep in mind I am largely unfamiliar with the gaming world being from the Pong and Space Invaders generation, that the games I seem to hear about most are either first-person shoot 'em up games, representing a chance to vent against dehumanized humans, or fantasy worlds decorated generously with traditionalist themes  hierarchy, rites of passage, heroism, monarchy, holy or elite orders, priest and warrior castes, and the existence of extra-material worlds and beings. Some of the biggest franchises in the video gaming industry, HALO and The Elder Scrolls being two that I am aware of, are overflowing with the traditional.
> 
> Video games companies aren't transforming these avid young gamers into throne and alter types, they're simply exposing them for the throne and alter types they already are (without any real world thrones or altars to kneel before).
> 
> Am I making sense here?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I like to play video games, although they are a little to sophisticated for me today.  I've played some of the older Elder Scrolls games.   Even the most shoot em up of shoot em up games are really games of strategy.  The end is always the triumph of good over evil.  Like Star Wars, or Lord of the Rings.  They have a definite story line and goal.   It's more like being an interactive character in a good movie than simply a game.
Click to expand...


I LOVE video games.  One of my favorites is a Microsoft Big and Huge games called "Rise of Nations".  Though there is one format that allows you to take a purely defensive posture, the most fun goal is to bring your country forward from a very primitive time to the modern age and conquer enough or all of the rest of the world to win. 

So first rattle out of the box you have to attack other countries though you do focus on their military installations and armies.  But your defenses automatically attack any non military citizens they see too if those citizens aren't our own.

The thing in the game that most bothers me is a limitation on the population each country is allowed to acquire.  So when I get to the point that I am at the population max and need more military types, I can identify my 'idle' citizens and eliminate them.  Hit the zap button and they scream and die.

And that bothers me though not enough to not play the game.  You do wonder if it somehow programs a vulnerable and perhaps unstable young mind though.  And my game is way WAY less violent and graphic than most of them out there now.


----------



## Katzndogz

Foxfyre said:


> To Amy, Katz, and Swagger, all pertinent observations.
> 
> But don't you think people can be desensitized to what they would otherwise deem unacceptable.  You see it in boxers--they have no problem inflicting as much pain and suffering as possible upon their opponent when most of us would recoil at the idea of striking somebody.   Military types become unaffected by the mayhem they inflict on the enemy or even some of the collateral damage done in the heat of battle.
> 
> Wouldn't it follow that constant exposure to people doing violence to other people necessary to win a game could change the psyche of the most vulnerable to the point they would use violence in order to feel like the hero in the game?



I certainly don't think that a game can desensitize anyone to violence.  Getting away with acts of violence is worse than video games.   It was the "desensitization" to violence that stopped games of tag and dodgeball.  It didn't help.  Young people still got away with sadistic acts in the name of having fun.    Boxers have no problem inflicting pain on another boxer because it is a sport with definite rules.   They are not enemy combatants.  Outside of the ring, they are usually friends.  

In times past when men went to war it wasn't nice and neat like it is now.  It was swords and axes, spears and battlefield gutting.   It didn't turn the men who went to war into murderous madmen intent on repeating their acts against their neighbors and families.    Such insanity wouldn't be permitted, someone who did that would soon find themselves at the end of a rope or drawn and quartered without endless appeals.


----------



## Article 15

Swagger said:


> Personally speaking, I don't that computer games are as much to blame as is commonly made out. I think these children and young adults crave something that's being systematically stripped away from Western society: traditionalism.
> 
> Its interesting to me, and keep in mind I am largely unfamiliar with the gaming world being from the Pong and Space Invaders generation, that the games I seem to hear about most are either first-person shoot 'em up games, representing a chance to vent against dehumanized humans, or fantasy worlds decorated generously with traditionalist themes  hierarchy, rites of passage, heroism, monarchy, holy or elite orders, priest and warrior castes, and the existence of extra-material worlds and beings. Some of the biggest franchises in the video gaming industry, HALO and The Elder Scrolls being two that I am aware of, are overflowing with the traditional.
> 
> Video games companies aren't transforming these avid young gamers into throne and alter types, they're simply exposing them for the throne and alter types they already are (without any real world thrones or altars to kneel before).
> 
> Am I making sense here?



I like the Elder Scrolls games but Fallout is my favorite. 

Perhaps I subconsciously desire a primitive post apocalyptic world with no law and order.


----------



## Swagger

Foxfyre said:


> To Amy, Katz, and Swagger, all pertinent observations.
> 
> But don't you think people can be desensitized to what they would otherwise deem unacceptable.



Yes, I believe that people can be deliberately desensitised to violence through violent imagery. For instance, if someone told me twenty years ago that there were internet sites that hosted footage of people being killed or maimed, I'd consider contacting the authorities. Now the internet is awash with sites that host beheadings etc., and they operate with impunity. I no longer feel compelled to contact the authorities for two reasons. 1. I've come to terms with the fact that there are truly sick people out there whose activities weren't deemed acceptable reading material by the editors of the mainstream media, because they knew that the truth would terrify their readers/viewers. 2. I've become desensitised.



Foxfyre said:


> Wouldn't it follow that constant exposure to people doing violence to other people necessary to win a game could change the psyche of the most vulnerable to the point they would use violence in order to feel like the hero in the game?



Only to a degree. I'm of the opinion that there's already something deeply wrong with someone who goes on to do what Adam Lanza did. Video games simply offer a visualisation of the likely scenario of a killing spree.I don't believe that visualisations of that nature can completely strip away the sense of remorse and compassion that for most people stand in the way of doing what Lanza did. I mean, fighter pilots and drone operators know, deep down, that their actions have resulted in great suffering, however deserved, despite being so detached from the battlefield. And they're offered councelling to help them deal with the mental torture their actions have brought upon them.


----------



## Foxfyre

AmyNation said:


> Let's say I agree with the premise that video games desensitize the young and promote violence.
> 
> Now what?
> 
> 
> Now that we've all agreed "what's bad" you move to ban them for the good of the public?



That's what I would like for us all to have a conversation about.

Back in the days of the Saturday afternoon matinee featuring Roy Rogers, Gene Autry, Hopalong Cassidy, the Durango Kid, etc., the good guys wore white hats and there was absolutely no question who were the good guys, who were the villains, and all necessary killing was done in self defense with a minimum of gratuitous violence.

In fact gratuitous violence was pretty much non existence in the movies or on television when I was growing up.  The industry policed itself as to what language was acceptable and what should be shown on the screen.

Now the most horrible graphic violence, torture, the most hateful inhumanity that humans inflict on others, and the villain being the star is too often the norm.  We have rap music broadcast over the radio describing the worst kinds of violence and mutilation and scenes that would have been unthinkable a few decades ago.

We the people police determine what is socially acceptable in this country.  Do we need to rethink how our culture is affecting the minds of the young?


----------



## Foxfyre

Katzndogz said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> To Amy, Katz, and Swagger, all pertinent observations.
> 
> But don't you think people can be desensitized to what they would otherwise deem unacceptable.  You see it in boxers--they have no problem inflicting as much pain and suffering as possible upon their opponent when most of us would recoil at the idea of striking somebody.   Military types become unaffected by the mayhem they inflict on the enemy or even some of the collateral damage done in the heat of battle.
> 
> Wouldn't it follow that constant exposure to people doing violence to other people necessary to win a game could change the psyche of the most vulnerable to the point they would use violence in order to feel like the hero in the game?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I certainly don't think that a game can desensitize anyone to violence.  Getting away with acts of violence is worse than video games.   It was the "desensitization" to violence that stopped games of tag and dodgeball.  It didn't help.  Young people still got away with sadistic acts in the name of having fun.    Boxers have no problem inflicting pain on another boxer because it is a sport with definite rules.   They are not enemy combatants.  Outside of the ring, they are usually friends.
> 
> In times past when men went to war it wasn't nice and neat like it is now.  It was swords and axes, spears and battlefield gutting.   It didn't turn the men who went to war into murderous madmen intent on repeating their acts against their neighbors and families.    Such insanity wouldn't be permitted, someone who did that would soon find themselves at the end of a rope or drawn and quartered without endless appeals.
Click to expand...


Using boxing as an example was just to illustrate how one can come to see doing violence to another as a sport and not feel any remorse or discomfort in doing that.  It isn't that there is anything wrong with boxing.  But I would be extremely uncomfortble striking another person with the intention of injuring him/her if I could.  The boxer learns to have no such feelings when striking his/her sparring partner or opponent.  It IS a kind of conditioning.

Nor do I think police officers or soldiers or any others who are trained and drilled in using force, lethal or otherwise, then more likely to become more violent in their personal lives.  If they ARE prone to violence, they may know how to be more lethal or effective, but I don't see that becoming a part of their psyche.  Nevethless, they do become desensitized to the effects of the job they are called on to do.

So back to that young person playing endless video games, reading those violent comic books, seeing the violence on television and in the movies.  If he or she isn't wired exactly 'normally', could this gradually condition him to see violence as the way to achieve, to succeed, to be glorified or important, to be a success?   And evenmoreso if he is successful in accomplishing large scale mayhem?


----------



## 007

AmyNation said:


> Let's say I agree with the premise that video games desensitize the young and promote violence.
> 
> Now what?
> 
> Now that we've all agreed "what's bad" you move to ban them for the good of the public?



It's not just a premise or a theory, there's established proven evidence of it...

Video Games Desensitize to Real Violence | Psych Central News

... and that's only one example.

What our society is becoming is where all this new insane kids with guns going on mass killing rampages is coming from.

I think to myself, I never grew up playing high definition video games on a massive TV that were so real they almost appeared alive, and there's no way I could ever go out and shoot up a crowd. So how is it these young kids can do it? A common link to them all is violent, bloody video games where they can indiscriminately kill, rape, rob and maim other people, even kids and infants in these games. I think to deny that they have an effect, coupled with the constant blood lust and violent movies full of guns, bombs and whatever else can kill you coming out of hollywood is completely dishonest. What's the latest Stalone movie? Well, "BULLET TO THE HEAD" of course. And they called Wayne LaPierre insensitive.


----------



## Zoom-boing

Foxfyre said:


> NOTE:  Clean debate zone thread here. . . .
> 
> This morning I was listening to a concept put out by a military psychologist who suggests that it is not guns that are the problem in a 'violent America', but rather the changed American culture.  Violent concepts are prevalent in our television programs, movies, comic books, music, and most especially in video games* that are available in large quantities to very young children.
> *
> His theory is that this is desensitizing young people to violence and even exalting and promoting it.
> 
> Are video games conditioning kids to accept violence as virtue?  As the way to get things accomplished?  To win?  To reach the pinnacle of success?  In many/most of video games out there, it is necessary to be ruthless in order to win the game.  Does this change the way people view their world in an unhealthy way?
> 
> If you do see this as a problem, how do you get around censorship as being somehow better than gun control?  Do you want the government to have power in that area?
> 
> Or is there a way for the public/radio/Hollywood  to self censor itself as it once did?  And should we push for that?
> 
> Or maybe you don't see it as a problem at all?





"Available in large quantities to very young children".  Who is allowing these kids to play these violent games?  Parents.  It starts with them.  Our neighbor has allowed his two boys to play Call of Duty since they were around 6 years old, has taken them to PG-13 movies (GI Joe and the like) from early ages.  The kids are now 6th and 4th grade.  If parents can't say 'no, that is not appropriate for you right now' to their kids, then we will continue on this destructive path.  I agree that continual exposure to anything can desensitize a person ... but who is allowing them access in the first place?

Should gov't butt in and ban them?  No.  Should Hollywood tighten up ratings?  Well, since Hollywood lowered the bar to allow PG-13 rating (and has done nothing but lower it further and further with each passing year, allowing more and more into that rating) it's doubtful they will do anything.  Maybe with Sandy Hook they will but I won't hold my breath.

Parents need to stop being their kid's friend and start parenting their kids.  They need to say 'no' and deal with the tantrum that their kids will surely throw.  And they need to stop giving kids too much freedom at too early an age ... cell phones (esp with internet access), tvs/computers/gaming systems in bedrooms, etc.


----------



## Katzndogz

Foxfyre said:


> AmyNation said:
> 
> 
> 
> Let's say I agree with the premise that video games desensitize the young and promote violence.
> 
> Now what?
> 
> 
> Now that we've all agreed "what's bad" you move to ban them for the good of the public?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's what I would like for us all to have a conversation about.
> 
> Back in the days of the Saturday afternoon matinee featuring Roy Rogers, Gene Autry, Hopalong Cassidy, the Durango Kid, etc., the good guys wore white hats and there was absolutely no question who were the good guys, who were the villains, and all necessary killing was done in self defense with a minimum of gratuitous violence.
> 
> In fact gratuitous violence was pretty much non existence in the movies or on television when I was growing up.  The industry policed itself as to what language was acceptable and what should be shown on the screen.
> 
> Now the most horrible graphic violence, torture, the most hateful inhumanity that humans inflict on others, and the villain being the star is too often the norm.  We have rap music broadcast over the radio describing the worst kinds of violence and mutilation and scenes that would have been unthinkable a few decades ago.
> 
> We the people police determine what is socially acceptable in this country.  Do we need to rethink how our culture is affecting the minds of the young?
Click to expand...


Your complaint isn't about violence!  Your complaint is about debasing the culture and eliminating the concept of right and wrong.  It's the same complaint I have.   In video games violence occurs, the good prevail over the bad but in the culture, the movies, the videos, the rap music the most cruel and the most sadistic are glorified.  It's not the violence, it's the glorification of the violence.  It isn't in video games that the most cruel and violent get rewarded, it's in the culture.  It's giving Michael Vick his job back, it's  excusing the worst kind of behavior.


----------



## AmyNation

007 said:


> AmyNation said:
> 
> 
> 
> Let's say I agree with the premise that video games desensitize the young and promote violence.
> 
> Now what?
> 
> Now that we've all agreed "what's bad" you move to ban them for the good of the public?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's not just a premise or a theory, there's established proven evidence of it...
> 
> Video Games Desensitize to Real Violence | Psych Central News
> 
> ... and that's only one example.
> 
> What our society is becoming is where all this new insane kids with guns going on mass killing rampages is coming from.
> 
> I think to myself, I never grew up playing high definition video games on a massive TV that were so real they almost appeared alive, and there's no way I could ever go out and shoot up a crowd. So how is it these young kids can do it? A common link to them all is violent, bloody video games where they can indiscriminately kill, rape, rob and maim other people, even kids and infants in these games. I think to deny that they have an effect, coupled with the constant blood lust and violent movies full of guns, bombs and whatever else can kill you coming out of hollywood is completely dishonest. What's the latest Stalone movie? Well, "BULLET TO THE HEAD" of course. And they called Wayne LaPierre insensitive.
Click to expand...




Your solution to the problem is to ban video games?


----------



## Swagger

Katzndogz said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AmyNation said:
> 
> 
> 
> Let's say I agree with the premise that video games desensitize the young and promote violence.
> 
> Now what?
> 
> 
> Now that we've all agreed "what's bad" you move to ban them for the good of the public?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's what I would like for us all to have a conversation about.
> 
> Back in the days of the Saturday afternoon matinee featuring Roy Rogers, Gene Autry, Hopalong Cassidy, the Durango Kid, etc., the good guys wore white hats and there was absolutely no question who were the good guys, who were the villains, and all necessary killing was done in self defense with a minimum of gratuitous violence.
> 
> In fact gratuitous violence was pretty much non existence in the movies or on television when I was growing up.  The industry policed itself as to what language was acceptable and what should be shown on the screen.
> 
> Now the most horrible graphic violence, torture, the most hateful inhumanity that humans inflict on others, and the villain being the star is too often the norm.  We have rap music broadcast over the radio describing the worst kinds of violence and mutilation and scenes that would have been unthinkable a few decades ago.
> 
> We the people police determine what is socially acceptable in this country.  Do we need to rethink how our culture is affecting the minds of the young?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your complaint isn't about violence!  Your complaint is about debasing the culture and eliminating the concept of right and wrong.  It's the same complaint I have.   In video games violence occurs, the good prevail over the bad but in the culture, the movies, the videos, the rap music the most cruel and the most sadistic are glorified.  It's not the violence, it's the glorification of the violence.  It isn't in video games that the most cruel and violent get rewarded, it's in the culture.  It's giving Michael Vick his job back, it's  excusing the worst kind of behavior.
Click to expand...


And what's the absent component? Traditional values. Strong and responsible parents would almost eliminate this glorification. But nowadays we see children raising children.

My uncle brought a revolver back from the war in Korea. For whatever reason, he gave it to my father. It sat in the second to last drawer in my parents' bedside table with the ammunition kept separately. We knew it was there, and being curious children we broke into the draw to look at it. It was empty, and there was no chance of us hurting anyone with it. My mother caught us, and my father thrashed us so hard we had to sit in a hot bath mixed with anticeptic formula. They used traditional means to discipline us. It worked as we no longer took an interest in the second drawer from the bottom and what lied inside it. Parents can now be prosecuted for striking their children. Traditionalism is being deliberately stigmatised and the people who adhere to it are mocked.


----------



## Foxfyre

007 said:


> AmyNation said:
> 
> 
> 
> Let's say I agree with the premise that video games desensitize the young and promote violence.
> 
> Now what?
> 
> Now that we've all agreed "what's bad" you move to ban them for the good of the public?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's not just a premise or a theory, there's established proven evidence of it...
> 
> Video Games Desensitize to Real Violence | Psych Central News
> 
> ... and that's only one example.
> 
> What our society is becoming is where all this new insane kids with guns going on mass killing rampages is coming from.
> 
> I think to myself, I never grew up playing high definition video games on a massive TV that were so real they almost appeared alive, and there's no way I could ever go out and shoot up a crowd. So how is it these young kids can do it? A common link to them all is violent, bloody video games where they can indiscriminately kill, rape, rob and maim other people, even kids and infants in these games. I think to deny that they have an effect, coupled with the constant blood lust and violent movies full of guns, bombs and whatever else can kill you coming out of hollywood is completely dishonest. What's the latest Stalone movie? Well, "BULLET TO THE HEAD" of course. And they called Wayne LaPierre insensitive.
Click to expand...


This is what I have intuitively been pondering and instinctively suspect is all true.  I am guessing there are more studies out there than the one cited here too.

And while I concur with Katz and others that a large part of the problem is poor parenting, etc., I also see that the poor parenting, permissiveness in media etc. is all a reflection of our changing culture.  A change that is not in a good way.

But you don't see the President or members of Congress or the Hollywood set or Piers Morgan, etc. railing against the glorification and acceptance of violence in our day to day images and language.  You see them focused on banning certain kinds of guns and enforcing much stronger gun control.

But as cited in the OP,  stringent gun control has not reduced the violence in the U.K.  It just shifts it to other forms.

I think the problem is a culture of violence, not a culture of guns.


----------



## eflatminor

Foxfyre said:


> NOTE:  Clean debate zone thread here. . . .
> 
> This morning I was listening to a concept put out by a military psychologist who suggests that it is not guns that are the problem in a 'violent America', but rather the changed American culture.  Violent concepts are prevalent in our television programs, movies, comic books, music, and most especially in video games that are available in large quantities to very young children.
> 
> His theory is that this is desensitizing young people to violence and even exalting and promoting it.
> 
> Are video games conditioning kids to accept violence as virtue?  As the way to get things accomplished?  To win?  To reach the pinnacle of success?  In many/most of video games out there, it is necessary to be ruthless in order to win the game.  Does this change the way people view their world in an unhealthy way?
> 
> If you do see this as a problem, how do you get around censorship as being somehow better than gun control?  Do you want the government to have power in that area?
> 
> Or is there a way for the public/radio/Hollywood  to self censor itself as it once did?  And should we push for that?
> 
> Or maybe you don't see it as a problem at all?



Do you realize that as violence in games/movies has increased, the rate of violence in America, including murders AND mass killings, has DECREASED, rather dramatically?  What do you make of that?


----------



## JFK_USA

Foxfyre said:


> Not only did that pyschiatrist make me ponder this topic, but also a contentuous exchange between Piers Morgan and Alex Jones the other night on CNN, followed by an analysis in this video:
> 
> [Video] Local News Investigates Piers Morgan's Claims - Thoughtful Women
> 
> The video was to fact check some of the numbers being thrown around in that exchange but it offered some interesting statistics summarized as follows:
> 
> The USA has the most guns per capita of any country in the world with 88 guns per 100 people.   We're No. 1 in that category.
> 
> The U.K. has some of the strongest gun controls of any developed country.
> 
> In 2011, the U.K. had 59 gun related homicides within a population of about 63 million.
> .
> The USA had 853 gun related homicides; however 400 of those are documented as justifiable homicide by law enforcement and 260 of those as justifiable homicide by private citizens leaving 193 criminal homicides in a nation of more than 300 million people.
> 
> Despite being #1 in gun ownership, the USA is 28th in the world in gun violence. and well below the U.K. in violent crime in general.
> 
> The U.K. has the 2nd highest crime rate in the E.U. and is rated the most violent country in the E.U. with 2,034 violent crimes per 100,000 people in 2011.
> 
> By comparison the USA documented 466 violent crimes per 100,000 people in 2011.
> 
> *****************************
> 
> All this suggests to me that guns are not the problem.  As given in the video, the hearts and minds of the people themselves are the problem.
> 
> Perhaps we--all of us everywhere, not just in the USA--need to look again at the overall affect of gratuitous violence promoted in our music, our television programming, our movies, our video games, and even the most popular comic books.



We had over 10,000 gun related deaths not 853. That's wrong by a long shot.


----------



## bobcollum

AmyNation said:


> 007 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AmyNation said:
> 
> 
> 
> Let's say I agree with the premise that video games desensitize the young and promote violence.
> 
> Now what?
> 
> Now that we've all agreed "what's bad" you move to ban them for the good of the public?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's not just a premise or a theory, there's established proven evidence of it...
> 
> Video Games Desensitize to Real Violence | Psych Central News
> 
> ... and that's only one example.
> 
> What our society is becoming is where all this new insane kids with guns going on mass killing rampages is coming from.
> 
> I think to myself, I never grew up playing high definition video games on a massive TV that were so real they almost appeared alive, and there's no way I could ever go out and shoot up a crowd. So how is it these young kids can do it? A common link to them all is violent, bloody video games where they can indiscriminately kill, rape, rob and maim other people, even kids and infants in these games. I think to deny that they have an effect, coupled with the constant blood lust and violent movies full of guns, bombs and whatever else can kill you coming out of hollywood is completely dishonest. What's the latest Stalone movie? Well, "BULLET TO THE HEAD" of course. And they called Wayne LaPierre insensitive.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your solution to the problem is to ban video games?
Click to expand...


It's better than banning guns!

Well, only if you have guns, don't want to lose them, and don't care about video games.


----------



## bobcollum

I think the same argument pro-gunners use can be applied here....there are far more people that can use videogames responsibly, and it's not fair they should be punished for the actions of the few.


----------



## Foxfyre

JFK_USA said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not only did that pyschiatrist make me ponder this topic, but also a contentuous exchange between Piers Morgan and Alex Jones the other night on CNN, followed by an analysis in this video:
> 
> [Video] Local News Investigates Piers Morgan's Claims - Thoughtful Women
> 
> The video was to fact check some of the numbers being thrown around in that exchange but it offered some interesting statistics summarized as follows:
> 
> The USA has the most guns per capita of any country in the world with 88 guns per 100 people.   We're No. 1 in that category.
> 
> The U.K. has some of the strongest gun controls of any developed country.
> 
> In 2011, the U.K. had 59 gun related homicides within a population of about 63 million.
> .
> The USA had 853 gun related homicides; however 400 of those are documented as justifiable homicide by law enforcement and 260 of those as justifiable homicide by private citizens leaving 193 criminal homicides in a nation of more than 300 million people.
> 
> Despite being #1 in gun ownership, the USA is 28th in the world in gun violence. and well below the U.K. in violent crime in general.
> 
> The U.K. has the 2nd highest crime rate in the E.U. and is rated the most violent country in the E.U. with 2,034 violent crimes per 100,000 people in 2011.
> 
> By comparison the USA documented 466 violent crimes per 100,000 people in 2011.
> 
> *****************************
> 
> All this suggests to me that guns are not the problem.  As given in the video, the hearts and minds of the people themselves are the problem.
> 
> Perhaps we--all of us everywhere, not just in the USA--need to look again at the overall affect of gratuitous violence promoted in our music, our television programming, our movies, our video games, and even the most popular comic books.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We had over 10,000 gun related deaths not 853. That's wrong by a long shot.
Click to expand...


Okay.  The video didn't cite a source for their fact checking, but cited numbers they say they fact checked.  They were focused on homicides.  Where did you get your numbers?  I will accept any credible source for a different number.


----------



## Katzndogz

Foxfyre said:


> Katzndogz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> To Amy, Katz, and Swagger, all pertinent observations.
> 
> But don't you think people can be desensitized to what they would otherwise deem unacceptable.  You see it in boxers--they have no problem inflicting as much pain and suffering as possible upon their opponent when most of us would recoil at the idea of striking somebody.   Military types become unaffected by the mayhem they inflict on the enemy or even some of the collateral damage done in the heat of battle.
> 
> Wouldn't it follow that constant exposure to people doing violence to other people necessary to win a game could change the psyche of the most vulnerable to the point they would use violence in order to feel like the hero in the game?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I certainly don't think that a game can desensitize anyone to violence.  Getting away with acts of violence is worse than video games.   It was the "desensitization" to violence that stopped games of tag and dodgeball.  It didn't help.  Young people still got away with sadistic acts in the name of having fun.    Boxers have no problem inflicting pain on another boxer because it is a sport with definite rules.   They are not enemy combatants.  Outside of the ring, they are usually friends.
> 
> In times past when men went to war it wasn't nice and neat like it is now.  It was swords and axes, spears and battlefield gutting.   It didn't turn the men who went to war into murderous madmen intent on repeating their acts against their neighbors and families.    Such insanity wouldn't be permitted, someone who did that would soon find themselves at the end of a rope or drawn and quartered without endless appeals.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Using boxing as an example was just to illustrate how one can come to see doing violence to another as a sport and not feel any remorse or discomfort in doing that.  It isn't that there is anything wrong with boxing.  But I would be extremely uncomfortble striking another person with the intention of injuring him/her if I could.  The boxer learns to have no such feelings when striking his/her sparring partner or opponent.  It IS a kind of conditioning.
> 
> Nor do I think police officers or soldiers or any others who are trained and drilled in using force, lethal or otherwise, then more likely to become more violent in their personal lives.  If they ARE prone to violence, they may know how to be more lethal or effective, but I don't see that becoming a part of their psyche.  Nevethless, they do become desensitized to the effects of the job they are called on to do.
> 
> So back to that young person playing endless video games, reading those violent comic books, seeing the violence on television and in the movies.  If he or she isn't wired exactly 'normally', could this gradually condition him to see violence as the way to achieve, to succeed, to be glorified or important, to be a success?   And evenmoreso if he is successful in accomplishing large scale mayhem?
Click to expand...


That's the crux of the issue.   We don't have a problem with video games, boxing, football or movies but with abnormal people!   We don't have a violence problem but a crazy problem!  The answer isn't at all to transform the lives of normal people to accommodate crazy people.   That will never happen.   It's to control the crazy people.   Starting with admitting they are abnormal and insane.   The first thing will be to overcome the whole liberal idea of "What's normal?  Something normal for you, isn't for me."   People who want to cause harm to others, male or female, human or non human are not normal people.   They need to be identified and dealt with, even if dealing with them is to remove them from the normal people they would harm.  To do that we need standards and judgment, both of which are lacking today.

Instead what our off kilter culture does is inject drugs into a culture that protects crazy, ensuring that the crazies will be even crazier yet and those who were once normal aren't.

What do you suppose happened here?    Video Games?

Homeowner shoots naked intruder found choking dog, police say - U.S. News

The assailant was both violent and naked leading to a suspicion that he was on bath salts, usually mixed with pot and smoked.

Violence that comes from mental illness is like a balloon.   Squish it on one side and it expands somewhere else.  That's why no matter how much the activities of normal people are curtailed, it will never address the problems caused by the mentally ill.   The entire culture will eventually be nothing but puppets dancing to the tune only the insane can hear.


----------



## Foxfyre

So one person says that there has been a decrease in crime despite an escalation of media and video game violence.

There has also been a huge increase in gun sales since the President and Congress have been talking more gun control too and that has been going on for several years now.   So it is just as easy to say that more guns, less crime.

And the correlation of either is most likely not translatable as causation.

But the fact is, four or so decades ago, most of us had no worries about some gunman invading a school with the intent of doing mayhem.  Schools were not equipped with armed guards and locked doors and lockdowns being a common part of the routine.  The kids could have a pen knife on their key chain or a jackknife in their pocket and that was perfectly okay.   And guns were just as much a part of the culture then as they are now.

So what's different now?


----------



## 007

AmyNation said:


> 007 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AmyNation said:
> 
> 
> 
> Let's say I agree with the premise that video games desensitize the young and promote violence.
> 
> Now what?
> 
> Now that we've all agreed "what's bad" you move to ban them for the good of the public?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's not just a premise or a theory, there's established proven evidence of it...
> 
> Video Games Desensitize to Real Violence | Psych Central News
> 
> ... and that's only one example.
> 
> What our society is becoming is where all this new insane kids with guns going on mass killing rampages is coming from.
> 
> I think to myself, I never grew up playing high definition video games on a massive TV that were so real they almost appeared alive, and there's no way I could ever go out and shoot up a crowd. So how is it these young kids can do it? A common link to them all is violent, bloody video games where they can indiscriminately kill, rape, rob and maim other people, even kids and infants in these games. I think to deny that they have an effect, coupled with the constant blood lust and violent movies full of guns, bombs and whatever else can kill you coming out of hollywood is completely dishonest. What's the latest Stalone movie? Well, "BULLET TO THE HEAD" of course. And they called Wayne LaPierre insensitive.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your solution to the problem is to ban video games?
Click to expand...


I think they should be considered to a minor as is liquor, cigarettes or porn, etc. I don't think anyone under 17 or 18 should be playing these games or watching the blood lust, kill everything that moves  movies. No doubt it is having an effect and polluting young minds. But as mentioned in a prior post also, it is up to the parents to control what their children are watching and playing, and their internet activity. Sadly, that will always be the weakest link.

But saying the solution is to ban large capacity clips and so called assault weapons is nothing more than treating the symptom and not the cause. They can ban all the clips and assault weapons under the sun, but this killing will simply continue, until people stop pushing an agenda and start being honest about the cause.


----------



## AmyNation

Games having ratings, just like movies....children are already not allowed to purchase them.


----------



## 007

Foxfyre said:


> So one person says that there has been a decrease in crime despite an escalation of media and video game violence.



I'd like to see a link to those stats and the evidence supporting it.

In any case, decrease in crime, increase in whack job mass killings.


----------



## 007

AmyNation said:


> Games having ratings, just like movies....children are already not allowed to purchase them.



The rating system is broken and should be reviewed.


----------



## bobcollum

007 said:


> AmyNation said:
> 
> 
> 
> Games having ratings, just like movies....children are already not allowed to purchase them.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The rating system is broken and should be reviewed.
Click to expand...


I'd bet all games that feature life-like violence get the M rating, which is supposed to be 17 and up.


----------



## AmyNation

007 said:


> AmyNation said:
> 
> 
> 
> Games having ratings, just like movies....children are already not allowed to purchase them.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The rating system is broken and should be reviewed.
Click to expand...


It's not broken, children can't buy the type of games in question. What do you want to do, demand parents stop buying them for their kids?


----------



## eflatminor

007 said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> So one person says that there has been a decrease in crime despite an escalation of media and video game violence.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'd like to see a link to those stats and the evidence supporting it.
> 
> In any case, decrease in crime, increase in whack job mass killings.
Click to expand...


Nope.  Overall violent crime is on the decrease, as is mass killings, the peak of which was 1929.  Even recently, mass killings are down.  Incidents of mass murder in the U.S. declined from 42 in the 1990s to 26 in the first decade of this century.  Further, the three worst K12 school shootings ever did not take place in America, but in Britain and Germany.

Lots of sources out there for this.  Here's one:
The Facts about Mass Shootings - John Fund - National Review Online


----------



## Foxfyre

bobcollum said:


> 007 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AmyNation said:
> 
> 
> 
> Games having ratings, just like movies....children are already not allowed to purchase them.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The rating system is broken and should be reviewed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'd bet all games that feature life-like violence get the M rating, which is supposed to be 17 and up.
Click to expand...


I honestly don't know much about the criteria they use to rate anything anymore.  My Rise of Nations game is rated T (teen 12+) but I'm pretty sure any person of any age could purchase this game.  My Civilzation IV game, which is based on a similar concept to Rise of Nations, is rated E (everyone) but the people who are killed don't scream in agony in Civ IV. 

I have another one "Oasis" that somebody gave me and I haven't tried but the explanation on it is "Rescue your lands and defend your empire" which suggests warfare and it is also rated E (everyone.)  I bought Hombre a Godfather game (that he found exceeding boring after checking it out for a short while) but it is rated M (mature 17+) but I picked it up at Office Max and suspect anybody could buy that game too.

But those video games where you go through the hallways machine gunning everything you see, having sex with people, etc. etc. etc.--how are they rated?   And can a 10-year-old go into the game shop and buy one or order one from Amazon?

I wonder how many parents check out the games their kids are playing?


----------



## Swagger

Foxfyre said:


> So one person says that there has been a decrease in crime despite an escalation of media and video game violence.
> 
> There has also been a huge increase in gun sales since the President and Congress have been talking more gun control too and that has been going on for several years now.   So it is just as easy to say that more guns, less crime.
> 
> And the correlation of either is most likely not translatable as causation.
> 
> But the fact is, four or so decades ago, most of us had no worries about some gunman invading a school with the intent of doing mayhem.  Schools were not equipped with armed guards and locked doors and lockdowns being a common part of the routine.  The kids could have a pen knife on their key chain or a jackknife in their pocket and that was perfectly okay.   And guns were just as much a part of the culture then as they are now.
> 
> *So what's different now?*



People are reacting to the set of frustrating societal conditions they've been burdened with.

Multiculturalism and political correctness being the worst.

I'm going to take this conversation into uncomfortable territory, but I feel it should be said/written, nonetheless.

The media quite rightly draws attention to the undeniable fact that these massacres are almost exclusively committed by young white males. But no-one's willing to go any further down that road, and blames the cultural acceptance of drugs, porn and video games. I think this racial element might be telling us something, because when you go back four decades, the American demographic was almost 90% white/European. The America when these shootings were an appalling exception to the rule was an America without multiculturalism and the mantra of political correctbess to keep the mob in line. On the strength of that, do you think it's beyond the realms of possibility that these kids are rebelling against the constraints of multiculturalism and political correctness? I don't think they're targeting those constraints exclusively, but I certainly think more light should be shed on the topic.


----------



## AquaAthena

Foxfyre said:


> So one person says that there has been a decrease in crime despite an escalation of media and video game violence.
> 
> There has also been a huge increase in gun sales since the President and Congress have been talking more gun control too and that has been going on for several years now.   So it is just as easy to say that more guns, less crime.
> 
> And the correlation of either is most likely not translatable as causation.
> 
> But the fact is, four or so decades ago, most of us had no worries about some gunman invading a school with the intent of doing mayhem.  Schools were not equipped with armed guards and locked doors and lockdowns being a common part of the routine.  The kids could have a pen knife on their key chain or a jackknife in their pocket and that was perfectly okay.   And guns were just as much a part of the culture then as they are now.
> 
> So what's different now?



I know this will sound lame to many of you, but I think all the information that has been offered here, is relative to the problem and the problem originated and was/is compounded by the breakup of the family, and lack of any faith of a higher power. Lack of sitting down with the family for a meal. All those little things that a functional family once did together on a regular basis, however imperfect they may have otherwise been. 

Kids had a feeling of belonging. They not only felt loved, but they often had consistency and stability in their lives. 

Today, these kids without that, are very lonely and very empty, with a feeling of nothing left to lose. Their souls are vacant. You can see it in their eyes. As a volunteer in the nurse's office, in an elementary school, I could see the kids who were disturbed....those that came in to take their meds., for ADD. I showered them with love and attention and they came in to just visit with me, on the two days a week I was there. They needed someone to care and it wasn't against the law to put my arms around their little pathetic bodies. Now it is. 

The functioning kids of today, often have both parents in their lives and those parents pay attention to their kids. One can see that is their eyes, also.

This is not to imply that a one-parent household cannot bring up quality kids. 

What to do about the problem?  No banning will heal. Only love and as little negative emotional interference in their early, developing minds, would be good for starters.


----------



## eflatminor

Foxfyre said:


> So one person says that there has been a decrease in crime despite an escalation of media and video game violence.



Correct.  



> There has also been a huge increase in gun sales since the President and Congress have been talking more gun control too and that has been going on for several years now.   So it is just as easy to say that more guns, less crime.



Them's the facts.



> And the correlation of either is most likely not translatable as causation.



Why not?  You'll have to prove that.  We've got reams of proof that more guns = less crime.  Why, there's even a book dedicated to the subject called...wait for it..."More Guns, Less Crime".  It's a VERY informative read.



> But the fact is, four or so decades ago, most of us had no worries about some gunman invading a school with the intent of doing mayhem.  Schools were not equipped with armed guards and locked doors and lockdowns being a common part of the routine.  The kids could have a pen knife on their key chain or a jackknife in their pocket and that was perfectly okay.   And guns were just as much a part of the culture then as they are now.
> 
> So what's different now?



Media hysteria and increased control by central planners that cannot stand the idea of an armed populace.  That would be my guess.

Either way, the facts are we are a far less violent society today when we were kids despite the exponential increase in firearm sales.


----------



## AmyNation

A ten year old cannot go in to a game store and buy a video game that is rated for 17+. As to amazon, they don't check your age, but id assume that's because most 10 year olds don't have a credit card.


----------



## bobcollum

Foxfyre said:


> bobcollum said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 007 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The rating system is broken and should be reviewed.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'd bet all games that feature life-like violence get the M rating, which is supposed to be 17 and up.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I honestly don't know much about the criteria they use to rate anything anymore.  My Rise of Nations game is rated T (teen) but I'm pretty sure any person of any age could purchase this game.  My Civilzation IV game, which is based on a similar concept to Rise of Nations, is rated E (everyone) but the people who are killed don't scream in agony in Civ IV.
> 
> I have another one "Oasis" that somebody gave me and I haven't tried but the explanation on it is "Rescue your lands and defend your empire" which suggests warfare and it is also rated E (everyone.)
> 
> But those video games where you go through the halways machine gunning everything you see, having sex with people, etc. etc. etc.--how are they rated?   And can a 10-year-old go into the game shop and buy one or order one from Amazon?
> 
> I wonder how many parents check out the games their kids are playing?
Click to expand...


I don't think of Rise of Nations or Civ IV to be life-like violence, when compared to games like Call of Duty, Battlefield, or Grand Theft Auto. 

Anything with that level of realistic violence, or mature themes, especially involving sexual situations, are and should be rated M.


----------



## AmyNation

eflatminor said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> So one person says that there has been a decrease in crime despite an escalation of media and video game violence.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correct.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There has also been a huge increase in gun sales since the President and Congress have been talking more gun control too and that has been going on for several years now.   So it is just as easy to say that more guns, less crime.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Them's the facts.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And the correlation of either is most likely not translatable as causation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why not?  You'll have to prove that.  We've got reams of proof that more guns = less crime.  Why, there's even a book dedicated to the subject called...wait for it..."More Guns, Less Crime".  It's a VERY informative read.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But the fact is, four or so decades ago, most of us had no worries about some gunman invading a school with the intent of doing mayhem.  Schools were not equipped with armed guards and locked doors and lockdowns being a common part of the routine.  The kids could have a pen knife on their key chain or a jackknife in their pocket and that was perfectly okay.   And guns were just as much a part of the culture then as they are now.
> 
> So what's different now?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Media hysteria and increased control by central planners that cannot stand the idea of an armed populace.  That would be my guess.
> 
> Either way, the facts are we are a far less violent society today when we were kids despite the exponential increase in firearm sales.
Click to expand...


Exactly. Its the overzealous media that make us feel like America has become unsafe, when stats show the exact opposite.

Someone mentioned in a different thread that school shootings started in the 70's, and was surprised when I pointed out that the 1st mass school shooting was actually 1764.


----------



## bobcollum

Reading a little further into it, there's a varying scale of violent and sexual depictions that can at times place the T rating on games, sometimes the M rating. 

Entertainment Software Rating Board - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## Foxfyre

Keep it going people.  

Swagger suggests an emphasis on multiculturalism is creating a backlash, or if we are perhaps a bit more introspective, we could say that it is destablilizing a coherant society in which we all felt that we belonged and were safe.  I'm not quite ready to buy into that as a reason for mass violence, but as one who sees both politcal correctness and multiculturalism as being destructive forces in society, I sure agree that the concept belongs in the debate and should be considered.

AquaAthena focuses on the breakdown of the family, another subject near and dear to my heart and one that I point to as one of the more destructive aspects of our modern society.  Again I am not quite ready to zero in on that as a reason for mass murders, but it sure belongs in the debate.

AmyNation points to incidents in the past and assures us that we don't need to worry about kids getting their hands on inappropriate media.  I don't know if she is suggesting that the recent rash of mass shootings is just same old same old, but that too belongs in the debate.

007 points to crappy parenting and while I think that might be a consequence of all the rest of it, I sure think it belongs in the debate.

All I know is that our schools were pretty much open to anybody who wanted to visit at any time, nobody was checked at the door, and I felt that my kids were perfectly safe at school or at the concert or at the movies or at the ballgame.  If they were in school now, I would no longer take that for granted.


----------



## bobcollum

I don't believe it, but if Polerider thinks it's more of a parenting issue, I agree with him. 

In the end, it's all about right and wrong, and understanding the difference between the two. That's one of the primary jobs of a parent, to teach their children the difference and why it's important to do what's right, and avoid what's wrong. 

When a child understands that, nothing that comes after should be a problem.


----------



## AmyNation

I'm suggesting the "recent rash" is not a recent rash. Again, we don't have an uptick in violence and mass killings, despite what your preception may be.


----------



## Foxfyre

bobcollum said:


> I don't believe it, but if Polerider thinks it's more of a parenting issue, I agree with him.
> 
> In the end, it's all about right and wrong, and understanding the difference between the two. That's one of the primary jobs of a parent, to teach their children the difference and why it's important to do what's right, and avoid what's wrong.
> 
> When a child understands that, nothing that comes after should be a problem.



There is a certain dynamic at play here that parenting doesn't always address though.

How many kids cheat on tests in order to win that higher grade.  Why?  For the benefits, prestige, or praise that a higher grade offers.

How many kids lie or exaggerate  in an effort to increase their importance or status with their peers or others?

Making ourselves look bigger, smarter, more appealing, more capable, more important - or - feeling inferior because we feel we haven't accomplished that - has always been important to kids.  (Many adults as well.)

But there was a time in America in which decent society expected a certain conduct from people and those who seriously broke out of societal expectations were criticized, scorned, and shunned.  Movie stars could lose their contracts; sports stars were kicked off teams; rock stars would have an engagement cancelled.  The language and content of movies, music, magazines, and books were all expected to meet basic standards of decency.  It was shocking when Rhett Butler said "damn" to Scarlett O'Hara.   "Wake Up Little Susie" was once banned in West Texas because it was just too risque.

Okay there was room to relax some of those restrictions. But now movie stars can behave abysmally and are rewarded with Oscars, musicians can be the scum of the earth, strung out on and exalt drugs, etc. and still be rock stars adores by millions.  A Michael Vick can be exalted as a quarter back and a convicted rapist can return to the boxing ring or be invited to speak at important functions.

And we have violent video games in which success and victory is measured in how much mayhem you can commit and how many people you can kill.

Is that all part of it?   I don't know for sure, but I sure think it needs to be included in the debate.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones

Foxfyre said:


> So one person says that there has been a decrease in crime despite an escalation of media and video game violence.
> 
> There has also been a huge increase in gun sales since the President and Congress have been talking more gun control too and that has been going on for several years now.   So it is just as easy to say that more guns, less crime.
> 
> And the correlation of either is most likely not translatable as causation.
> 
> But the fact is, four or so decades ago, most of us had no worries about some gunman invading a school with the intent of doing mayhem.  Schools were not equipped with armed guards and locked doors and lockdowns being a common part of the routine.  The kids could have a pen knife on their key chain or a jackknife in their pocket and that was perfectly okay.   And guns were just as much a part of the culture then as they are now.
> 
> So what's different now?



Perception. 

Our culture was just a violent 40  50 years ago as today, if not more so. 

From the assassinations of Dr King and the Kennedys, to Charles Whitman and Vietnam, Americans were subjected to equally horrendous acts of violence. 

Limited conduits of media at the time, however, as opposed to today, create the illusion of a more violent contemporary culture.  

The advent of social conservatism and Christian fundamentalism in a partisan context some 40 years ago - the point at which many perceive our culture as better and less violent than today - is not a coincidence; indeed, rhetoric about society today being immoral and abnormal is a creation of the social right in an effort undermine Constitutional case law and public policy decisions social conservatives object to, but lack justification to oppose legislatively or in the courts. 

Frustrated by failed efforts to codify social conservative and fundamentalist religious dogma into secular law, the social right contrived the myth of liberal promiscuity, the inane canard that all of societys ills were the direct result of a culture that no longer values personal responsibility, and rewards selfishness and lack of self-reliance. 

Needless to say, nothing could be further from the truth. 

Americans enjoy greater freedom today than at any point in our Nations history; this includes freedom of personal expression many on the social right might find offensive. But thats the very nature of a free society, and forms of free expression that manifest controversy are an accurate indication of individual liberty safeguarded and a government appropriately restrained. 

Consequently, when a social conservative hears rap music he finds offensive, he needs to perceive that as confirmation of each Americans personal liberty, and license for the social conservative to live his life as he sees fit, and to express himself in a manner others might indeed find offensive as well.


----------



## elvis

Foxfyre said:


> NOTE:  Clean debate zone thread here. . . .
> 
> This morning I was listening to a concept put out by a military psychologist who suggests that it is not guns that are the problem in a 'violent America', but rather the changed American culture.  Violent concepts are prevalent in our television programs, movies, comic books, music, and most especially in video games that are available in large quantities to very young children.
> 
> His theory is that this is desensitizing young people to violence and even exalting and promoting it.
> 
> Are video games conditioning kids to accept violence as virtue?  As the way to get things accomplished?  To win?  To reach the pinnacle of success?  In many/most of video games out there, it is necessary to be ruthless in order to win the game.  Does this change the way people view their world in an unhealthy way?
> 
> If you do see this as a problem, how do you get around censorship as being somehow better than gun control?  Do you want the government to have power in that area?
> 
> Or is there a way for the public/radio/Hollywood  to self censor itself as it once did?  And should we push for that?
> 
> Or maybe you don't see it as a problem at all?



18 and over stickers.   No ban on guns or video games...


----------



## Foxfyre

Actually I could accept that Elvis.  And maybe just don't make the violent video games so accessible/tempting to the younger kids by keeping them out of sight like convenience stores do with porn magazines.  At least lock them up like they do cigarettes.  We make it illegal to give booze to kids.  Should it be made illegal to buy them other products that are rated for adults only?


----------



## Foxfyre

And noting that C_Clayton_Jones puts all the nations problems at the feet of social conservatives, but did not offer a comment on how that promotes mass violence or how getting rid of those social conservatives would correct the problem.


----------



## Noomi

Foxfyre said:


> NOTE:  Clean debate zone thread here. . . .
> 
> This morning I was listening to a concept put out by a military psychologist who suggests that it is not guns that are the problem in a 'violent America', but rather the changed American culture.  Violent concepts are prevalent in our television programs, movies, comic books, music, and most especially in video games that are available in large quantities to very young children.
> 
> His theory is that this is desensitizing young people to violence and even exalting and promoting it.
> 
> Are video games conditioning kids to accept violence as virtue?  As the way to get things accomplished?  To win?  To reach the pinnacle of success?  In many/most of video games out there, it is necessary to be ruthless in order to win the game.  Does this change the way people view their world in an unhealthy way?
> 
> If you do see this as a problem, how do you get around censorship as being somehow better than gun control?  Do you want the government to have power in that area?
> 
> Or is there a way for the public/radio/Hollywood  to self censor itself as it once did?  And should we push for that?
> 
> Or maybe you don't see it as a problem at all?



Video games are already restricted - or at least, they should be. Games like Grand Theft Auto are restricted to over 18's - but you can't prevent parents buying the game for their ten year old child.

They can 'censor' video games by restricting them to certain ages. That doesn't take away the enjoyment from anyone.


----------



## Noomi

Foxfyre said:


> Actually I could accept that Elvis.  And maybe just don't make the violent video games so accessible/tempting to the younger kids by keeping them out of sight like convenience stores do with porn magazines.  At least lock them up like they do cigarettes.  We make it illegal to give booze to kids.  Should it be made illegal to buy them other products that are rated for adults only?



Of course it should - does America have any restrictions on what video games kids can buy?


----------



## Connery

Foxfyre said:


> NOTE:  Clean debate zone thread here. . . .
> 
> This morning I was listening to a concept put out by a military psychologist who suggests that it is not guns that are the problem in a 'violent America', but rather the changed American culture.  Violent concepts are prevalent in our television programs, movies, comic books, music, and most especially in video games that are available in large quantities to very young children.
> 
> His theory is that this is desensitizing young people to violence and even exalting and promoting it.
> 
> Are video games conditioning kids to accept violence as virtue?  As the way to get things accomplished?  To win?  To reach the pinnacle of success?  In many/most of video games out there, it is necessary to be ruthless in order to win the game.  Does this change the way people view their world in an unhealthy way?
> 
> If you do see this as a problem, how do you get around censorship as being somehow better than gun control?  Do you want the government to have power in that area?
> 
> Or is there a way for the public/radio/Hollywood  to self censor itself as it once did?  And should we push for that?
> 
> Or maybe you don't see it as a problem at all?



US society has always exulted violence, guns and death, this can be demonstrated by the gangster films of the 1930'& 1940's, war films and television during the 1960's. If anything, society has gotten too soft and does not deal with it's problems, always looking for a quick fix such as  blaming "medication" or video games.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD


----------



## Swagger

Noomi said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> Actually I could accept that Elvis.  And maybe just don't make the violent video games so accessible/tempting to the younger kids by keeping them out of sight like convenience stores do with porn magazines.  At least lock them up like they do cigarettes.  We make it illegal to give booze to kids.  Should it be made illegal to buy them other products that are rated for adults only?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Of course it should - does America have any restrictions on what video games kids can buy?
Click to expand...


The UK does, but it's hardly, if ever, enforced. Personally speaking, I think that the only viable deterrent is for society in general to treat the irresponsible fools who provide their kids with adult material with scorn and brand them as bad parents. Willfully irresponsible parenting needs to be stigmatised along the lines of how society treats rapists.


----------



## Noomi

Swagger said:


> Noomi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> Actually I could accept that Elvis.  And maybe just don't make the violent video games so accessible/tempting to the younger kids by keeping them out of sight like convenience stores do with porn magazines.  At least lock them up like they do cigarettes.  We make it illegal to give booze to kids.  Should it be made illegal to buy them other products that are rated for adults only?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Of course it should - does America have any restrictions on what video games kids can buy?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The UK does, but it's hardly, if ever, enforced. Personally speaking, I think that the only viable deterrent is for society in general to treat the irresponsible fools who provide their kids with adult material with scorn and brand them as bad parents. Willfully irresponsible parenting needs to be stigmatised along the lines of how society treats rapists.
Click to expand...


I agree with that.

My aunt used to go out and buy violent video games for her son (my cousin) when he was only 12. She'd allow him to sit and play for hours and hours on end, so much so that his eyes (he had worn glasses since he was a small child) would squint up. He was unable to look at you with scrunching his eyes. It was awful.


----------



## Foxfyre

Connery said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> NOTE:  Clean debate zone thread here. . . .
> 
> This morning I was listening to a concept put out by a military psychologist who suggests that it is not guns that are the problem in a 'violent America', but rather the changed American culture.  Violent concepts are prevalent in our television programs, movies, comic books, music, and most especially in video games that are available in large quantities to very young children.
> 
> His theory is that this is desensitizing young people to violence and even exalting and promoting it.
> 
> Are video games conditioning kids to accept violence as virtue?  As the way to get things accomplished?  To win?  To reach the pinnacle of success?  In many/most of video games out there, it is necessary to be ruthless in order to win the game.  Does this change the way people view their world in an unhealthy way?
> 
> If you do see this as a problem, how do you get around censorship as being somehow better than gun control?  Do you want the government to have power in that area?
> 
> Or is there a way for the public/radio/Hollywood  to self censor itself as it once did?  And should we push for that?
> 
> Or maybe you don't see it as a problem at all?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> US society has always exulted violence, guns and death, this can be demonstrated by the gangster films of the 1930'& 1940's, war films and television during the 1960's. If anything, society has gotten too soft and does not deal with it's problems, always looking for a quick fix such as  blaming "medication" or video games.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD
Click to expand...


There is a subtle difference though Connery.   Somehow those war films were different.  They supported our troops and our reason for being in the war, but carefully avoided showing graphic violence and kept disturbing scenes to a minimum.  By Vietnam they were mostly critical of the war and showed it in the most negative light.  The popular TV sitcom M.A.S.H. showed a more gentle humane character of the American spirit, mostly because the actors refused to do the show if it exalted war in any way.

But those old gangster movies were in the same vein as the Saturday afternoon western matinees.  You KNEW who were the bad guys and who were the good guys.  Breaking the law was not portrayed as okay, funny, and did not glorify those who did it.

You didn't have bad characters portrayed sympathetically and as heroes or somebody to admire.


----------



## Swagger

Noomi said:


> Swagger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Noomi said:
> 
> 
> 
> Of course it should - does America have any restrictions on what video games kids can buy?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The UK does, but it's hardly, if ever, enforced. Personally speaking, I think that the only viable deterrent is for society in general to treat the irresponsible fools who provide their kids with adult material with scorn and brand them as bad parents. Willfully irresponsible parenting needs to be stigmatised along the lines of how society treats rapists.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I agree with that.
> 
> My aunt used to go out and buy violent video games for her son (my cousin) when he was only 12. She'd allow him to sit and play for hours and hours on end, so much so that his eyes (he had worn glasses since he was a small child) would squint up. He was unable to look at you with scrunching his eyes. It was awful.
Click to expand...


In 1993 a 3-year-old boy called James Bulger went shopping with his mother in the city of Liverpool. During the trip he was lured away by two ten-year-old boys called Robert Thompson and Jon Venables. Police later found Bulger's body with 42 wounds. He'd been beaten to death with an iron pipe by a railway siding. During their inquiries, investigating officers discovered the two suspects' parents would often allow them to watch violent films, Reservoir Dogs being one of their favourites. They remain the youngest people convicted of murder by a British court. They're free now, and live under different identities because the usual bleeding hearts deemed their punishment excessive.






Murder of James Bulger - Wikipedia


----------



## Connery

Foxfyre said:


> Connery said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> NOTE:  Clean debate zone thread here. . . .
> 
> This morning I was listening to a concept put out by a military psychologist who suggests that it is not guns that are the problem in a 'violent America', but rather the changed American culture.  Violent concepts are prevalent in our television programs, movies, comic books, music, and most especially in video games that are available in large quantities to very young children.
> 
> His theory is that this is desensitizing young people to violence and even exalting and promoting it.
> 
> Are video games conditioning kids to accept violence as virtue?  As the way to get things accomplished?  To win?  To reach the pinnacle of success?  In many/most of video games out there, it is necessary to be ruthless in order to win the game.  Does this change the way people view their world in an unhealthy way?
> 
> If you do see this as a problem, how do you get around censorship as being somehow better than gun control?  Do you want the government to have power in that area?
> 
> Or is there a way for the public/radio/Hollywood  to self censor itself as it once did?  And should we push for that?
> 
> Or maybe you don't see it as a problem at all?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> US society has always exulted violence, guns and death, this can be demonstrated by the gangster films of the 1930'& 1940's, war films and television during the 1960's. If anything, society has gotten too soft and does not deal with it's problems, always looking for a quick fix such as  blaming "medication" or video games.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There is a subtle difference though Connery.   Somehow those war films were different.  They supported our troops and our reason for being in the war, but carefully avoided showing graphic violence and kept disturbing scenes to a minimum.  By Vietnam they were mostly critical of the war and showed it in the most negative light.  The popular TV sitcom M.A.S.H. showed a more gentle humane character of the American spirit, mostly because the actors refused to do the show if it exalted war in any way.
> 
> But those old gangster movies were in the same vein as the Saturday afternoon western matinees.  You KNEW who were the bad guys and who were the good guys.  Breaking the law was not portrayed as okay, funny, and did not glorify those who did it.
> 
> You didn't have bad characters portrayed sympathetically and as heroes or somebody to admire.
Click to expand...


The fact that a side was chosen or that right proved to be "might" is not my point......the answers had elements of a level of violence which put and end to human life. This is an aspect of American life that is interwoven in almost every aspect of society including church, I.E. the Bible.  I do not believe banning video games and such is the answer at all it identifying patterns and addressing those issues, for example.


----------



## Noomi

Swagger said:


> Noomi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Swagger said:
> 
> 
> 
> The UK does, but it's hardly, if ever, enforced. Personally speaking, I think that the only viable deterrent is for society in general to treat the irresponsible fools who provide their kids with adult material with scorn and brand them as bad parents. Willfully irresponsible parenting needs to be stigmatised along the lines of how society treats rapists.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I agree with that.
> 
> My aunt used to go out and buy violent video games for her son (my cousin) when he was only 12. She'd allow him to sit and play for hours and hours on end, so much so that his eyes (he had worn glasses since he was a small child) would squint up. He was unable to look at you with scrunching his eyes. It was awful.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> In 1993 a little boy called James Bulger went shopping with his mother in the city of Liverpool. During the trip he was lured away by two ten-year-old boys called Robert Thompson and Jon Venables. Police later found Bulger's body with 42 wounds. He'd been beaten to death with an iron pipe by a railway siding. During their inquiries, investigating officers discovered the two suspects' parents would often allow them to watch violent films, Reservoir Dogs being one of their favourites. They remain the youngest people convicted of murder by a British court. They're free now, and live under different identities because the usual bleeding hearts deemed their punishment excessive.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Murder of James Bulger - Wikipedia
Click to expand...


That case, and that video footage, will stick with me forever. Horrific case - and those sick freaks should NEVER have been allowed out of prison.


----------



## AmyNation

Yeah! Lock up those little children forever! 

I love that there's one thread going pointing out the lefts hypocrisy ie blaming guns and ignoring hollywood violence, while this thread is going, where people are attempting to blame video games for violence and wondering what laws the government should make to make it all better.


----------



## Foxfyre

AmyNation said:


> Yeah! Lock up those little children forever!
> 
> I love that there's one thread going pointing out the lefts hypocrisy ie blaming guns and ignoring hollywood violence, while this thread is going, where people are attempting to blame video games for violence and wondering what laws the government should make to make it all better.



Really?  You think that is what this thread is about?


----------



## Trajan

I remember tipper Gore and the V-chip and tipper stickers and all that and I know that that was confined basically to music and and audio materials but I think she also decided that she wanted to take a stand against graphic violence as well, and was beat up for it. 

We are flooded with graphic, salacious, violent materials, I really don't see a way round it.


----------



## eflatminor

Trajan said:


> I remember tipper Gore and the V-chip and tipper stickers and all that and I know that that was confined basically to music and and audio materials but I think she also decided that she wanted to take a stand against graphic violence as well, and was beat up for it.
> 
> We are flooded with graphic, salacious, violent materials, I really don't see a way round it.



I don't either, but I'm not sure I care.  We watched the Roadrunner get blown up and a safe dropped on his head.  Crime, gun crime, violent crime, murders and mass killings were all worse then.  Maybe violent video games lead to fewer violent acts?

I'm not aware of a study that proves this, but a there is a parallel with pornography, where several studies show that more porn = less rape.  Rape isn't the same thing as shooting someone of course, but they're both categorized as violent acts.  Worth consideration I think.

Proof that Internet porn prevents rape. - Slate Magazine


----------



## Foxfyre

Trajan said:


> I remember tipper Gore and the V-chip and tipper stickers and all that and I know that that was confined basically to music and and audio materials but I think she also decided that she wanted to take a stand against graphic violence as well, and was beat up for it.
> 
> We are flooded with graphic, salacious, violent materials, I really don't see a way round it.



I have NO problem with the V chip concept as long as it is a voluntary option.  I am all for giving parents all the tools they need to utilize modern technology without exposing their kids to a whole bunch of stuff kids shouldn't be exposed to.

But based on the concepts set out in the OP and other studies that 007 posted, I honestly don't think we can stick our heads in the sand and just ignore the effect that non stop graphic violence can have on the young and susceptible.  Of course more government controls are not the answer.   But surely in a world in which multiculturalism and political correctness and smoking etiquette and all manner of other cultural concepts can be foisted on the general public as mandatory conduct, we can find a way to make exposing children to such graphic violence so socially offensive and unacceptable that parents will begin to pay attention?


----------



## P F Tinmore

AmyNation said:


> Ban guns
> Ban Hollywood violence
> Ban antidepressants
> 
> 
> It's all the same blame game.



Ban gun free zones. All these shooting happen in gun free zones.


----------



## Foxfyre

eflatminor said:


> Trajan said:
> 
> 
> 
> I remember tipper Gore and the V-chip and tipper stickers and all that and I know that that was confined basically to music and and audio materials but I think she also decided that she wanted to take a stand against graphic violence as well, and was beat up for it.
> 
> We are flooded with graphic, salacious, violent materials, I really don't see a way round it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't either, but I'm not sure I care.  We watched the Roadrunner get blown up and a safe dropped on his head.  Crime, gun crime, violent crime, murders and mass killings were all worse then.  Maybe violent video games lead to fewer violent acts?
> 
> I'm not aware of a study that proves this, but a there is a parallel with pornography, where several studies show that more porn = less rape.  Rape isn't the same thing as shooting someone of course, but they're both categorized as violent acts.  Worth consideration I think.
> 
> Proof that Internet porn prevents rape. - Slate Magazine
Click to expand...


But did you read those studies that were posted?    The OP was not looking for correlations for violent crime including rape, but rather exploring the fundamental changes in normal cultural behavior that would prompt somebody to plan and execute a mass murder.


----------



## JustTheFacts

All these people blaming this and blaming that are missing the real culprit.

I own guns, I play violent video games ,so do my children ( age appropriate of course) and I've managed to not kill innocent people in real life.

So have millions of  others.

Let's call a spade a spade, PARENTS are to blame.

Those video games Elvis wants a sticker on? They are already rated just like movies, and you can't buy them if you're underage. But parents buy them for the wrong audience all the time.

I raise my kids and was raised no video games during the week, one hour of television a night, also if you got in trouble at school, you got in more trouble at home. Also, no sugar during the week. And a set bedtime. 

Likewise if my kids don't pay attention in school , I don't medicate them, I kick them in the ass. 

Yes, mix enough ADHD drugs,, sugar, and violent video games and you might get a kid who can't tell reality from make believe; but by themselves video games are not to blame. I've been playing video games since the Atari2600 in 1973. I've probably killed ten million video beings, but I've also been an NFL QB, a major league baseball pitcher, a NBA point guard, a secret agent, a mobster, an astronaut, a pirate, a dictator, and on and on. 

I've never tried to do any of those things in real life either.


----------



## eflatminor

Foxfyre said:


> eflatminor said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Trajan said:
> 
> 
> 
> I remember tipper Gore and the V-chip and tipper stickers and all that and I know that that was confined basically to music and and audio materials but I think she also decided that she wanted to take a stand against graphic violence as well, and was beat up for it.
> 
> We are flooded with graphic, salacious, violent materials, I really don't see a way round it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't either, but I'm not sure I care.  We watched the Roadrunner get blown up and a safe dropped on his head.  Crime, gun crime, violent crime, murders and mass killings were all worse then.  Maybe violent video games lead to fewer violent acts?
> 
> I'm not aware of a study that proves this, but a there is a parallel with pornography, where several studies show that more porn = less rape.  Rape isn't the same thing as shooting someone of course, but they're both categorized as violent acts.  Worth consideration I think.
> 
> Proof that Internet porn prevents rape. - Slate Magazine
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But did you read those studies that were posted?    The OP was not looking for correlations for violent crime including rape, but rather exploring the fundamental changes in normal cultural behavior that would prompt somebody to plan and execute a mass murder.
Click to expand...


It seems to me that the changes in normal cultural behavior have resulted in a safer, less violent society.  I'm cool with that.


----------



## Foxfyre

JustTheFacts said:


> All these people blaming this and blaming that are missing the real culprit.
> 
> I own guns, I play violent video games ,so do my children ( age appropriate of course) and I've managed to not kill innocent people in real life.
> 
> So have millions of  others.
> 
> Let's call a spade a spade, PARENTS are to blame.
> 
> Those video games Elvis wants a sticker on? They are already rated just like movies, and you can't buy them if you're underage. But parents buy them for the wrong audience all the time.
> 
> I raise my kids and was raised no video games during the week, one hour of television a night, also if you got in trouble at school, you got in more trouble at home. Also, no sugar during the week. And a set bedtime.
> 
> Likewise if my kids don't pay attention in school , I don't medicate them, I kick them in the ass.
> 
> Yes, mix enough ADHD drugs,, sugar, and violent video games and you might get a kid who can't tell reality from make believe; but by themselves video games are not to blame. I've been playing video games since the Atari2600 in 1973. I've probably killed ten million video beings, but I've also been an NFL QB, a major league baseball pitcher, a NBA point guard, a secret agent, a mobster, an astronaut, a pirate, a dictator, and on and on.
> 
> I've never tried to do any of those things in real life either.



Good for you for actually parenting your children.  We did pretty much the same with ours, though our rules weren't as tough as yours.  

But were you an adult when you started playing those games?  I was.  So I don't know how the age unappropriate games might affect a susceptible young mind.


----------



## Swagger

Foxfyre said:


> Trajan said:
> 
> 
> 
> I remember tipper Gore and the V-chip and tipper stickers and all that and I know that that was confined basically to music and and audio materials but I think she also decided that she wanted to take a stand against graphic violence as well, and was beat up for it.
> 
> We are flooded with graphic, salacious, violent materials, I really don't see a way round it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I have NO problem with the V chip concept as long as it is a voluntary option.  I am all for giving parents all the tools they need to utilize modern technology without exposing their kids to a whole bunch of stuff kids shouldn't be exposed to.
> 
> But based on the concepts set out in the OP and other studies that 007 posted, I honestly don't think we can stick our heads in the sand and just ignore the effect that non stop graphic violence can have on the young and susceptible.  Of course more government controls are not the answer.   But surely in a world in which multiculturalism and political correctness and smoking etiquette and all manner of other cultural concepts can be foisted on the general public as mandatory conduct, *we can find a way to make exposing children to such graphic violence so socially offensive and unacceptable that parents will begin to pay attention?*
Click to expand...


I'd be more interested in finding out about who lobbys the U.S. government on behalf of the video gaming industry. The revenue these games must generate is staggering, so I'm guessing that any pressure group that tries to dissuade kids from playing these games would be thwarted by the kind of clout the income from these games can buy. Not to mention the licensing fees the arms manufacturers make from having their weapons featured in the likes of Modern Warfare.

Another factor that hasn't been mentioned in this thread is that these modern shoot 'em-up games draws from special forces activity (and the allure and mystery of these brigades), which means that the government could come across as hypocritical if they attempted to interfere in the gaming industry's business i.e. - 'we're only portraying what everyone knows you guys authorise'.


----------



## beagle9

Foxfyre said:


> NOTE:  Clean debate zone thread here. . . .
> 
> This morning I was listening to a concept put out by a military psychologist who suggests that it is not guns that are the problem in a 'violent America', but rather the changed American culture.  Violent concepts are prevalent in our television programs, movies, comic books, music, and most especially in video games that are available in large quantities to very young children.
> 
> His theory is that this is desensitizing young people to violence and even exalting and promoting it.
> 
> Are video games conditioning kids to accept violence as virtue?  As the way to get things accomplished?  To win?  To reach the pinnacle of success?  In many/most of video games out there, it is necessary to be ruthless in order to win the game.  Does this change the way people view their world in an unhealthy way?
> 
> If you do see this as a problem, how do you get around censorship as being somehow better than gun control?  Do you want the government to have power in that area?
> 
> Or is there a way for the public/radio/Hollywood  to self censor itself as it once did?  And should we push for that?
> 
> Or maybe you don't see it as a problem at all?


If we creat the proper stage for a peaceful mindset to flourish again in our youth, in which to be exposed to in America, and yes of course it can be done again easily, then we will have won the big battle once again. The guns are not the problem, and this is to all the idiots whom think that they are, but rather they are acting as the first piece of solid evidence found in the problems in which we now have in America and within our society, especially when being used in the ways that they are in these crimes now-a-day's, and especially by these youth's in which are now on the rise it seems more and more in America these days, so why is this ? Hollywood is the main culprit in the situation thus far (imho), and after that it is the public school system that exposes many to the woes of a youth's corrupted mindset now, and for whom are many times emulating hollywood in a bad way these days. They are carring this taught rebellion straight into the general population of a public school system now. Then we have the radical mindset of the adults that were ealier affected by hollywood's radical changes in unhealthy percentages of, who want to steer their opinions into the youth these days also, and they are doing this freely through the public school system as well. It's almost a no win situation for these youths these days and their cultures. 

Now I am for good sensorship, just like I am for good regulation as well on some of this stuff, because we shouldn't be allowing as a nation, to just let anything go like we have been, yet we should be careful also not to go to far where as we become as a dictatorship, and an oppressive government that just goes way to far when it comes to what should or shouldnot be going on within our nation. It (the government along with Hollywood) has already gone to far now, and in the wrong direction they have since gone, so should we be trying to bring it all back to a normal range in percentages of ((YES)), and this would solve alot of things if we could do just that, and that only.


----------



## JustTheFacts

Foxfyre said:


> JustTheFacts said:
> 
> 
> 
> All these people blaming this and blaming that are missing the real culprit.
> 
> I own guns, I play violent video games ,so do my children ( age appropriate of course) and I've managed to not kill innocent people in real life.
> 
> So have millions of  others.
> 
> Let's call a spade a spade, PARENTS are to blame.
> 
> Those video games Elvis wants a sticker on? They are already rated just like movies, and you can't buy them if you're underage. But parents buy them for the wrong audience all the time.
> 
> I raise my kids and was raised no video games during the week, one hour of television a night, also if you got in trouble at school, you got in more trouble at home. Also, no sugar during the week. And a set bedtime.
> 
> Likewise if my kids don't pay attention in school , I don't medicate them, I kick them in the ass.
> 
> Yes, mix enough ADHD drugs,, sugar, and violent video games and you might get a kid who can't tell reality from make believe; but by themselves video games are not to blame. I've been playing video games since the Atari2600 in 1973. I've probably killed ten million video beings, but I've also been an NFL QB, a major league baseball pitcher, a NBA point guard, a secret agent, a mobster, an astronaut, a pirate, a dictator, and on and on.
> 
> I've never tried to do any of those things in real life either.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Good for you for actually parenting your children.  We did pretty much the same with ours, though our rules weren't as tough as yours.
> 
> But were you an adult when you started playing those games?  I was.  So I don't know how the age unappropriate games might affect a susceptible young mind.
Click to expand...


no i was not an adult, I'm 42 now , I've been playing them since I was 7 years old. Although the new games are obviously a LOT more graphic than the games of my youth.


----------



## AmyNation

eflatminor said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eflatminor said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't either, but I'm not sure I care.  We watched the Roadrunner get blown up and a safe dropped on his head.  Crime, gun crime, violent crime, murders and mass killings were all worse then.  Maybe violent video games lead to fewer violent acts?
> 
> I'm not aware of a study that proves this, but a there is a parallel with pornography, where several studies show that more porn = less rape.  Rape isn't the same thing as shooting someone of course, but they're both categorized as violent acts.  Worth consideration I think.
> 
> Proof that Internet porn prevents rape. - Slate Magazine
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But did you read those studies that were posted?    The OP was not looking for correlations for violent crime including rape, but rather exploring the fundamental changes in normal cultural behavior that would prompt somebody to plan and execute a mass murder.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It seems to me that the changes in normal cultural behavior have resulted in a safer, less violent society.*  I'm cool with that*.
Click to expand...


Shocking!


----------



## JustTheFacts

Swagger said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Trajan said:
> 
> 
> 
> I remember tipper Gore and the V-chip and tipper stickers and all that and I know that that was confined basically to music and and audio materials but I think she also decided that she wanted to take a stand against graphic violence as well, and was beat up for it.
> 
> We are flooded with graphic, salacious, violent materials, I really don't see a way round it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I have NO problem with the V chip concept as long as it is a voluntary option.  I am all for giving parents all the tools they need to utilize modern technology without exposing their kids to a whole bunch of stuff kids shouldn't be exposed to.
> 
> But based on the concepts set out in the OP and other studies that 007 posted, I honestly don't think we can stick our heads in the sand and just ignore the effect that non stop graphic violence can have on the young and susceptible.  Of course more government controls are not the answer.   But surely in a world in which multiculturalism and political correctness and smoking etiquette and all manner of other cultural concepts can be foisted on the general public as mandatory conduct, *we can find a way to make exposing children to such graphic violence so socially offensive and unacceptable that parents will begin to pay attention?*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'd be more interested in finding out about who lobbys the U.S. government on behalf of the video gaming industry. The revenue these games must generate is staggering, so I'm guessing that any pressure group that tries to dissuade kids from playing these games would be thwarted by the kind of clout the income from these games can buy. Not to mention the licensing fees the arms manufacturers make from having their weapons featured in the likes of Modern Warfare.
> 
> Another factor that hasn't been mentioned in this thread is that these modern shoot 'em-up games draws from special forces activity (and the allure and mystery of these brigades), which means that the government could come across as hypocritical if they attempted to interfere in the gaming industry's business i.e. - 'we're only portraying what everyone knows you guys authorise'.
Click to expand...


Yes, the video game industry is a billion dollar a year industry. 

They also submit to a voluntary regulatory agency


Rating categories, content descriptors, and interactive elements from ESRB

EVERY game is rated. And stores will not sell rated M games or higher to those under 17.

AND by the way, the best selling game in the US every year over the last 10 years is actually Madden football. So most games are not violent.

Again, it is PARENTS fault if they are not keeping their kids from playing these games. Not game companies faults for making them.

Do you blame beer manufactures for underage drinking?


----------



## Foxfyre

A lot of thoughtful posts here, people, and I appreciate the careful consideration and effort that went into them. With enough people recognizing that there is a problem and looking for the right way to address it, I think sooner or later our collective wisdom just might come up with the best solution.

As for those who want to say that everything is just hunky dory and fine--move along--there's nothing to see here--I don't know what to say to that.  I simply refuse to believe that the way we are is the best we can do.


----------



## JustTheFacts

Foxfyre said:


> A lot of thoughtful posts here, people, and I appreciate the careful consideration and effort that went into them. With enough people recognizing that there is a problem and looking for the right way to address it, I think sooner or later our collective wisdom just might come up with the best solution.
> 
> As for those who want to say that everything is just hunky dory and fine--move along--there's nothing to see here--I don't know what to say to that.  I simply refuse to believe that the way we are is the best we can do.



Unfortunately the only way to fix it is better parenting.  Unless you want to force parents to be better parents I don't know what we can do.

Taking products off the market isn't a solution.


----------



## Foxfyre

JustTheFacts said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> A lot of thoughtful posts here, people, and I appreciate the careful consideration and effort that went into them. With enough people recognizing that there is a problem and looking for the right way to address it, I think sooner or later our collective wisdom just might come up with the best solution.
> 
> As for those who want to say that everything is just hunky dory and fine--move along--there's nothing to see here--I don't know what to say to that.  I simply refuse to believe that the way we are is the best we can do.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unfortunately the only way to fix it is better parenting.  Unless you want to force parents to be better parents I don't know what we can do.
> 
> Taking products off the market isn't a solution.
Click to expand...


Parenting, or the quality of it, is also a cultural thing.  And currently the culture isn't promoting good parenting.  Discourages it sometimes actually.  So that is another component to consider.


----------



## Ravi

Becoming desensitized to violence could make one not be affected by the daily dose of violence on the news, in life, etc. It doesn't mean that someone would go out and mass murder people.

If you accept the premise put forward in the OP then you must also accept that it was Sarah Palin's fault that Gabby Giffords, et al, were shot. After all, putting targets on politicians and telling people to lock and load or whatever idiocy she spouted is just as swaying to the mind as killing cartoon characters.


----------



## Ravi

Article 15 said:


> Swagger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Personally speaking, I don't that computer games are as much to blame as is commonly made out. I think these children and young adults crave something that's being systematically stripped away from Western society: traditionalism.
> 
> Its interesting to me, and keep in mind I am largely unfamiliar with the gaming world being from the Pong and Space Invaders generation, that the games I seem to hear about most are either first-person shoot 'em up games, representing a chance to vent against dehumanized humans, or fantasy worlds decorated generously with traditionalist themes  hierarchy, rites of passage, heroism, monarchy, holy or elite orders, priest and warrior castes, and the existence of extra-material worlds and beings. Some of the biggest franchises in the video gaming industry, HALO and The Elder Scrolls being two that I am aware of, are overflowing with the traditional.
> 
> Video games companies aren't transforming these avid young gamers into throne and alter types, they're simply exposing them for the throne and alter types they already are (without any real world thrones or altars to kneel before).
> 
> Am I making sense here?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I like the Elder Scrolls games but Fallout is my favorite.
> 
> Perhaps I subconsciously desire a primitive post apocalyptic world with no law and order.
Click to expand...

I subconsciously desire to drop anvils on anyone's head that thwarts me. My mother warned me about watching Road Runner but of course I didn't listen.


----------



## TakeAStepBack

AmyNation said:


> Let's say I agree with the premise that video games desensitize the young and promote violence.
> 
> Now what?
> 
> 
> Now that we've all agreed "what's bad" you move to ban them for the good of the public?



Let's take it a step further and say, where were the parents at?


----------



## Swagger

Ravi said:


> Becoming desensitized to violence could make one not be affected by the daily dose of violence on the news, in life, etc. *It doesn't mean that someone would go out and mass murder people.*
> 
> If you accept the premise put forward in the OP then you must also accept that it was Sarah Palin's fault that Gabby Giffords, et al, were shot. After all, putting targets on politicians and telling people to lock and load or whatever idiocy she spouted is just as swaying to the mind as killing cartoon characters.



I agree, in that I don't think that even excessively violent video games are what triggers these killing sprees. Any ideas?


----------



## Foxfyre

And yet those studies that have been linked in this thread do not discount them as a factor.  So do we just shrug off that component and dismiss it as relevent?

Kids are pretty astute at distinguishing fact from fiction.  But they don't spend hours every day immersed in Roadrunner/Coyote cartoons like some do with video games.


----------



## Ravi

Swagger said:


> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> 
> Becoming desensitized to violence could make one not be affected by the daily dose of violence on the news, in life, etc. *It doesn't mean that someone would go out and mass murder people.*
> 
> If you accept the premise put forward in the OP then you must also accept that it was Sarah Palin's fault that Gabby Giffords, et al, were shot. After all, putting targets on politicians and telling people to lock and load or whatever idiocy she spouted is just as swaying to the mind as killing cartoon characters.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I agree, in that I don't think that even excessively violent video games are what triggers these killing sprees. Any ideas?
Click to expand...


The most I'd be willing to conclude is that video games don't create killing sprees, but that mass murderers may enjoy playing first person shooters.

If you are asking me what causes people to kill this way I really couldn't say beyond the probability that it is a multiple of factors.


----------



## Politico

Ban psychologists.


----------



## JustTheFacts

Foxfyre said:


> And yet those studies that have been linked in this thread do not discount them as a factor.  So do we just shrug off that component and dismiss it as relevent?
> 
> Kids are pretty astute at distinguishing fact from fiction.  But they don't spend hours every day immersed in Roadrunner/Coyote cartoons like some do with video games.



and again, that is parenting. My son would have sit for hours playing games to, if I didn't tell him to get his outside and play.

Easy enough to tell a child to turn off a video game.


----------



## BOBO

...games that are perceived to be violent by whoever... is bans in general do not work.  Look @ the ban on pipe bombs,  it was a great idea but did not work...

Virginia pipe bomb suspect arrested after police chase in Montana - CNN.com

Had the same problem when alcohol was banned after the 1st world war.  Even the various state/city firearm bans of today don't seem to work,  in fact violence picks up in firearm free zones...

Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Maybe a ban on computer devices would work???  With no computers how could one play the violent vid games?  Sure,  some folks would have the brains to design the components to build their own computers but few I'm sure.  There would be a certain amount of smuggled computers coming in south of the boarder,  but we could station extra boarder security agents on boarder to arresst those smuggling in illegal computers.  Just a thought.


----------



## Ravi

JustTheFacts said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> And yet those studies that have been linked in this thread do not discount them as a factor.  So do we just shrug off that component and dismiss it as relevent?
> 
> Kids are pretty astute at distinguishing fact from fiction.  But they don't spend hours every day immersed in Roadrunner/Coyote cartoons like some do with video games.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> and again, that is parenting. My son would have sit for hours playing games to, if I didn't tell him to get his outside and play.
> 
> Easy enough to tell a child to turn off a video game.
Click to expand...

Is there a study that proves that violent video games cause murder in real life? Or do the studies merely overlook the probability that murders in real life enjoy violent video games?

Not that I'm championing such a mindless waste of time in a child's life, btw. I just fail to see a definitive conclusion being drawn between games and life.


----------



## AmyNation

Ravi said:


> JustTheFacts said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> And yet those studies that have been linked in this thread do not discount them as a factor.  So do we just shrug off that component and dismiss it as relevent?
> 
> Kids are pretty astute at distinguishing fact from fiction.  But they don't spend hours every day immersed in Roadrunner/Coyote cartoons like some do with video games.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> and again, that is parenting. My son would have sit for hours playing games to, if I didn't tell him to get his outside and play.
> 
> Easy enough to tell a child to turn off a video game.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Is there a study that proves that violent video games cause murder in real life? Or do the studies merely overlook the probability that murders in real life enjoy violent video games?
> 
> Not that I'm championing such a mindless waste of time in a child's life, btw. I just fail to see a definitive conclusion being drawn between games and life.
Click to expand...


There is also the odd fact that the more violent games have become, the lower the murder rate has been.


----------



## Foxfyre

Studies linked earlier in the thread cited a correlation between excessive exposure to violent video games and media and violent behavior.  It did not suggest that everybody so exposed will exhibit violent behavior, but I think what they do tell us merits some attention to be paid.


----------



## JustTheFacts

Ravi said:


> JustTheFacts said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> And yet those studies that have been linked in this thread do not discount them as a factor.  So do we just shrug off that component and dismiss it as relevent?
> 
> Kids are pretty astute at distinguishing fact from fiction.  But they don't spend hours every day immersed in Roadrunner/Coyote cartoons like some do with video games.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> and again, that is parenting. My son would have sit for hours playing games to, if I didn't tell him to get his outside and play.
> 
> Easy enough to tell a child to turn off a video game.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Is there a study that proves that violent video games cause murder in real life? Or do the studies merely overlook the probability that murders in real life enjoy violent video games?
> 
> Not that I'm championing such a mindless waste of time in a child's life, btw. I just fail to see a definitive conclusion being drawn between games and life.
Click to expand...


you''re asking the wrong person, because I don't believe video games are the cause. I believe parenting is the cause.

I 100% believe that since the advent of parenting via a bottle we are seeing more and more kids who just don't care. Got a kid who won't pay attention in school? Hey instead of whipping that ass until they get the point, juts load em up on pills and call it good. Less work; then when you don't want to deal with those kids when they get home from school, just park them in front of a violent video game, hopped up on mind altering drugs and playing violent video games for hours on end? What could go wrong, am I right?


----------



## Foxfyre

And I don't believe a single person this thread has suggested that such games be banned.

What we are having is an adult discussion to determine what, if anything, can be identified that would prompt somebody to commit such mayhem as we saw in Aurora or at Sandy Hook or Columbine etc.  This is a fairly new phenomena in America and is happening with sufficient frequency that I do believe it merits study.


----------



## AmyNation

Mass killings are not a new phenomena in America.


----------



## Ravi

Foxfyre said:


> Studies linked earlier in the thread cited a correlation between excessive exposure to violent video games and media and violent behavior.  It did not suggest that everybody so exposed will exhibit violent behavior, but I think what they do tell us merits some attention to be paid.



Anything can be correlated, that doesn't mean one causes the other.

For instance. We have had numerous horrific disasters since 9/11. Katrina, the Asian tsunami, the earthquake in Haiti, the tsunami in Japan, Sandy....I'm sure I missed some. We get desensitized after awhile which basically translates into saying, "oh, how awful," and moving on with our lives. Which doesn't mean we are going to go out and cause a disaster. THAT is what desensitizing really means.

In the same manner, playing video games, watching movies or cartoons doesn't mean we are going to act them out. If that were true we would have all been dead by now.

But if you have some hard and fast factual basis for your claim, please post it. It hasn't appeared in any of the links in this thread.


----------



## Ravi

AmyNation said:


> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JustTheFacts said:
> 
> 
> 
> and again, that is parenting. My son would have sit for hours playing games to, if I didn't tell him to get his outside and play.
> 
> Easy enough to tell a child to turn off a video game.
> 
> 
> 
> Is there a study that proves that violent video games cause murder in real life? Or do the studies merely overlook the probability that murders in real life enjoy violent video games?
> 
> Not that I'm championing such a mindless waste of time in a child's life, btw. I just fail to see a definitive conclusion being drawn between games and life.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There is also the odd fact that the more violent games have become, the lower the murder rate has been.
Click to expand...

True enough. An interesting statistic.


----------



## Ravi

JustTheFacts said:


> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JustTheFacts said:
> 
> 
> 
> and again, that is parenting. My son would have sit for hours playing games to, if I didn't tell him to get his outside and play.
> 
> Easy enough to tell a child to turn off a video game.
> 
> 
> 
> Is there a study that proves that violent video games cause murder in real life? Or do the studies merely overlook the probability that murders in real life enjoy violent video games?
> 
> Not that I'm championing such a mindless waste of time in a child's life, btw. I just fail to see a definitive conclusion being drawn between games and life.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> you''re asking the wrong person, because I don't believe video games are the cause. I believe parenting is the cause.
> 
> I 100% believe that since the advent of parenting via a bottle we are seeing more and more kids who just don't care. Got a kid who won't pay attention in school? Hey instead of whipping that ass until they get the point, juts load em up on pills and call it good. Less work; then when you don't want to deal with those kids when they get home from school, just park them in front of a violent video game, hopped up on mind altering drugs and playing violent video games for hours on end? What could go wrong, am I right?
Click to expand...

I honestly don't believe that bad parenting creates mass murderers. There are just too many cases of bad parenting not doing just that.


----------



## Foxfyre

Fine.  If ya'll think that correlation doesn't matter, that there is no problem, that we shouldn't be discussing this at all, that's your opinion.  And you'll probably want to find something else to do as those of us who do see a problem may continue to discuss this.

As for mass murders in the USA, here is the history I found:

1900s : 0

1910s: 2

1920s: 2

1930s: 9

1940s: 8

1950s: 1

1960s: 6

1970s: 13

1980s: 32

1990s: 42

2000s: 28

2010s (three years): 14

The history of mass shootings in the U.S. | HeraldNet.com - Nation/World


----------



## Ravi

Foxfyre said:


> Fine.  If ya'll think that correlation doesn't matter, that there is no problem, that we shouldn't be discussing this at all, that's your opinion.  And you'll probably want to find something else to do as those of us who do see a problem may continue to discuss this.
> 
> As for mass murders in the USA, here is the history I found:
> 
> 1900s : 0
> 
> 1910s: 2
> 
> 1920s: 2
> 
> 1930s: 9
> 
> 1940s: 8
> 
> 1950s: 1
> 
> 1960s: 6
> 
> 1970s: 13
> 
> 1980s: 32
> 
> 1990s: 42
> 
> 2000s: 28
> 
> 2010s (three years): 14
> 
> The history of mass shootings in the U.S. | HeraldNet.com - Nation/World



I have to laugh at you. Someone else has used the same statistics to "prove" that easy access to weapons makes it easier to murder people in great numbers. And they actually have a better point than you do.


----------



## Foxfyre

This is not a discussion on gun control.  I thought I made that clear?  Perhaps you might want to revisit the OP?  Please?


----------



## AmyNation

Just to focus on school shootings

"1700s
The earliest known United States shooting to happen on school property was the Pontiac's Rebellion school massacre on July 26, 1764, where four Lenape American Indian entered the schoolhouse near present-day Greencastle, Pennsylvania, shot and killed schoolmaster Enoch Brown, and killed nine or ten children (reports vary). Only two children survived.

1800s
 November 2, 1853 Louisville, Kentucky A student, Matthew Ward, bought a self-cocking pistol in the morning, went to school and killed Schoolmaster Mr. Butler for excessively punishing his brother the day before. Even though he shot the Schoolmaster point blank in front of his classmates, he was acquitted.

An April 30, 1866 editorial in the New York Times argued against students carrying pistols, citing "...pistols being dropped on the floor at balls or being exploded in very inconvenient ways. A boy of 12 has his pantaloons made with a pistol pocket; and this at a boarding-school filled with boys, who, we suppose, do or wish to do the same thing. We would advise parents to look into it, and learn whether shooting is to be a part of the scholastic course which may be practiced on their boys; or else we advise them to see that their own boys are properly armed with the most approved and deadly-pistol, and that there may be an equal chance at least of their shooting as of being shot."

 June 8, 1867 New York City At Public School No. 18, a 13 year old lad brought a pistol loaded and capped, without the knowledge of his parents or school-teachers, and shot and injured a fellow classmate.

 December 22, 1868 Chattanooga, Tennessee A boy who refused to be whipped and left school, returned with his brother and a friend, the next day to seek revenge on his teacher. Not finding the teacher at the school, they continued to his house, where a gun battle rang out, leaving three dead. Only the brother survived.

 March 9, 1873 Salisbury, Maryland After school as Miss Shockley was walking with four small children, she was approached by a Mr. Hall and shot. The Schoolmaster ran out, but she was dead instantly. Hall threw himself under a train that night.

 May 24, 1879 Lancaster, New York As the carriage loaded with female students was pulling out of the school's stables, Frank Shugart a telegraph operator shot and severely injured Mr. Carr, Superintendent of the stables.

 March 6, 1884 Boston, Massachusetts As news of Jesse James reached the east coast, young kids started to act in the same manner. An article from the New York Times reads, "Another "Jesse James" Gang - "Word was brought to the Fifth Police Station to-night that a number of boys were using the Concord-street School-house for some unknown purpose, and a posse of officers was sent to investigate. The gang scattered at the approach of the police, and in their flight on drew a revolver and fired at Officer Rowan, without effect, however. William Nangle, age 14, and Sidney Duncan, age 12, were captured, but the other five or six escaped, among them the one who who did the shooting. The boys refused to disclose the object of their meeting, but it is thought that another "Jesse James" organization has been broken up."

 March 15, 1884 Gainsville, Georgia In the middle of the day, a group of very drunk Jackson County farmers left the Jug Tavern drinking and shooting their revolvers as they headed down the street driving people into their homes. As they approached the female academy, the girls fled the schoolyard into the school where the gang followed swearing and shooting, firing several rounds into the front door. No one was hurt.

 July 4, 1886 Charleston, South Carolina During Sunday school, Emma Connelly shot and killed John Steedley for "circulating slanderous reports" about her, even though her brother publicly whipped him a few days earlier.

 April 12, 1887 Watertown, New York Edwin Bush, a student a the Potsdam Normal School committed suicide by shooting himself in the head.

 June 12, 1887 Cleveland, Tennessee Will Guess went to the school and fatally shot Miss Irene Fann, his little sister's teacher, for whipping her the day before.

 June 13, 1889 New Brunswick, New Jersey Charles Crawford upset over an argument with a school Trustee, went up to the window and fired a pistol into a crowded school room. The bullet lodged in the wall just above the teacher's head.

The first known mass shooting in the U.S. where students were shot, was on April 9, 1891, when 70 year old, James Foster fired a shotgun at a group of students in the playground of St. Mary's Parochial School, Newburgh, New York, causing minor injuries to several of the students. The majority of attacks during this time period by students on other students or teacher, usually involved stabbing with knives, or hitting with stones."

^^ and thats just the ones before 1900

History of School Shootings in the United States | K12 Academics


----------



## Foxfyre

And whatever we decide is increasing the violence, I do think the increasing numbers warrant some consideration of the subject.  We have had a number of thoughtful posts looking at media, video games, parenting issues, and cultural influences.  I'm pretty sure that the more thoughtful members are not interested in including access to guns in the equation as Americans have always had access to guns and those earlier decades had a whole lot less gun control than what we have now.  Have any of us put our finger on the actual problem?  Maybe.  Maybe not.

I am not interested in random acts of violence in which somebody murders somebody they have an issue with.  I am interested in focusing on what would provoke or prompt someone to plan and carry out the mass murders that we have mentioned here.

But to dismiss  video games as a factor is also most likely not a good idea any more than would be dismissing other theories presented here.  Again posting the link 007 posted earlier:

Video Games Desensitize to Real Violence | Psych Central News


----------



## JustTheFacts

Ravi said:


> JustTheFacts said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> 
> Is there a study that proves that violent video games cause murder in real life? Or do the studies merely overlook the probability that murders in real life enjoy violent video games?
> 
> Not that I'm championing such a mindless waste of time in a child's life, btw. I just fail to see a definitive conclusion being drawn between games and life.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> you''re asking the wrong person, because I don't believe video games are the cause. I believe parenting is the cause.
> 
> I 100% believe that since the advent of parenting via a bottle we are seeing more and more kids who just don't care. Got a kid who won't pay attention in school? Hey instead of whipping that ass until they get the point, juts load em up on pills and call it good. Less work; then when you don't want to deal with those kids when they get home from school, just park them in front of a violent video game, hopped up on mind altering drugs and playing violent video games for hours on end? What could go wrong, am I right?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I honestly don't believe that bad parenting creates mass murderers. There are just too many cases of bad parenting not doing just that.
Click to expand...


of course bad parenting in and of itself isn't causing mass murders. I just believe it is the root cause behind nearly everything a child grows up to do, and that includes committing such horrible crimes.

I would wager that if you look at every single one of these people somewhere in their lives is a parent who failed them at a critical juncture. Whether other influences helped turn them into what they are or not is irrelevant , the common factor is lack of parenting.

I don't know how old you are , but I'm 42. When I was in school , our parents believed in discipline, and the schools were an arm of that. Including a paddling if you fucked around in class. Not one kid that I am aware of was ever diagnosed with attention deficit disorder the entire time I was in school. Nope , kids that were disruptive were taken away , paddled and sent back to class. Usually that was the end of them being disruptive.

Fast forward 20 something years and there are kids in my daughters 2nd grade class who are on medication for ADHD I mean come on, they're little kids. A certain level of misbehavior is normal, and if they most beyond that, handle it, don't medicate them.

I don't know what it is with America. everyone wanting to blame this product or another rather than just putting the blame where it belongs, on parents.

Take the Sandy Hook kid for example. He didn't just wake up one day and go shoot 26 people.

Somewhere along the line, he killed a family pet, or beat up a little kid, or tortured neighborhood cats, or something similar and the mother responds by doing what? Oh telling the baby sitter not to turn his back on him. Here's an idea you lazy mom " remove the guns from the house if you know he's that dangerous"

That mom is 100% responsible for those deaths in my book.


----------



## AmyNation

Why do you keep dismissing facts that disagree with your narrative? What increase in violence? Murder is at a 30 year low in the US.


----------



## Ravi

Foxfyre said:


> This is not a discussion on gun control.  I thought I made that clear?  Perhaps you might want to revisit the OP?  Please?


Did I misread your title?

No, I didn't.

My point was also valid and I'm not quite sure why you don't like it when people point out the holes in your logic.


----------



## TakeAStepBack

AmyNation said:


> Why do you keep dismissing facts that disagree with your narrative? What increase in violence? Murder is at a 30 year low in the US.



Because that rejects the narrative.


----------



## Ravi

JustTheFacts said:


> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JustTheFacts said:
> 
> 
> 
> you''re asking the wrong person, because I don't believe video games are the cause. I believe parenting is the cause.
> 
> I 100% believe that since the advent of parenting via a bottle we are seeing more and more kids who just don't care. Got a kid who won't pay attention in school? Hey instead of whipping that ass until they get the point, juts load em up on pills and call it good. Less work; then when you don't want to deal with those kids when they get home from school, just park them in front of a violent video game, hopped up on mind altering drugs and playing violent video games for hours on end? What could go wrong, am I right?
> 
> 
> 
> I honestly don't believe that bad parenting creates mass murderers. There are just too many cases of bad parenting not doing just that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> of course bad parenting in and of itself isn't causing mass murders. I just believe it is the root cause behind nearly everything a child grows up to do, and that includes committing such horrible crimes.
> 
> I would wager that if you look at every single one of these people somewhere in their lives is a parent who failed them at a critical juncture. Whether other influences helped turn them into what they are or not is irrelevant , the common factor is lack of parenting.
> 
> I don't know how old you are , but I'm 42. When I was in school , our parents believed in discipline, and the schools were an arm of that. Including a paddling if you fucked around in class. Not one kid that I am aware of was ever diagnosed with attention deficit disorder the entire time I was in school. Nope , kids that were disruptive were taken away , paddled and sent back to class. Usually that was the end of them being disruptive.
> 
> Fast forward 20 something years and there are kids in my daughters 2nd grade class who are on medication for ADHD I mean come on, they're little kids. A certain level of misbehavior is normal, and if they most beyond that, handle it, don't medicate them.
> 
> I don't know what it is with America. everyone wanting to blame this product or another rather than just putting the blame where it belongs, on parents.
> 
> Take the Sandy Hook kid for example. He didn't just wake up one day and go shoot 26 people.
> 
> Somewhere along the line, he killed a family pet, or beat up a little kid, or tortured neighborhood cats, or something similar and the mother responds by doing what? Oh telling the baby sitter not to turn his back on him. Here's an idea you lazy mom " remove the guns from the house if you know he's that dangerous"
> 
> That mom is 100% responsible for those deaths in my book.
Click to expand...

I hear what you are saying. I just don't know the situation enough to pass that judgment on her. Yes, she shouldn't have had guns in her home if she had any clue at all as too how fucked up her son was.

IMO, there are some really fucked up people out there and the best course of action is to figure out how to keep them from the tools that enable them to hurt others.

How to accomplish that I don't know, but if we are going to be serious about stopping these people, we need to figure out how to do it.


----------



## PixieStix

http://www.forbes.com/sites/erikkain/2012/12/30/violence-and-video-games-in-america/

I am a huge believer in playing video games with my kid, I always have, or at least watching him play and being involved with what interests my child. And my kid has never killed or attempted to kill or even desires to kill another human being

Blaming video games?  Dumb. 

Blaming parental skills? Indeed!

I actually believe that we adults have shown our children; for an entire generation, just how little life means to us as a nation. We sanction abortion and other forms of death and use drones to do our wars, and people want to blame video games? Come on be real


----------



## JustTheFacts

AmyNation said:


> Why do you keep dismissing facts that disagree with your narrative? What increase in violence? Murder is at a 30 year low in the US.



Murder is at all time low, if you look at the overall numbers, but we have to look past that and understand that okay in the 90s gang violence was at an all time high and blacks were killing other blacks in HUGE numbers, but we could easily see why, it was completely financial motivated. 

That has tapered off over the last 15 years and although gangs still exist, it is in MUCH smaller numbers and the gang violence has dropped precipitously. 

Meanwhile all the sudden RANDOM shootings have skyrocketed. Twenty years ago were people shooting up movie theaters? I don't find any reference to such. Were people starting fires in order to shoot firemen? Shooting up kindergarten classes?

I'd bet that if you took out the gang related shootings from 1990-2000 and then compared that decade to 2001- to so far in 2013 the number of murders has actually risen.

and before someone misreads, no I am not saying that the lives of today's victims are more valuable than the lives of those victims, I'm just saying that with gang shootings at least we understood the motive. With these shootings, there is no motive.


----------



## Foxfyre

And that is what I am interested in JTF, so thank you.  If others have interests in other areas, so be it, but I am doing my damndest to keep focused on the issues raised in the OP.  If we decide all that is bunk and those studies we linked are bunk and not to be considered, also so be it.

But considering everything our more thoughtful members have offered here, I do think we can't really dismiss any one single thing as irrelevent now.


----------



## JustTheFacts

Ravi said:


> JustTheFacts said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> 
> I honestly don't believe that bad parenting creates mass murderers. There are just too many cases of bad parenting not doing just that.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> of course bad parenting in and of itself isn't causing mass murders. I just believe it is the root cause behind nearly everything a child grows up to do, and that includes committing such horrible crimes.
> 
> I would wager that if you look at every single one of these people somewhere in their lives is a parent who failed them at a critical juncture. Whether other influences helped turn them into what they are or not is irrelevant , the common factor is lack of parenting.
> 
> I don't know how old you are , but I'm 42. When I was in school , our parents believed in discipline, and the schools were an arm of that. Including a paddling if you fucked around in class. Not one kid that I am aware of was ever diagnosed with attention deficit disorder the entire time I was in school. Nope , kids that were disruptive were taken away , paddled and sent back to class. Usually that was the end of them being disruptive.
> 
> Fast forward 20 something years and there are kids in my daughters 2nd grade class who are on medication for ADHD I mean come on, they're little kids. A certain level of misbehavior is normal, and if they most beyond that, handle it, don't medicate them.
> 
> I don't know what it is with America. everyone wanting to blame this product or another rather than just putting the blame where it belongs, on parents.
> 
> Take the Sandy Hook kid for example. He didn't just wake up one day and go shoot 26 people.
> 
> Somewhere along the line, he killed a family pet, or beat up a little kid, or tortured neighborhood cats, or something similar and the mother responds by doing what? Oh telling the baby sitter not to turn his back on him. Here's an idea you lazy mom " remove the guns from the house if you know he's that dangerous"
> 
> That mom is 100% responsible for those deaths in my book.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I hear what you are saying. I just don't know the situation enough to pass that judgment on her. Yes, she shouldn't have had guns in her home if she had any clue at all as too how fucked up her son was.
> 
> IMO, there are some really fucked up people out there and the best course of action is to figure out how to keep them from the tools that enable them to hurt others.
> 
> How to accomplish that I don't know, but if we are going to be serious about stopping these people, we need to figure out how to do it.
Click to expand...


See, that's where I get on board with gun control. I myself believe I should be able to own whatever I want and can afford (I'm talking about man portable weapons here, no nukes or anything of that nature) If I want a SAW249 I should be able to buy one. But I DO believe the state has a compelling interest in making sure that I am not someone who ought not have that weapon. 

Myself I would like to see the state be able to take that woman's weapons away from her if she isn't smart enough to do it herself.

The "guns don't kill people" meme is stupid. No one believes guns kill anyone on their ow, that's just illogical to believe. That is just a meme the NRA started years ago to fight the fact that taking a gun away from a loon assures that loon won't be able to use that gun to kill people. Yes of course that kid could have went somewhere else and obtained a gun had he wished to, but my feeling is most of these kids wouldn't use a gun if it wasn't so readily available.


----------



## AmyNation

I posted this in a different thread, but I think it works here too.


The Facts about Mass Shootings - John Fund - National Review Online

Violent Crime Declines 70 Percent

Charts of the day: Gun violence in America declining over last 20 years « Hot Air

U.S. violent crime down for fifth straight year - CNN.com

"The bottom line of the two reports is that  violent and property crime are at record lows for the country and , generally speaking, have been decreasing for the last two decades.  While this news is of  little consequence to those living in areas where crime continues to be a problem, it is never-the-less great news for a country that suffered large increases in crime and violence for decades since the mid 1960&#8242;s."


Murder is down, sexual assault is down, burglary, larceny, auto theft, down down down. We are, overall, the safest we've been since the mid 80's.


----------



## AmyNation

From the 1st link 

*In fact, the high point for mass killings in the U.S. was 1929, according to criminologist Grant Duwe of the Minnesota Department of Corrections.

Incidents of mass murder in the U.S. declined from 42 in the 1990s to 26 in the first decade of this century.*


----------



## Foxfyre

I've already conceded that you believe there is no problem, Amy.  And that's fine.

But I'm sure you have no objection if those of us who aren't as certain as you are go ahead and discuss the topic.  I am well aware of all the statistics you have posted.  I have probably posted them myself in other contexts.  

1929 for instance was during the height of prohibition and when mob violence related to that was at its highest.  The mass killings involving competing mobsters were not comparable to the premeditated mass killings of innocents that the killers didn't know.  These incidents are different than somebody shooting a teacher they got mad at. This has been pretty much a new phenomenon in more recent times and, in my opinion, has been escalating and occuring at a rate that merits attention.


----------



## Foxfyre

JustTheFacts said:


> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JustTheFacts said:
> 
> 
> 
> of course bad parenting in and of itself isn't causing mass murders. I just believe it is the root cause behind nearly everything a child grows up to do, and that includes committing such horrible crimes.
> 
> I would wager that if you look at every single one of these people somewhere in their lives is a parent who failed them at a critical juncture. Whether other influences helped turn them into what they are or not is irrelevant , the common factor is lack of parenting.
> 
> I don't know how old you are , but I'm 42. When I was in school , our parents believed in discipline, and the schools were an arm of that. Including a paddling if you fucked around in class. Not one kid that I am aware of was ever diagnosed with attention deficit disorder the entire time I was in school. Nope , kids that were disruptive were taken away , paddled and sent back to class. Usually that was the end of them being disruptive.
> 
> Fast forward 20 something years and there are kids in my daughters 2nd grade class who are on medication for ADHD I mean come on, they're little kids. A certain level of misbehavior is normal, and if they most beyond that, handle it, don't medicate them.
> 
> I don't know what it is with America. everyone wanting to blame this product or another rather than just putting the blame where it belongs, on parents.
> 
> Take the Sandy Hook kid for example. He didn't just wake up one day and go shoot 26 people.
> 
> Somewhere along the line, he killed a family pet, or beat up a little kid, or tortured neighborhood cats, or something similar and the mother responds by doing what? Oh telling the baby sitter not to turn his back on him. Here's an idea you lazy mom " remove the guns from the house if you know he's that dangerous"
> 
> That mom is 100% responsible for those deaths in my book.
> 
> 
> 
> I hear what you are saying. I just don't know the situation enough to pass that judgment on her. Yes, she shouldn't have had guns in her home if she had any clue at all as too how fucked up her son was.
> 
> IMO, there are some really fucked up people out there and the best course of action is to figure out how to keep them from the tools that enable them to hurt others.
> 
> How to accomplish that I don't know, but if we are going to be serious about stopping these people, we need to figure out how to do it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> See, that's where I get on board with gun control. I myself believe I should be able to own whatever I want and can afford (I'm talking about man portable weapons here, no nukes or anything of that nature) If I want a SAW249 I should be able to buy one. But I DO believe the state has a compelling interest in making sure that I am not someone who ought not have that weapon.
> 
> Myself I would like to see the state be able to take that woman's weapons away from her if she isn't smart enough to do it herself.
> 
> The "guns don't kill people" meme is stupid. No one believes guns kill anyone on their ow, that's just illogical to believe. That is just a meme the NRA started years ago to fight the fact that taking a gun away from a loon assures that loon won't be able to use that gun to kill people. Yes of course that kid could have went somewhere else and obtained a gun had he wished to, but my feeling is most of these kids wouldn't use a gun if it wasn't so readily available.
Click to expand...


I hear that, but I also know that I grew up at a time when ALL we kids had easy access to guns and a lot of ammunition to go with them too.  That was true throughout our entire area.  Some of us had crappy parents--I certainly did.  There was alcoholis and all sorts of mental problems then too.  Some kids did poorly in school and there were as many bullies and unkind people then as there are now.  We had good teachers and bad teachers.

But not one of those kids--I repeat not one--ever shot anybody by accident, much less in anger or in a senseless mass murder.  Such a thing was pretty much unheard of in our part of the world.  That part of the country that included Columbine and Aurora.

So based on my anecdotal experience, I have to believe there is something more than access to guns involved in the plethora of senseless mass shootings we have seen in the last 30 years.


----------



## blackhawk

Foxfyre said:


> NOTE:  Clean debate zone thread here. . . .
> 
> This morning I was listening to a concept put out by a military psychologist who suggests that it is not guns that are the problem in a 'violent America', but rather the changed American culture.  Violent concepts are prevalent in our television programs, movies, comic books, music, and most especially in video games that are available in large quantities to very young children.
> 
> His theory is that this is desensitizing young people to violence and even exalting and promoting it.
> 
> Are video games conditioning kids to accept violence as virtue?  As the way to get things accomplished?  To win?  To reach the pinnacle of success?  In many/most of video games out there, it is necessary to be ruthless in order to win the game.  Does this change the way people view their world in an unhealthy way?
> 
> If you do see this as a problem, how do you get around censorship as being somehow better than gun control?  Do you want the government to have power in that area?
> 
> Or is there a way for the public/radio/Hollywood  to self censor itself as it once did?  And should we push for that?
> 
> Or maybe you don't see it as a problem at all?


It's a combination of many things the problem is every group wants to focus all it's attention on one part of the problem instead of the whole.


----------



## eflatminor

Foxfyre said:


> This has been pretty much a new phenomenon in more recent times and, in my opinion, has been escalating and occuring at a rate that merits attention.



I don't think history supports that conclusion.  Charles Whitman, the 1963 Texas bell tower sniper, that was akin to what we see today.  We've had mass killings for a long time.  They're on the decline despite more firearms and more violent entertainment.  There is no empirical evidence to suggest either lead to actual violence.   

Nobody is happy with crazies killing innocents but it's reasonable to keep in mind that this kind of thing is exceedingly rare, less than one tenth of one percent of murders.  There are ways to guard against such things without impeding on the rights of others.  IMO, Free people making voluntary choices will respond the best way possible to deal with this kind of craziness.


----------



## beagle9

JustTheFacts said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> A lot of thoughtful posts here, people, and I appreciate the careful consideration and effort that went into them. With enough people recognizing that there is a problem and looking for the right way to address it, I think sooner or later our collective wisdom just might come up with the best solution.
> 
> As for those who want to say that everything is just hunky dory and fine--move along--there's nothing to see here--I don't know what to say to that.  I simply refuse to believe that the way we are is the best we can do.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unfortunately the only way to fix it is better parenting.  Unless you want to force parents to be better parents I don't know what we can do.
> 
> Taking products off the market isn't a solution.
Click to expand...

Hmmm so corporations win because of the money involved is what you are basically saying ? I remember when I was coming up, my parents taught me about the Lord and his word at home, then Hollywood gave me stuff like Gilligan's Isle, Gomer Pile, Andy Griffith, Ultra Man, Bewitched, Gun smoke, John Wayne and Walt Disney etc. All these combined made for a people that were a non-violent and more loving people, and then I saw it begin to escalate to a more violent and evil culture, where it began producing the results from this culture that included all sorts of bad into it now...We can change things if people want to, but first the devils have to be dealt a severe blow by putting shame back into their game's. (Pun intended!) They need to be shamed out of existence is what I say, and the people freed from their bondage in which they are trapped in with this sort of stuff anymore. 

Right now there is no shame, just evil justifications of this stuff, because the ground that the demons have gained, will not be given up so easily now, but if we could look backwards in order to take from the good we had in the past, and then bring it forward, we might just have a chance again in this nation..


----------



## beagle9

eflatminor said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> This has been pretty much a new phenomenon in more recent times and, in my opinion, has been escalating and occuring at a rate that merits attention.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't think history supports that conclusion.  Charles Whitman, the 1963 Texas bell tower sniper, that was akin to what we see today.  We've had mass killings for a long time.  They're on the decline despite more firearms and more violent entertainment.  There is no empirical evidence to suggest either lead to actual violence.
> 
> Nobody is happy with crazies killing innocents but it's reasonable to keep in mind that this kind of thing is exceedingly rare, less than one tenth of one percent of murders.  There are ways to guard against such things without impeding on the rights of others.  IMO, Free people making voluntary choices will respond the best way possible to deal with this kind of craziness.
Click to expand...

You know I have lived in this nation since I was born in 1960, and I remember it never being this bad for our youth over the years in this way, and this especially so as is found in percentages of now, and to the bombardment we are experiencing in this nation to date, so there is no way that you can go back and mention a few bad instances that were few and far between in percentages of, in order to suggest that we are not really in that bad a shape these days, because you are wrong on that assumption or statement my friend, and everyone here knows it.


----------



## beagle9

Foxfyre said:


> JustTheFacts said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> 
> I hear what you are saying. I just don't know the situation enough to pass that judgment on her. Yes, she shouldn't have had guns in her home if she had any clue at all as too how fucked up her son was.
> 
> IMO, there are some really fucked up people out there and the best course of action is to figure out how to keep them from the tools that enable them to hurt others.
> 
> How to accomplish that I don't know, but if we are going to be serious about stopping these people, we need to figure out how to do it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> See, that's where I get on board with gun control. I myself believe I should be able to own whatever I want and can afford (I'm talking about man portable weapons here, no nukes or anything of that nature) If I want a SAW249 I should be able to buy one. But I DO believe the state has a compelling interest in making sure that I am not someone who ought not have that weapon.
> 
> Myself I would like to see the state be able to take that woman's weapons away from her if she isn't smart enough to do it herself.
> 
> The "guns don't kill people" meme is stupid. No one believes guns kill anyone on their ow, that's just illogical to believe. That is just a meme the NRA started years ago to fight the fact that taking a gun away from a loon assures that loon won't be able to use that gun to kill people. Yes of course that kid could have went somewhere else and obtained a gun had he wished to, but my feeling is most of these kids wouldn't use a gun if it wasn't so readily available.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I hear that, but I also know that I grew up at a time when ALL we kids had easy access to guns and a lot of ammunition to go with them too.  That was true throughout our entire area.  Some of us had crappy parents--I certainly did.  There was alcoholis and all sorts of mental problems then too.  Some kids did poorly in school and there were as many bullies and unkind people then as there are now.  We had good teachers and bad teachers.
> 
> But not one of those kids--I repeat not one--ever shot anybody by accident, much less in anger or in a senseless mass murder.  Such a thing was pretty much unheard of in our part of the world.  That part of the country that included Columbine and Aurora.
> 
> So based on my anecdotal experience, I have to believe there is something more than access to guns involved in the plethora of senseless mass shootings we have seen in the last 30 years.
Click to expand...

It's the mind game that has been run on this nation, and the consequences of that game is showing up big time now.


----------



## Ravi

beagle9 said:


> eflatminor said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> This has been pretty much a new phenomenon in more recent times and, in my opinion, has been escalating and occuring at a rate that merits attention.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't think history supports that conclusion.  Charles Whitman, the 1963 Texas bell tower sniper, that was akin to what we see today.  We've had mass killings for a long time.  They're on the decline despite more firearms and more violent entertainment.  There is no empirical evidence to suggest either lead to actual violence.
> 
> Nobody is happy with crazies killing innocents but it's reasonable to keep in mind that this kind of thing is exceedingly rare, less than one tenth of one percent of murders.  There are ways to guard against such things without impeding on the rights of others.  IMO, Free people making voluntary choices will respond the best way possible to deal with this kind of craziness.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You know I have lived in this nation since I was born in 1960, and I remember it never being this bad for our youth over the years in this way, and this especially so as is found in percentages of now, and to the bombardment we are experiencing in this nation to date, so there is no way that you can go back and mention a few bad instances that were few and far between in percentages of, in order to suggest that we are not really in that bad a shape these days, because you are wrong on that assumption or statement my friend, and everyone here knows it.
Click to expand...

I guess you have a faulty memory. Here's an interesting article on school shootings in just the Northeast during the 1940s and 1950s.

Concealed Carry Laws and School Safety: Evidence from the 1940s and 1950s «


----------



## yidnar

Foxfyre said:


> NOTE:  Clean debate zone thread here. . . .
> 
> This morning I was listening to a concept put out by a military psychologist who suggests that it is not guns that are the problem in a 'violent America', but rather the changed American culture.  Violent concepts are prevalent in our television programs, movies, comic books, music, and most especially in video games that are available in large quantities to very young children.
> 
> His theory is that this is desensitizing young people to violence and even exalting and promoting it.
> 
> Are video games conditioning kids to accept violence as virtue?  As the way to get things accomplished?  To win?  To reach the pinnacle of success?  In many/most of video games out there, it is necessary to be ruthless in order to win the game.  Does this change the way people view their world in an unhealthy way?
> 
> If you do see this as a problem, how do you get around censorship as being somehow better than gun control?  Do you want the government to have power in that area?
> 
> Or is there a way for the public/radio/Hollywood  to self censor itself as it once did?  And should we push for that?
> 
> Or maybe you don't see it as a problem at all?


when kids are growing up spending hours a day playing violent games it will have a negative effect on some of the kids ..maybe even more so in single parent homes .


----------



## Swagger

Ravi said:


> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eflatminor said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't think history supports that conclusion.  Charles Whitman, the 1963 Texas bell tower sniper, that was akin to what we see today.  We've had mass killings for a long time.  They're on the decline despite more firearms and more violent entertainment.  There is no empirical evidence to suggest either lead to actual violence.
> 
> Nobody is happy with crazies killing innocents but it's reasonable to keep in mind that this kind of thing is exceedingly rare, less than one tenth of one percent of murders.  There are ways to guard against such things without impeding on the rights of others.  IMO, Free people making voluntary choices will respond the best way possible to deal with this kind of craziness.
> 
> 
> 
> You know I have lived in this nation since I was born in 1960, and I remember it never being this bad for our youth over the years in this way, and this especially so as is found in percentages of now, and to the bombardment we are experiencing in this nation to date, so there is no way that you can go back and mention a few bad instances that were few and far between in percentages of, in order to suggest that we are not really in that bad a shape these days, because you are wrong on that assumption or statement my friend, and everyone here knows it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I guess you have a faulty memory. Here's an interesting article on school shootings in just the Northeast during the 1940s and 1950s.
> 
> Concealed Carry Laws and School Safety: Evidence from the 1940s and 1950s «
Click to expand...


Yeah, most of those "eighteen articles" fall outside of what Lanza, et al, did. Some of them were accidents, one or two were plain murder and others were crime/gang related. Though one thing they all had in common was that there was only one victim. Not a whole class.


----------



## eflatminor

beagle9 said:


> eflatminor said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> This has been pretty much a new phenomenon in more recent times and, in my opinion, has been escalating and occuring at a rate that merits attention.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't think history supports that conclusion.  Charles Whitman, the 1963 Texas bell tower sniper, that was akin to what we see today.  We've had mass killings for a long time.  They're on the decline despite more firearms and more violent entertainment.  There is no empirical evidence to suggest either lead to actual violence.
> 
> Nobody is happy with crazies killing innocents but it's reasonable to keep in mind that this kind of thing is exceedingly rare, less than one tenth of one percent of murders.  There are ways to guard against such things without impeding on the rights of others.  IMO, Free people making voluntary choices will respond the best way possible to deal with this kind of craziness.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You know I have lived in this nation since I was born in 1960, and I remember it never being this bad for our youth over the years in this way, and this especially so as is found in percentages of now, and to the bombardment we are experiencing in this nation to date, so there is no way that you can go back and mention a few bad instances that were few and far between in percentages of, in order to suggest that we are not really in that bad a shape these days, because you are wrong on that assumption or statement my friend, and everyone here knows it.
Click to expand...


Are you suggesting the murder, mass killings, and violent crime rates are increasing?  That's just not the case.  What YOU remember does not change the facts.  We are a less violent society today than when you were a kid.  Sorry if that doesn't fit your agenda, but those are the facts.


----------



## JustTheFacts

eflatminor said:


> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eflatminor said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't think history supports that conclusion.  Charles Whitman, the 1963 Texas bell tower sniper, that was akin to what we see today.  We've had mass killings for a long time.  They're on the decline despite more firearms and more violent entertainment.  There is no empirical evidence to suggest either lead to actual violence.
> 
> Nobody is happy with crazies killing innocents but it's reasonable to keep in mind that this kind of thing is exceedingly rare, less than one tenth of one percent of murders.  There are ways to guard against such things without impeding on the rights of others.  IMO, Free people making voluntary choices will respond the best way possible to deal with this kind of craziness.
> 
> 
> 
> You know I have lived in this nation since I was born in 1960, and I remember it never being this bad for our youth over the years in this way, and this especially so as is found in percentages of now, and to the bombardment we are experiencing in this nation to date, so there is no way that you can go back and mention a few bad instances that were few and far between in percentages of, in order to suggest that we are not really in that bad a shape these days, because you are wrong on that assumption or statement my friend, and everyone here knows it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Are you suggesting the murder, mass killings, and violent crime rates are increasing?  That's just not the case.  What YOU remember does not change the facts.  We are a less violent society today than when you were a kid.  Sorry if that doesn't fit your agenda, but those are the facts.
Click to expand...


Can we stop with the "your agenda " talk please. It is counterproductive and has no place in this forum.

We are adults , capable of addressing concerns without having an agenda. 

Yes indeed, we are less violent in the past. Who cares? That isn't the issue we are discussing, we are contemplating why the victims have shifted from say gang members to kindergartners. 

As I said before, at least in the 90s when gang members were killing each other by the scores, we knew the motive. And of course in the case of individual murders there is always a motive, but these kinds of shootings are neither. These are just plain outright executions, and certainly any civilized society should be asking why? and how do we prevent it?

I would suggest that anyone who wishes to silence that discussion or silence discussing any potential fixes for said problem should probably be ignored. Absolutely NOTHING should be off the table, and just saying "lalala we're less violent than ever" isn't going to help the next victims one bit.


----------



## TakeAStepBack

No amount of discussion is going to help the next victims, fella. That said, it makes absolutely no sense to continue a full court press on "solutions" that have proven to be failures. That's the real problem with the discussion. It's always the same "solution", results be damned.


----------



## JustTheFacts

TakeAStepBack said:


> No amount of discussion is going to help the next victims, fella. That said, it makes absolutely no sense to continue a full court press on "solutions" that have proven to be failures. That's the real problem with the discussion. It's always the same "solution", results be damned.



I thought that was the idea of this kind of discussion, to figure out what will help.

Personally, I don't know that anything will. The average American is an idiotic shit stain who doesn't care about other people.

What can we do about that?


----------



## eflatminor

JustTheFacts said:


> eflatminor said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> You know I have lived in this nation since I was born in 1960, and I remember it never being this bad for our youth over the years in this way, and this especially so as is found in percentages of now, and to the bombardment we are experiencing in this nation to date, so there is no way that you can go back and mention a few bad instances that were few and far between in percentages of, in order to suggest that we are not really in that bad a shape these days, because you are wrong on that assumption or statement my friend, and everyone here knows it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Are you suggesting the murder, mass killings, and violent crime rates are increasing?  That's just not the case.  What YOU remember does not change the facts.  We are a less violent society today than when you were a kid.  Sorry if that doesn't fit your agenda, but those are the facts.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Can we stop with the "your agenda " talk please. It is counterproductive and has no place in this forum.
> 
> We are adults , capable of addressing concerns without having an agenda.
> 
> Yes indeed, we are less violent in the past. Who cares? That isn't the issue we are discussing, we are contemplating why the victims have shifted from say gang members to kindergartners.
Click to expand...


That's just not true.  There has been no "shift" in who is getting murdered.  PLENTY of mass school killings in the past:

Edward Charles Allaway - 1976 - killed seven students in California
Brenda Ann Spencer - 1979 - killed 2 teachers, 8 students shot in California
Patrick Edward Purdy - 1989 - killed 5 kids, one teacher and shot 29 other children in California
James Oliver Huberty - 1984 - killed 21, many students, at a McDonalds in California
Marc Lepine - 1989 - killed 10 students in Montreal, Canada
Gang Lu - 1991 - killed for students and one other in Iowa
Eric Houston - 1992 - killed three students, one teacher and shot 10 others in California
Thomas Hamilton - 1996 - killed 17 in Scotland
As previously demonstrated, since the turn of the century, mass killings are down.  When you state you are just "contemplating why the victims have shifted from say gang members to kindergartners", reality shows that's just not the case.  Perhaps this is why some might think you have an agenda???



> I would suggest that anyone who wishes to silence that discussion or silence discussing any potential fixes for said problem should probably be ignored. Absolutely NOTHING should be off the table, and just saying "lalala we're less violent than ever" isn't going to help the next victims one bit.



I'm happy to talk about what we can do to prevent mass killings.  I just won't doing under a false pretext.  You shouldn't either.


----------



## JustTheFacts

eflatminor said:


> JustTheFacts said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eflatminor said:
> 
> 
> 
> Are you suggesting the murder, mass killings, and violent crime rates are increasing?  That's just not the case.  What YOU remember does not change the facts.  We are a less violent society today than when you were a kid.  Sorry if that doesn't fit your agenda, but those are the facts.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Can we stop with the "your agenda " talk please. It is counterproductive and has no place in this forum.
> 
> We are adults , capable of addressing concerns without having an agenda.
> 
> Yes indeed, we are less violent in the past. Who cares? That isn't the issue we are discussing, we are contemplating why the victims have shifted from say gang members to kindergartners.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's just not true.  There has been no "shift" in who is getting murdered.  PLENTY of mass school killings in the past:
> 
> Edward Charles Allaway - 1976 - killed seven students in California
> Brenda Ann Spencer - 1979 - killed 2 teachers, 8 students shot in California
> Patrick Edward Purdy - 1989 - killed 5 kids, one teacher and shot 29 other children in California
> James Oliver Huberty - 1984 - killed 21, many students, at a McDonalds in California
> Marc Lepine - 1989 - killed 10 students in Montreal, Canada
> Gang Lu - 1991 - killed for students and one other in Iowa
> Eric Houston - 1992 - killed three students, one teacher and shot 10 others in California
> Thomas Hamilton - 1996 - killed 17 in Scotland
> As previously demonstrated, since the turn of the century, mass killings are down.  When you state you are just "contemplating why the victims have shifted from say gang members to kindergartners", reality shows that's just not the case.  Perhaps this is why some might think you have an agenda???
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I would suggest that anyone who wishes to silence that discussion or silence discussing any potential fixes for said problem should probably be ignored. Absolutely NOTHING should be off the table, and just saying "lalala we're less violent than ever" isn't going to help the next victims one bit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm happy to talk about what we can do to prevent mass killings.  I just won't doing under a false pretext.  You shouldn't either.
Click to expand...


You're comparing six events in the US over a span of 20 years to 4 events in a 2 year time frame to prove that these incidents are not on the rise? That's disingenuous.


----------



## Ravi

Swagger said:


> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> You know I have lived in this nation since I was born in 1960, and I remember it never being this bad for our youth over the years in this way, and this especially so as is found in percentages of now, and to the bombardment we are experiencing in this nation to date, so there is no way that you can go back and mention a few bad instances that were few and far between in percentages of, in order to suggest that we are not really in that bad a shape these days, because you are wrong on that assumption or statement my friend, and everyone here knows it.
> 
> 
> 
> I guess you have a faulty memory. Here's an interesting article on school shootings in just the Northeast during the 1940s and 1950s.
> 
> Concealed Carry Laws and School Safety: Evidence from the 1940s and 1950s «
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yeah, most of those "eighteen articles" fall outside of what Lanza, et al, did. Some of them were accidents, one or two were plain murder and others were crime/gang related. Though one thing they all had in common was that there was only one victim. Not a whole class.
Click to expand...

Just disputing his rose colored glasses view of gun fatalities in schools in the olden days.

Maybe if they had bigger weapons back then they would have done more, maybe not.


----------



## eflatminor

JustTheFacts said:


> eflatminor said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JustTheFacts said:
> 
> 
> 
> Can we stop with the "your agenda " talk please. It is counterproductive and has no place in this forum.
> 
> We are adults , capable of addressing concerns without having an agenda.
> 
> Yes indeed, we are less violent in the past. Who cares? That isn't the issue we are discussing, we are contemplating why the victims have shifted from say gang members to kindergartners.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's just not true.  There has been no "shift" in who is getting murdered.  PLENTY of mass school killings in the past:
> 
> Edward Charles Allaway - 1976 - killed seven students in California
> Brenda Ann Spencer - 1979 - killed 2 teachers, 8 students shot in California
> Patrick Edward Purdy - 1989 - killed 5 kids, one teacher and shot 29 other children in California
> James Oliver Huberty - 1984 - killed 21, many students, at a McDonalds in California
> Marc Lepine - 1989 - killed 10 students in Montreal, Canada
> Gang Lu - 1991 - killed for students and one other in Iowa
> Eric Houston - 1992 - killed three students, one teacher and shot 10 others in California
> Thomas Hamilton - 1996 - killed 17 in Scotland
> As previously demonstrated, since the turn of the century, mass killings are down.  When you state you are just "contemplating why the victims have shifted from say gang members to kindergartners", reality shows that's just not the case.  Perhaps this is why some might think you have an agenda???
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I would suggest that anyone who wishes to silence that discussion or silence discussing any potential fixes for said problem should probably be ignored. Absolutely NOTHING should be off the table, and just saying "lalala we're less violent than ever" isn't going to help the next victims one bit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm happy to talk about what we can do to prevent mass killings.  I just won't doing under a false pretext.  You shouldn't either.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're comparing six events in the US over a span of 20 years to 4 events in a 2 year time frame to prove that these incidents are not on the rise? That's disingenuous.
Click to expand...


Eight, actually.  And there are more during that time period I didn't list.  You have no statistical evidence to support your...theory.  ESPECIALLY as overall violent crime, murders and mass shootings are on the decline.  Sorry, you just don't.

That said, we all clearly wish to avoid kids being murdered.  You want to talk about that, fine.  But let's not claim there is some unprecedented trend when there is not.  One mass school shooting is enough to have a reasonable conversation.


----------



## Swagger

Ravi said:


> Swagger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> 
> I guess you have a faulty memory. Here's an interesting article on school shootings in just the Northeast during the 1940s and 1950s.
> 
> Concealed Carry Laws and School Safety: Evidence from the 1940s and 1950s «
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, most of those "eighteen articles" fall outside of what Lanza, et al, did. Some of them were accidents, one or two were plain murder and others were crime/gang related. Though one thing they all had in common was that there was only one victim. Not a whole class.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Just disputing his rose colored glasses view of gun fatalities in schools in the olden days.
> 
> *Maybe if they had bigger weapons back then they would have done more, maybe not.*
Click to expand...


How many war trophies that had been smuggled back from WWII do you think were in circulation during this period? I'm guessing that with enough determination and a nudge in the right direction, one of these kids could've layed their hands on a sub-machine gun that'd been brought back from Europe. Grenades, too. And pipe bombs aren't that difficult to make. Where there's a will there's a way. Except back then the will to commit school massacres appears to have been conspicuously absent.


----------



## eflatminor

Ravi said:


> Swagger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> 
> I guess you have a faulty memory. Here's an interesting article on school shootings in just the Northeast during the 1940s and 1950s.
> 
> Concealed Carry Laws and School Safety: Evidence from the 1940s and 1950s «
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, most of those "eighteen articles" fall outside of what Lanza, et al, did. Some of them were accidents, one or two were plain murder and others were crime/gang related. Though one thing they all had in common was that there was only one victim. Not a whole class.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Just disputing his rose colored glasses view of gun fatalities in schools in the olden days.
> 
> Maybe if they had *bigger weapons* back then they would have done more, maybe not.
Click to expand...


Umm, what "bigger weapons" are your referring to that are around today that were not then?  Hint: Today's firearms are no "bigger" than those 50 years ago.  In fact, the rounds used in an AR platform and most all firearms are far SMALLER than the calibers we tended to use years ago.  This has to do with improvements in gun powder and projectile technology, which tended to negate the need for larger calibers.  

Just thought you'd appreciate the facts, not having an agenda and all...


----------



## JustTheFacts

eflatminor said:


> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Swagger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, most of those "eighteen articles" fall outside of what Lanza, et al, did. Some of them were accidents, one or two were plain murder and others were crime/gang related. Though one thing they all had in common was that there was only one victim. Not a whole class.
> 
> 
> 
> Just disputing his rose colored glasses view of gun fatalities in schools in the olden days.
> 
> Maybe if they had *bigger weapons* back then they would have done more, maybe not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Umm, what "bigger weapons" are your referring to that are around today that were not then?  Hint: Today's firearms are no "bigger" than those 50 years ago.  In fact, the rounds used in an AR platform and most all firearms are far SMALLER than the calibers we tended to use years ago.  This has to do with improvements in gun powder and projectile technology, which tended to negate the need for larger calibers.
> 
> Just thought you'd appreciate the facts, not having an agenda and all...
Click to expand...



Clearly Ravi meant bigger as in higher ammo capacity and higher rate of fire. Not physically bigger.  

I rank that up there with arguing over the definition of magazine versus clip. It serves no purpose. One doesn't have to know all the nomenclature and stats of certain weapons to know that some weapons are more efficient at killing than others.


----------



## AmyNation

Foxfyre said:


> I've already conceded that you believe there is no problem, Amy.  And that's fine.
> 
> But I'm sure you have no objection if those of us who aren't as certain as you are go ahead and discuss the topic.  I am well aware of all the statistics you have posted.  I have probably posted them myself in other contexts.
> 
> 1929 for instance was during the height of prohibition and when mob violence related to that was at its highest.  The mass killings involving competing mobsters were not comparable to the premeditated mass killings of innocents that the killers didn't know.  These incidents are different than somebody shooting a teacher they got mad at. This has been pretty much a new phenomenon in more recent times and, in my opinion, has been escalating and occuring at a rate that merits attention.



You act as if its my opinion, when its a fact. You've ignored every post of mine that backs up those facts and you've ignored other posters like eflatminor, I assume because you can't dispute facts with feelings.

I've posted evidence that supports that mass killings are not new, and are fact in decline. You have ignored actual evidence because you feel like things are worse. 

It's clear to me that you have decided the outcome of the conversation and don't actually wish to discuss your faulty premise.


----------



## Ravi

Swagger said:


> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Swagger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, most of those "eighteen articles" fall outside of what Lanza, et al, did. Some of them were accidents, one or two were plain murder and others were crime/gang related. Though one thing they all had in common was that there was only one victim. Not a whole class.
> 
> 
> 
> Just disputing his rose colored glasses view of gun fatalities in schools in the olden days.
> 
> *Maybe if they had bigger weapons back then they would have done more, maybe not.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How many war trophies that had been smuggled back from WWII do you think were in circulation during this period? I'm guessing that with enough determination and a nudge in the right direction, one of these kids could've layed their hands on a sub-machine gun that'd been brought back from Europe. Grenades, too. And pipe bombs aren't that difficult to make. Where there's a will there's a way. Except back then the will to commit school massacres appears to have been conspicuously absent.
Click to expand...

I've never seen any statistics that claim that many sub-machine guns were brought to the US after the war. If they were, where are they now? And where would one, back then, get the ammo for them? Not at Walmart,


----------



## Ravi

eflatminor said:


> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Swagger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, most of those "eighteen articles" fall outside of what Lanza, et al, did. Some of them were accidents, one or two were plain murder and others were crime/gang related. Though one thing they all had in common was that there was only one victim. Not a whole class.
> 
> 
> 
> Just disputing his rose colored glasses view of gun fatalities in schools in the olden days.
> 
> Maybe if they had *bigger weapons* back then they would have done more, maybe not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Umm, what "bigger weapons" are your referring to that are around today that were not then?  Hint: Today's firearms are no "bigger" than those 50 years ago.  In fact, the rounds used in an AR platform and most all firearms are far SMALLER than the calibers we tended to use years ago.  This has to do with improvements in gun powder and projectile technology, which tended to negate the need for larger calibers.
> 
> Just thought you'd appreciate the facts, not having an agenda and all...
Click to expand...


Regardless of that, I'm sure you got my point.


----------



## Swagger

JustTheFacts said:


> eflatminor said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> 
> Just disputing his rose colored glasses view of gun fatalities in schools in the olden days.
> 
> Maybe if they had *bigger weapons* back then they would have done more, maybe not.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Umm, what "bigger weapons" are your referring to that are around today that were not then?  Hint: Today's firearms are no "bigger" than those 50 years ago.  In fact, the rounds used in an AR platform and most all firearms are far SMALLER than the calibers we tended to use years ago.  This has to do with improvements in gun powder and projectile technology, which tended to negate the need for larger calibers.
> 
> Just thought you'd appreciate the facts, not having an agenda and all...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> *Clearly Ravi meant bigger as in higher ammo capacity and higher rate of fire. Not physically bigger.*
> 
> I rank that up there with arguing over the definition of magazine versus clip. It serves no purpose. One doesn't have to know all the nomenclature and stats of certain weapons to know that some weapons are more efficient at killing than others.
Click to expand...


Pure supposition.

Either way, many of the war trophies brought back from the campaign in Europe could hold over 30 rounds. MP40s, Sten guns and Thompson submachine guns were all in circulation, and could each hold over 30 rounds. Any of them would've had a devastating effect if emptied into a packed classroom.


----------



## Ravi

Swagger said:


> JustTheFacts said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eflatminor said:
> 
> 
> 
> Umm, what "bigger weapons" are your referring to that are around today that were not then?  Hint: Today's firearms are no "bigger" than those 50 years ago.  In fact, the rounds used in an AR platform and most all firearms are far SMALLER than the calibers we tended to use years ago.  This has to do with improvements in gun powder and projectile technology, which tended to negate the need for larger calibers.
> 
> Just thought you'd appreciate the facts, not having an agenda and all...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Clearly Ravi meant bigger as in higher ammo capacity and higher rate of fire. Not physically bigger.*
> 
> I rank that up there with arguing over the definition of magazine versus clip. It serves no purpose. One doesn't have to know all the nomenclature and stats of certain weapons to know that some weapons are more efficient at killing than others.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Pure supposition.
> 
> Either way, many of the war trophies brought back from the campaign in Europe could hold over 30 rounds. MP40s, Sten guns and Thompson submachine guns were all in circulation, and could each hold over 30 rounds. Any of them would've had a devastating effect if emptied into a packed classroom.
Click to expand...

Let's see your evidence that these weapons were in circulation to the extent you seem to believe they were and address the question of where the ammo came from to use them once in the US.


----------



## Swagger

Ravi said:


> Swagger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> 
> Just disputing his rose colored glasses view of gun fatalities in schools in the olden days.
> 
> *Maybe if they had bigger weapons back then they would have done more, maybe not.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How many war trophies that had been smuggled back from WWII do you think were in circulation during this period? I'm guessing that with enough determination and a nudge in the right direction, one of these kids could've layed their hands on a sub-machine gun that'd been brought back from Europe. Grenades, too. And pipe bombs aren't that difficult to make. Where there's a will there's a way. Except back then the will to commit school massacres appears to have been conspicuously absent.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I've never seen any statistics that claim that many sub-machine guns were brought to the US after the war. If they were, where are they now? And where would one, back then, get the ammo for them? Not at Walmart,
Click to expand...


Doesn't mean they weren't brought back. Either way, the Thompson submachine gun was widely available. Except no-one emptied one into a classroom.


----------



## JustTheFacts

Ravi said:


> Swagger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> 
> Just disputing his rose colored glasses view of gun fatalities in schools in the olden days.
> 
> *Maybe if they had bigger weapons back then they would have done more, maybe not.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How many war trophies that had been smuggled back from WWII do you think were in circulation during this period? I'm guessing that with enough determination and a nudge in the right direction, one of these kids could've layed their hands on a sub-machine gun that'd been brought back from Europe. Grenades, too. And pipe bombs aren't that difficult to make. Where there's a will there's a way. Except back then the will to commit school massacres appears to have been conspicuously absent.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I've never seen any statistics that claim that many sub-machine guns were brought to the US after the war. If they were, where are they now? And where would one, back then, get the ammo for them? Not at Walmart,
Click to expand...



There's a Vietnam era uzi in my gun safe. SHHHH fully automatic and takes standard 9MM ammunition.

Desert Storm era M16 in my gun safe as well. Also fully automatic. 5.56MM ammunition.

Neither of those ammos are hard to come by normally.

So yes, many war "trophies" made their way home. Even though I disagree with his premise that mass shootings are actually on the decline.


----------



## Koios

> Ban or Censor Video Games, Not Guns?



No; regulate both, so the benefits are not outweighed by the negative aspects.


----------



## Ravi

Swagger said:


> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Swagger said:
> 
> 
> 
> How many war trophies that had been smuggled back from WWII do you think were in circulation during this period? I'm guessing that with enough determination and a nudge in the right direction, one of these kids could've layed their hands on a sub-machine gun that'd been brought back from Europe. Grenades, too. And pipe bombs aren't that difficult to make. Where there's a will there's a way. Except back then the will to commit school massacres appears to have been conspicuously absent.
> 
> 
> 
> I've never seen any statistics that claim that many sub-machine guns were brought to the US after the war. If they were, where are they now? And where would one, back then, get the ammo for them? Not at Walmart,
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Doesn't mean they weren't brought back. E*ither way, the Thompson submachine gun was widely available*. Except no-one emptied one into a classroom.
Click to expand...


No they weren't. In fact, in 1934 the US passed a law making anyone that possessed one register it with the federal government. 

Where are they now?


----------



## Swagger

Ravi said:


> Swagger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JustTheFacts said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Clearly Ravi meant bigger as in higher ammo capacity and higher rate of fire. Not physically bigger.*
> 
> I rank that up there with arguing over the definition of magazine versus clip. It serves no purpose. One doesn't have to know all the nomenclature and stats of certain weapons to know that some weapons are more efficient at killing than others.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pure supposition.
> 
> Either way, many of the war trophies brought back from the campaign in Europe could hold over 30 rounds. MP40s, Sten guns and Thompson submachine guns were all in circulation, and could each hold over 30 rounds. Any of them would've had a devastating effect if emptied into a packed classroom.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Let's see your evidence that these weapons were in circulation to the extent you seem to believe they were and address the question of where the ammo came from to use them once in the US.
Click to expand...


Look up the Veterans' Heritage Firearms Act (yet to be passed, if memory serves). They wouldn't have drafted it if they didn't think that American servicemen didn't smuggle weapons back from the war.


----------



## JustTheFacts

Koios said:


> Ban or Censor Video Games, Not Guns?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No; regulate both, so the benefits are not outweighed by the negative aspects.
Click to expand...


Videogames are already self regulated. Video game manufactures voluntarily send their video games in for rating by the ERBP. They have no control over if parents allow their children to play such games despite the big fucking M for mature audiences only printed on the box or not.

I've played Call of Duty and other games online and it is SHOCKING how many little kids are playing these games, and you know they are little kids because they have headsets on and are cursing like sailors nonstop while shooting people.

And you can't blame any of the companies for allowing kids online either, because if they know you are underage they won't let you sign up and if you get reported for being underage they will ban you from playing online.

Kids playing video games they ought not be playing falls 100% square on parents. PERIOD

Meanwhile gun manufactures fight tooth and nail over every single proposed regulation LOL


----------



## Koios

JustTheFacts said:


> Koios said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ban or Censor Video Games, Not Guns?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No; regulate both, so the benefits are not outweighed by the negative aspects.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *Videogames are already self regulated. Video game manufactures voluntarily send their video games in for rating by the ERBP.* They have no control over if parents allow their children to play such games despite the big fucking M for mature audiences only printed on the box or not.
> 
> I've played Call of Duty and other games online and it is SHOCKING how many little kids are playing these games, and you know they are little kids because they have headsets on and are cursing like sailors nonstop while shooting people.
> 
> And you can't blame any of the companies for allowing kids online either, because if they know you are underage they won't let you sign up and if you get reported for being underage they will ban you from playing online.
> 
> Kids playing video games they ought not be playing falls 100% square on parents. PERIOD
> 
> Meanwhile gun manufactures fight tooth and nail over every single proposed regulation LOL
Click to expand...


That's merely an attempt by the industry to avoid actual regulations of their content, for non adults.  Should pornography, tabacco and alcohol be similarly self "regulated?"  How would that work out? (tip: poorly.)


----------



## Some Guy

JustTheFacts said:


> Videogames are already self regulated. Video game manufactures voluntarily send their video games in for rating by the ERBP. They have no control over if parents allow their children to play such games despite the big fucking M for mature audiences only printed on the box or not.
> 
> I've played Call of Duty and other games online and it is SHOCKING how many little kids are playing these games, and you know they are little kids because they have headsets on and are cursing like sailors nonstop while shooting people.
> 
> And you can't blame any of the companies for allowing kids online either, because if they know you are underage they won't let you sign up and if you get reported for being underage they will ban you from playing online.
> 
> Kids playing video games they ought not be playing falls 100% square on parents. PERIOD



I agree.  TV and video games have become acceptable parenting stand-ins for far too many people in the U.S.  It's a lot easier to plop the kid down in front of a TV with a controller then it is to play a game with them.  As it is with just about everything, video games for kids should be played in moderation.  And of course, parents need to be diligent in what their kids are playing, watching, etc.


----------



## JustTheFacts

Ravi said:


> Swagger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> 
> I've never seen any statistics that claim that many sub-machine guns were brought to the US after the war. If they were, where are they now? And where would one, back then, get the ammo for them? Not at Walmart,
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Doesn't mean they weren't brought back. E*ither way, the Thompson submachine gun was widely available*. Except no-one emptied one into a classroom.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No they weren't. In fact, in 1934 the US passed a law making anyone that possessed one register it with the federal government.
> 
> Where are they now?
Click to expand...


There are quite a few still around, in private collections. I would LOVE to have one, but it would cost me around $20K and my wife. 

US manufactures produced 1.5 MILLION of them during WWII Ravi, I assure you some of them found their way back to this country after the war.

But here is the thing, his argument is irrelevant because NO ONE is saying the gun itself is the cause of these types of shootings. But obviously shootings can't happen without guns. That is the part they ignore.


----------



## Foxfyre

Politely requesting that we return this thread to the topic please.  There are a gazillion threads out there dealing with gun control and I'm pretty sure we can agree that fire power is not the motivation behind these mass killings of innocents and I would really appreciate this not being derailed into another gun control thread.

I would like to refocus the discussion on the topic of whether exposure to gratuitous violence in media, music, video games etc. is an important component of the mass killings of innocents or is otherwise a negative force in our society.

To recap.

The theory is that the young person--and it has always been a young person who commits these senseless acts in recent decades--is a little off mentally and may or may not have feelings of inadequacy, has been bullied, has been poorly parented, or otherwise is socially stressed etc. etc. etc.

So he watches violent movies and television programs in which the lawless one is the hero, a sympathetic figure, and one to be admired.   He listens to music that glorifies and justifies violence.  And he plays endless video games in which the definition of success and winning is determined by how much death and mayhem can be accomplished.

Admittedly the vast majority of young people exposed to these same things do not commit violence upon others.   And I don't KNOW whether that is a factor in the plethora of such acts in recent decades.  But though there have always been murders of opportunity (organized crime, gangs, etc.) and of passion or anger, these mass murders of innocents are a new phenomenon in our culture.  Yes they are rare in the great scheme of things, but when it happens the results are tragic as we have seen again and again.

So the question remains.  Is the graphic, extreme, gratuitious violence that seems to have become a component of our culture a healthy thing?  If it can drive a mentally unbalanced individual off the edge, is it really okay for others?  Or does it have potential to affect society in negative ways whether or not it results in a Sandy Hook or other such tragedy?


----------



## Ravi

JustTheFacts said:


> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Swagger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Doesn't mean they weren't brought back. E*ither way, the Thompson submachine gun was widely available*. Except no-one emptied one into a classroom.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No they weren't. In fact, in 1934 the US passed a law making anyone that possessed one register it with the federal government.
> 
> Where are they now?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There are quite a few still around, in private collections. I would LOVE to have one, but it would cost me around $20K and my wife.
> 
> US manufactures produced 1.5 MILLION of them during WWII Ravi, I assure you some of them found their way back to this country after the war.
> 
> But here is the thing, his argument is irrelevant because NO ONE is saying the gun itself is the cause of these types of shootings. But obviously shootings can't happen without guns. That is the part they ignore.
Click to expand...


From what I've read they became collector's items after the war and kept by private collectors. I've not seen any evidence that they were out in the general population since gangster times.

But you are correct, the shootings can't happen without guns.


----------



## Foxfyre

Refocus on topic please.


----------



## JustTheFacts

Koios said:


> JustTheFacts said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Koios said:
> 
> 
> 
> No; regulate both, so the benefits are not outweighed by the negative aspects.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Videogames are already self regulated. Video game manufactures voluntarily send their video games in for rating by the ERBP.* They have no control over if parents allow their children to play such games despite the big fucking M for mature audiences only printed on the box or not.
> 
> I've played Call of Duty and other games online and it is SHOCKING how many little kids are playing these games, and you know they are little kids because they have headsets on and are cursing like sailors nonstop while shooting people.
> 
> And you can't blame any of the companies for allowing kids online either, because if they know you are underage they won't let you sign up and if you get reported for being underage they will ban you from playing online.
> 
> Kids playing video games they ought not be playing falls 100% square on parents. PERIOD
> 
> Meanwhile gun manufactures fight tooth and nail over every single proposed regulation LOL
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's merely an attempt by the industry to avoid actual regulations of their content, for non adults.  Should pornography, tabacco and alcohol be similarly self "regulated?"  How would that work out? (tip: poorly.)
Click to expand...


Do what? So you want to introduce the government into a system that works as designed? 

Go to Wal Mart and notice the big square on the front of the box, you can't miss it, looks something like this






with different categories for who the game is rated for. 

Now pick one with the above rating of M and give it to your child to take to the register and buy. They will be denied. 

The system works, NO system can prevent an idiotic adult from buying a child such a game though.

My 7 year old has a Wii, and a Nexus 7, she only has games that I have allowed her to have.

The ratings are for educating parents to the content of the games as much as they are for preventing children from buying the game themselves. It's not the fact that it's voluntary regulation's fault that may parents ignore the ratings.

Government regulation would not accomplish what you think it would accomplish in this case.


----------



## eflatminor

JustTheFacts said:


> eflatminor said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> 
> Just disputing his rose colored glasses view of gun fatalities in schools in the olden days.
> 
> Maybe if they had *bigger weapons* back then they would have done more, maybe not.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Umm, what "bigger weapons" are your referring to that are around today that were not then?  Hint: Today's firearms are no "bigger" than those 50 years ago.  In fact, the rounds used in an AR platform and most all firearms are far SMALLER than the calibers we tended to use years ago.  This has to do with improvements in gun powder and projectile technology, which tended to negate the need for larger calibers.
> 
> Just thought you'd appreciate the facts, not having an agenda and all...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Clearly Ravi meant bigger as in higher ammo capacity and higher rate of fire. Not physically bigger.
> 
> I rank that up there with arguing over the definition of magazine versus clip. It serves no purpose. One doesn't have to know all the nomenclature and stats of certain weapons to know that some weapons are more efficient at killing than others.
Click to expand...


That would be another false assumption.  Firearms in the past 100 years has no less "ammo capacity" than we have today.  Firearms in the past held just as many rounds in their magazines, clips, or belts as they do today.  

You've also wrong about the "rate of fire".  Firearms in the past did not have a lower rate of fire, unless of course you're claiming we have problem with full auto machine guns.  Otherwise, it's one pull of the trigger, one bullet fired, just as it's always been.

I think it would serve you well, and the case you're attempting to make, to educate yourself on actual firearm technology before you attack it.


----------



## eflatminor

Ravi said:


> eflatminor said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> 
> Just disputing his rose colored glasses view of gun fatalities in schools in the olden days.
> 
> Maybe if they had *bigger weapons* back then they would have done more, maybe not.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Umm, what "bigger weapons" are your referring to that are around today that were not then?  Hint: Today's firearms are no "bigger" than those 50 years ago.  In fact, the rounds used in an AR platform and most all firearms are far SMALLER than the calibers we tended to use years ago.  This has to do with improvements in gun powder and projectile technology, which tended to negate the need for larger calibers.
> 
> Just thought you'd appreciate the facts, not having an agenda and all...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Regardless of that, I'm sure you got my point.
Click to expand...


No, that would not be the case.  You seem to imply that advances in firearm technology is somehow related to the frequency and/or severity of mass killings.  That's not the case.  I assure you, a crazy guy could kill just as many people with a 50+ year old firearm as a modern one.  

I point this out to demonstrate that the problem of mass killings is a problem of people doing evil acts, not the tool used to carry out that crime.


----------



## eflatminor

Foxfyre said:


> Politely requesting that we return this thread to the topic please.  There are a gazillion threads out there dealing with gun control and I'm pretty sure we can agree that fire power is not the motivation behind these mass killings of innocents and I would really appreciate this not being derailed into another gun control thread.
> 
> I would like to refocus the discussion on the topic of whether exposure to gratuitous violence in media, music, video games etc. is an important component of the mass killings of innocents or is otherwise a negative force in our society.



Okay.

I do not believe that's the case.  I find no empirical evidence to suggest a connection between violent entertainment and mass killings.  In fact, there is more evidence to suggest violent games results in less violent acts as we see with more pornography resulting in less rape.




> So the question remains.  Is the graphic, extreme, gratuitious violence that seems to have become a component of our culture a healthy thing?



It may be.  No evidence exists to suggest it's an unhealthy thing.



> If it can drive a mentally unbalanced individual off the edge, is it really okay for others?



I would argue it is impossible to know what drives a crazy person to do crazy things. Anything can set them off.  It's why we call them crazy.



> Or does it have potential to affect society in negative ways whether or not it results in a Sandy Hook or other such tragedy?



I see no evidence of that.


----------



## Foxfyre

Did you read the piece re the studies that have been done eflat?  You aren't buying their conclusions?


----------



## JustTheFacts

eflatminor said:


> JustTheFacts said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eflatminor said:
> 
> 
> 
> Umm, what "bigger weapons" are your referring to that are around today that were not then?  Hint: Today's firearms are no "bigger" than those 50 years ago.  In fact, the rounds used in an AR platform and most all firearms are far SMALLER than the calibers we tended to use years ago.  This has to do with improvements in gun powder and projectile technology, which tended to negate the need for larger calibers.
> 
> Just thought you'd appreciate the facts, not having an agenda and all...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Clearly Ravi meant bigger as in higher ammo capacity and higher rate of fire. Not physically bigger.
> 
> I rank that up there with arguing over the definition of magazine versus clip. It serves no purpose. One doesn't have to know all the nomenclature and stats of certain weapons to know that some weapons are more efficient at killing than others.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That would be another false assumption.  Firearms in the past 100 years has no less "ammo capacity" than we have today.  Firearms in the past held just as many rounds in their magazines, clips, or belts as they do today.
> 
> You've also wrong about the "rate of fire".  Firearms in the past did not have a lower rate of fire, unless of course you're claiming we have problem with full auto machine guns.  Otherwise, it's one pull of the trigger, one bullet fired, just as it's always been.
> 
> I think it would serve you well, and the case you're attempting to make, to educate yourself on actual firearm technology before you attack it.
Click to expand...


How can I be wrong, when I made no argument? I merely clarified what I felt Ravi meant. 

The only real argument I made in the post you declared I was wrong in was the argument that attacking people who know less about firearms than you do and invalidating their opinions is wrong, and you turned right around and did it again.

As for weapons themselves, I daresay I have as much or more knowledge about them as you or anyone else on the board. That does not make my OPINION about their inherent danger , or lack therof any more valid than Ravi's or anyone''s.


----------



## Koios

JustTheFacts said:


> eflatminor said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JustTheFacts said:
> 
> 
> 
> Clearly Ravi meant bigger as in higher ammo capacity and higher rate of fire. Not physically bigger.
> 
> I rank that up there with arguing over the definition of magazine versus clip. It serves no purpose. One doesn't have to know all the nomenclature and stats of certain weapons to know that some weapons are more efficient at killing than others.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That would be another false assumption.  Firearms in the past 100 years has no less "ammo capacity" than we have today.  Firearms in the past held just as many rounds in their magazines, clips, or belts as they do today.
> 
> You've also wrong about the "rate of fire".  Firearms in the past did not have a lower rate of fire, unless of course you're claiming we have problem with full auto machine guns.  Otherwise, it's one pull of the trigger, one bullet fired, just as it's always been.
> 
> I think it would serve you well, and the case you're attempting to make, to educate yourself on actual firearm technology before you attack it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How can I be wrong, when I made no argument? I merely clarified what I felt Ravi meant.
> 
> The only real argument I made in the post you declared I was wrong in was the argument that attacking people who know less about firearms than you do and invalidating their opinions is wrong, and you turned right around and did it again.
> 
> *As for weapons themselves, I daresay I have as much or more knowledge about them as you or anyone else on the board. That does not make my OPINION about their inherent danger , or lack therof any more valid than Ravi's or anyone''s*.
Click to expand...


Cool!!!  What then are the chemical changes in the shell that propels the bullet center-of-badguy-mass-ward?

And while you're at it, the comparative drag coefficients on 9mm vs. .358 slugs, using light, normal or heavy loads?

Thanks in advance.


----------



## JustTheFacts

Koios said:


> JustTheFacts said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eflatminor said:
> 
> 
> 
> That would be another false assumption.  Firearms in the past 100 years has no less "ammo capacity" than we have today.  Firearms in the past held just as many rounds in their magazines, clips, or belts as they do today.
> 
> You've also wrong about the "rate of fire".  Firearms in the past did not have a lower rate of fire, unless of course you're claiming we have problem with full auto machine guns.  Otherwise, it's one pull of the trigger, one bullet fired, just as it's always been.
> 
> I think it would serve you well, and the case you're attempting to make, to educate yourself on actual firearm technology before you attack it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How can I be wrong, when I made no argument? I merely clarified what I felt Ravi meant.
> 
> The only real argument I made in the post you declared I was wrong in was the argument that attacking people who know less about firearms than you do and invalidating their opinions is wrong, and you turned right around and did it again.
> 
> *As for weapons themselves, I daresay I have as much or more knowledge about them as you or anyone else on the board. That does not make my OPINION about their inherent danger , or lack therof any more valid than Ravi's or anyone''s*.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Cool!!!  What then are the chemical changes in the shell that propels the bullet center-of-badguy-mass-ward?
> 
> And while you're at it, the comparative drag coefficients on 9mm vs. .358 slugs, using light, normal or heavy loads?
> 
> Thanks in advance.
Click to expand...


What does that have to do with the thread or whether guns are dangerous, and what's more at most posting the answers to the questions you posed would prove that I could Google the answers if I didn't already know, you would have no idea how I came about my answers.

I say it again, ones comparative knowledge of guns has nothing to do with whether guns are dangerous or not. I the wrong hands of course they are dangerous, and that is all anyone in this forum (I won't count forums outside the clean zone b/c well there are some crazy posters out there) is saying. Have you seen Ravi post "get them guns" or anything of the sort? Of course you have not. 

Sane people advocate keeping guns out of the hands of people who are dangerous whether they have a gun or not. Denying that a gun would make those people even MORE dangerous than they were without is just denying the obvious.

It's like denying the sky is blue b/c you don't like the color blue.


----------



## eflatminor

JustTheFacts said:


> eflatminor said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JustTheFacts said:
> 
> 
> 
> Clearly Ravi meant bigger as in higher ammo capacity and higher rate of fire. Not physically bigger.
> 
> I rank that up there with arguing over the definition of magazine versus clip. It serves no purpose. One doesn't have to know all the nomenclature and stats of certain weapons to know that some weapons are more efficient at killing than others.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That would be another false assumption.  Firearms in the past 100 years has no less "ammo capacity" than we have today.  Firearms in the past held just as many rounds in their magazines, clips, or belts as they do today.
> 
> You've also wrong about the "rate of fire".  Firearms in the past did not have a lower rate of fire, unless of course you're claiming we have problem with full auto machine guns.  Otherwise, it's one pull of the trigger, one bullet fired, just as it's always been.
> 
> I think it would serve you well, and the case you're attempting to make, to educate yourself on actual firearm technology before you attack it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How can I be wrong, when I made no argument? I merely clarified what I felt Ravi meant.
> 
> The only real argument I made in the post you declared I was wrong in was the argument that attacking people who know less about firearms than you do and invalidating their opinions is wrong, and you turned right around and did it again.
> 
> As for weapons themselves, I daresay I have as much or more knowledge about them as you or anyone else on the board. That does not make my OPINION about their inherent danger , or lack therof any more valid than Ravi's or anyone''s.
Click to expand...


I understand your point but I would draw a distinction.  I think a lack of knowledge about a subject does render an opinion on that subject _potentially _less than valid.  I believe that was the case when the point Ravi was trying to make was based on a false assumption.  Sure, it's possible someone ignorant on a subject can make a valid point about that subject, but I do not believe that was the case here.

Nevertheless, I'll resist attempting to educate those unfamiliar with firearms unless the point they're trying to make is based on a faulty assumption.  In other words, I get what you're saying.  I've been guilty of correcting the "clip / magazine" confusion when that really had nothing to do with the point at hand.  My bad.


----------



## Foxfyre

One more time politely requesting folks to take the gun debate to a gun thread.  This is not the thread for that.  Please.  Pretty please?

Okay re those studies and the controversy as to whether violence in the media, music, and video games is harmful to kids, I am the first to be skeptical of many of the studies on lots of controversial things whether that is politics or economics or religion or anthropological global warming or why marriages break up, etc. etc. etc.  But that doesn't mean all studies are irrelevant either.

Just ran across this article today that emphasizes the controversy we have here:

Excerpt:



> As a psychiatry professor at Harvard Medical School and the director of residency training for child and adolescent psychiatry at two major Massachusetts hospitals, Eugene Beresin is well-versed in the academic literature regarding how media violence can adversely impact children and adolescents.
> 
> "There are over 3,000 studies that link violence in movies (and) television with an impact on kids and adolescents," Beresin said in a recent interview. "But I think it's unclear from the literature that violence on television or movies will have a detrimental impact on every child.  We don't know which kids are vulnerable."
> 
> Media violence 'unchained': Multiple studies show kids are adversely affected by violence in entertainment, news | Deseret News


----------



## eflatminor

Foxfyre said:


> Did you read the piece re the studies that have been done eflat?  You aren't buying their conclusions?



I'm not sure if I've seen them.  I didn't see any links in the original post.  If you'd direct me to the studies you're talking about, I'll read them with an open mind.


----------



## Foxfyre

eflatminor said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> Did you read the piece re the studies that have been done eflat?  You aren't buying their conclusions?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not sure if I've seen them.  I didn't see any links in the original post.  If you'd direct me to the studies you're talking about, I'll read them with an open mind.
Click to expand...


Well one was repeated in Post #100 here:

http://www.usmessageboard.com/clean...ensor-video-games-not-guns-7.html#post6649078


----------



## Ravi

eflatminor said:


> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eflatminor said:
> 
> 
> 
> Umm, what "bigger weapons" are your referring to that are around today that were not then?  Hint: Today's firearms are no "bigger" than those 50 years ago.  In fact, the rounds used in an AR platform and most all firearms are far SMALLER than the calibers we tended to use years ago.  This has to do with improvements in gun powder and projectile technology, which tended to negate the need for larger calibers.
> 
> Just thought you'd appreciate the facts, not having an agenda and all...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Regardless of that, I'm sure you got my point.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, that would not be the case.  You seem to imply that advances in firearm technology is somehow related to the frequency and/or severity of mass killings.  That's not the case.  I assure you, a crazy guy could kill just as many people with a 50+ year old firearm as a modern one.
> 
> I point this out to demonstrate that the problem of mass killings is a problem of people doing evil acts, not the tool used to carry out that crime.
Click to expand...


Can you bump fire a regular hunting rifle?


----------



## Foxfyre

Here's another.  (And if any of ya'll find an authoritative article on a study showing no ill effects on children from these violent video games, etc., we need to include that too.)



> Gentile & Anderson (2003) state that playing video games may increase aggressive behavior because violent acts are continually repeated throughout the video game. This method of repetition has long been considered an effective teaching method in reinforcing learning patterns.
> 
> Video games also encourage players to identify with and role play their favorite characters. This is referred to as a "first-person" video game (Anderson & Dill, 2000, p. 788) because players are able to make decisions affecting the actions of the character they are imitating. After a limited amount of time playing a violent video game, a player can "automatically prime aggressive thoughts" (Bushman & Anderson, 2002, p. 1680). The researchers concluded that players who had prior experience playing violent video games responded with an increased level of aggression when they encountered confrontation (Bushman & Anderson, 2002).
> 
> In a Joint Statement (2000) before the Congressional Public Health Summit, a number of American medical associations -- the American Medical Association, American Academy of Pediatrics, American Psychological Association, American Academy of Family Physicians and American Academy of Child & Adolescent Psychiatry -- caution parents about violence in the media and its negative effect on children. Their report states that exposure to violent media can elevate aggressive feelings and thoughts, especially in children. These effects on aggressive behavior can be long-term. Although fewer studies have been conducted on interactive video games, evidence suggests that playing violent of children and adolescents (Joint Statement, 2000).
> The Impact of Video Games on Children



And those studies were 10 to 12 years ago.

The point being of course, as many of you have suggested, that there are many possible conclusions to reach about what prompts mass murders of innocents and other antisocial or violent behavior in the young.  But if extreme gratuitous and/or repetitive and/or interactive violence is have a significant negative effect on kids,  then we certainly should make parents aware of that and emphasize the importance of monitoring or restricting it.

We demand parents be conscious of preventative medicine, the food their kids eat, what is proper discipline, be politically correct, etc. etc. etc.   Surely some attention paid to media violence is also appropriate even if we ultimately determine that it is not a problem.


----------



## eflatminor

Foxfyre said:


> eflatminor said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> Did you read the piece re the studies that have been done eflat?  You aren't buying their conclusions?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not sure if I've seen them.  I didn't see any links in the original post.  If you'd direct me to the studies you're talking about, I'll read them with an open mind.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well one was repeated in Post #100 here:
> 
> http://www.usmessageboard.com/clean...ensor-video-games-not-guns-7.html#post6649078
Click to expand...


Okay, I read the piece.  I suspect the researchers are correct that people do become less physiologically aroused by real violence after playing these games.  That makes sense.  What I don't see is the leap to actually carrying out violence due to a video game.  If actual violence bothers me a bit less because I've been pretending to be violent in a game, that does not mean I'm going to act violent towards another because of that desensitization.

A personal anecdote:  I grew up on a farm where slaughtering is periodically required.  I also spent a LOT of time hunting and fishing.  I suspect I was, and am, desensitized to the site of blood and guts.  It just doesn't bother me.  Yet, skinning a rabbit has never made me want to hurt someone. 

So, bottom line, I'm not saying I know 100% for sure that violent entertainment doesn't contribute to violent acts, I've just never seen evidence that it does and it sure isn't the case with me personally.  This is why I remain skeptical but willing to listen.


----------



## JustTheFacts

eflatminor said:


> JustTheFacts said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eflatminor said:
> 
> 
> 
> That would be another false assumption.  Firearms in the past 100 years has no less "ammo capacity" than we have today.  Firearms in the past held just as many rounds in their magazines, clips, or belts as they do today.
> 
> You've also wrong about the "rate of fire".  Firearms in the past did not have a lower rate of fire, unless of course you're claiming we have problem with full auto machine guns.  Otherwise, it's one pull of the trigger, one bullet fired, just as it's always been.
> 
> I think it would serve you well, and the case you're attempting to make, to educate yourself on actual firearm technology before you attack it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How can I be wrong, when I made no argument? I merely clarified what I felt Ravi meant.
> 
> The only real argument I made in the post you declared I was wrong in was the argument that attacking people who know less about firearms than you do and invalidating their opinions is wrong, and you turned right around and did it again.
> 
> As for weapons themselves, I daresay I have as much or more knowledge about them as you or anyone else on the board. That does not make my OPINION about their inherent danger , or lack therof any more valid than Ravi's or anyone''s.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I understand your point but I would draw a distinction.  I think a lack of knowledge about a subject does render an opinion on that subject _potentially _less than valid.  I believe that was the case when the point Ravi was trying to make was based on a false assumption.  Sure, it's possible someone ignorant on a subject can make a valid point about that subject, but I do not believe that was the case here.
> 
> Nevertheless, I'll resist attempting to educate those unfamiliar with firearms unless the point they're trying to make is based on a faulty assumption.  In other words, I get what you're saying.  I've been guilty of correcting the "clip / magazine" confusion when that really had nothing to do with the point at hand.  My bad.
Click to expand...


I absolutely agree with you about an educated opinion being of more value than an uneducated one , when the opinion is based on knowledge. I just believe in the question of "are guns dangerous?" it doesn't take any specialized knowledge to have an opinion that they are . They are dangerous, in the wrong hands. You don't have to know anything more about guns than knowing that getting shot with one is not healthy to know that.


----------



## Ravi

Foxfyre said:


> And whatever we decide is increasing the violence, I do think the increasing numbers warrant some consideration of the subject.  We have had a number of thoughtful posts looking at media, video games, parenting issues, and cultural influences.  I'm pretty sure that the more thoughtful members are not interested in including access to guns in the equation as Americans have always had access to guns and those earlier decades had a whole lot less gun control than what we have now.  Have any of us put our finger on the actual problem?  Maybe.  Maybe not.
> 
> I am not interested in random acts of violence in which somebody murders somebody they have an issue with.  I am interested in focusing on what would provoke or prompt someone to plan and carry out the mass murders that we have mentioned here.
> 
> But to dismiss  video games as a factor is also most likely not a good idea any more than would be dismissing other theories presented here.  Again posting the link 007 posted earlier:
> 
> Video Games Desensitize to Real Violence | Psych Central News


Here you go: debunked

Terra Nova: Review of Carnagey, Anderson, and Bushman


----------



## Koios

JustTheFacts said:


> Koios said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JustTheFacts said:
> 
> 
> 
> How can I be wrong, when I made no argument? I merely clarified what I felt Ravi meant.
> 
> The only real argument I made in the post you declared I was wrong in was the argument that attacking people who know less about firearms than you do and invalidating their opinions is wrong, and you turned right around and did it again.
> 
> *As for weapons themselves, I daresay I have as much or more knowledge about them as you or anyone else on the board. That does not make my OPINION about their inherent danger , or lack therof any more valid than Ravi's or anyone''s*.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cool!!!  What then are the chemical changes in the shell that propels the bullet center-of-badguy-mass-ward?
> 
> And while you're at it, the comparative drag coefficients on 9mm vs. .358 slugs, using light, normal or heavy loads?
> 
> Thanks in advance.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *What does that have to do with the thread *or whether guns are dangerous, and what's more at most posting the answers to the questions you posed would prove that I could Google the answers if I didn't already know, you would have no idea how I came about my answers.
> 
> I say it again, ones comparative knowledge of guns has nothing to do with whether guns are dangerous or not. I the wrong hands of course they are dangerous, and that is all anyone in this forum (I won't count forums outside the clean zone b/c well there are some crazy posters out there) is saying. Have you seen Ravi post "get them guns" or anything of the sort? Of course you have not.
> 
> Sane people advocate keeping guns out of the hands of people who are dangerous whether they have a gun or not. Denying that a gun would make those people even MORE dangerous than they were without is just denying the obvious.
> 
> It's like denying the sky is blue b/c you don't like the color blue.
Click to expand...


Nothing.  It was a response to what you typed, which I emphasized using bolded letters.


----------



## eflatminor

Ravi said:


> eflatminor said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> 
> Regardless of that, I'm sure you got my point.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, that would not be the case.  You seem to imply that advances in firearm technology is somehow related to the frequency and/or severity of mass killings.  That's not the case.  I assure you, a crazy guy could kill just as many people with a 50+ year old firearm as a modern one.
> 
> I point this out to demonstrate that the problem of mass killings is a problem of people doing evil acts, not the tool used to carry out that crime.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Can you bump fire a regular hunting rifle?
Click to expand...


Depends on the rifle.  But I'm going to respect the OP here and ask if you have questions about the functionality of firearms, take it to another thread.


----------



## Foxfyre

The debate on NPR:

Excerpt:


> Ferguson says it's easy to think senseless video game violence can lead to senseless violence in the real world. But he says that's mixing up two separate things.
> 
> "Many of the games do have morally objectionable material and I think that is where a lot of the debate on this issue went off the rails," he said. "We kind of mistook our moral concerns about some of these video games, which are very valid  I find many of the games to be morally objectionable  and then assumed that what is morally objectionable is harmful."
> 
> In other words, if you define harm as getting in trouble with the police, violent video games probably aren't a risk. But if you're worried about lesser kinds of harm, they can be a risk.
> 
> "Playing violent video games probably will not turn your child into a psychopathic killer," Bushman said, "but I would want to know how the child treats his or her parents, how they treat their siblings, how much compassion they have."
> 
> So the dueling scientific studies aren't really at odds with each other  they just make different assumptions. Which may be why Bushman and Ferguson agree on one thing: as fathers, they've banned their own kids from playing violent video games.
> It's A Duel: How Do Violent Video Games Affect Kids? : NPR


----------



## catzmeow

Foxfyre said:


> NOTE:  Clean debate zone thread here. . . .
> 
> This morning I was listening to a concept put out by a military psychologist who suggests that it is not guns that are the problem in a 'violent America', but rather the changed American culture.  Violent concepts are prevalent in our television programs, movies, comic books, music, and most especially in video games that are available in large quantities to very young children.
> 
> His theory is that this is desensitizing young people to violence and even exalting and promoting it.
> 
> Are video games conditioning kids to accept violence as virtue?  As the way to get things accomplished?  To win?  To reach the pinnacle of success?  In many/most of video games out there, it is necessary to be ruthless in order to win the game.  Does this change the way people view their world in an unhealthy way?
> 
> If you do see this as a problem, how do you get around censorship as being somehow better than gun control?  Do you want the government to have power in that area?
> 
> Or is there a way for the public/radio/Hollywood  to self censor itself as it once did?  And should we push for that?
> 
> Or maybe you don't see it as a problem at all?



Statistically speaking, violence in the U.S. has decreased to the lowest level since 1978:

http://www.disastercenter.com/crime/uscrime.htm

The sky isn't falling, and Americans are safer than they've been at any point the past 40 years.  

I believe that violent video games weren't really widely distributed in the U.S. until the 1990s, and violence has decreased since the 1990s.

Based upon that data, violent video games aren't the problem.  In fact, based upon the data, violence isn't as much of a problem as it used to be, either.


----------



## Foxfyre

But the debate isn't about the crime rate in general or the murder rate in general.  The debate is about the escalation of senseless mass murders of innocents, whether violent video games and media contributes to that, and on a broader scale whether violent video games and media is generally harmful to kids.


----------



## Ravi

eflatminor said:


> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eflatminor said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, that would not be the case.  You seem to imply that advances in firearm technology is somehow related to the frequency and/or severity of mass killings.  That's not the case.  I assure you, a crazy guy could kill just as many people with a 50+ year old firearm as a modern one.
> 
> I point this out to demonstrate that the problem of mass killings is a problem of people doing evil acts, not the tool used to carry out that crime.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Can you bump fire a regular hunting rifle?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Depends on the rifle.  But I'm going to respect the OP here and ask if you have questions about the functionality of firearms, take it to another thread.
Click to expand...


If video games cause violence (which I don't believe) then we have a vested interest in taking away the tools of violence....and that would be weapons that are easily used to shoot multiple victims.


----------



## eflatminor

Foxfyre said:


> "Playing violent video games probably will not turn your child into a psychopathic killer," Bushman said, "but *I would want to know* how the child treats his or her parents, how they treat their siblings, how much compassion they have."



Sounds like they still have work to do.  More studies, etc. 

For what it's worth, the guys I knew growing up that hunted, killed and field dressing game where all respectful to their parents and siblings.  The real pricks were not hunters.  They seemed to be not into much of anything at all...dropouts, losers, etc.  That said, I realize my experience is not statistically significant.

Perhaps it's possible bad people are just born that way.  A genetic or chemical thing?  I don't really know.  Either way, I would not support government regulating violence in entertainment.  A voluntary system just in case?  Fine.


----------



## catzmeow

Foxfyre said:


> But the debate isn't about the crime rate in general or the murder rate in general.  The debate is about the escalation of senseless mass murders of innocents, whether violent video games and media contributes to that, and on a broader scale whether violent video games and media is generally harmful to kids.



Statistically speaking, we are still at historically low levels of violence in the U.S., even with the recent mass murders.  In fact, there hasn't even been an escalation of mass murder since the 1980s, though there has been a small increase (1.2% annually).

Mass murder rises as other killings decline - East Valley Tribune: Nation / World



> According to recently released FBI statistics, homicides involving two or more victims rose from 1,360 incidents in 2008 to 1,428 incidents last year. That's a 5 percent increase even though homicides, overall, dropped nearly 7 percent...
> 
> Data on mass murders for 2009 are not yet available, but these killings involving four or more victims have been rising slightly in recent years. For the three-year period 2006 to 2008, an annual average of 163 Americans perished in acts of mass killing, up from the annual average of 161 during the 1980s.



An increase of 1.2% over mass murder rates in the 1980s is not an escalation in mass murder.

I know it's a horrifying topic, but this isn't a new problem.  In fact, it's barely changed since the 80s.

Realizing that fact can keep us from the sorts of overreactions that you've engaged in here.

It's helpful to look at crime stats in context:



> From 1980 to 2008, at least 4,685 people have perished in 965 reported incidents of mass murder involving at least four fatalities committed during the same incident. Multiple homicides involving at least two victims took 44,163 lives in 19,568 incidents.



That's an annual average of about 163.   In 2012, there were 151 victims of mass murder in the U.S.

That's actually lower than average.

Here's another helpful article...mass murders represent only about 1% of all homicides.  In spite of the horrifying nature of the mass murders in 2012, they have remained rare.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2012/12/18/mass-killings-common/1778303/

Personally, I'm not a fan of overreacting.


----------



## eflatminor

Ravi said:


> eflatminor said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> 
> Can you bump fire a regular hunting rifle?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Depends on the rifle.  But I'm going to respect the OP here and ask if you have questions about the functionality of firearms, take it to another thread.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If video games cause violence (which I don't believe) then we have a vested interest in taking away the tools of violence....and that would be weapons that are easily used to shoot multiple victims.
Click to expand...


Any firearm can be used to shoot multiple victims.  Besides, you're making a gun grab argument, which overlooks the history of such measures.  You end up assuring the criminals are better armed than law abiding citizens trying to protect their families and you expose the people to tyranny.  Ain't gonna happen.


----------



## Ravi

eflatminor said:


> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eflatminor said:
> 
> 
> 
> Depends on the rifle.  But I'm going to respect the OP here and ask if you have questions about the functionality of firearms, take it to another thread.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If video games cause violence (which I don't believe) then we have a vested interest in taking away the tools of violence....and that would be weapons that are easily used to shoot multiple victims.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Any firearm can be used to shoot multiple victims.  Besides, you're making a gun grab argument, which overlooks the history of such measures.  You end up assuring the criminals are better armed than law abiding citizens trying to protect their families and you expose the people to tyranny.  Ain't gonna happen.
Click to expand...

In reality I was merely debunking the myth that weapons currently on the market are NOT more efficient at killing than weapons during the so called "golden age" where Ozzie and Harriet ruled.


----------



## Foxfyre

To Ravi, I am aware of Castronova's dispute with the negative impact of video games and yes, that should be part of the debate.  I am also aware, however, that Castronova is a huge video game guy, loves all aspects of them, and he is a telecommunications guy with no training or education that I know of in pschology or psychiatry.

And I am respectfully requesting that you take the gun discussion to another thread please.


----------



## Ravi

He is a professor of telecommunications and cognitive science. Not scoff worthy.

Nor are the points he made in his article.


----------



## Koios

eflatminor said:


> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eflatminor said:
> 
> 
> 
> Depends on the rifle.  But I'm going to respect the OP here and ask if you have questions about the functionality of firearms, take it to another thread.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If video games cause violence (which I don't believe) then we have a vested interest in taking away the tools of violence....and that would be weapons that are easily used to shoot multiple victims.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Any firearm can be used to shoot multiple victims.  Besides, *you're making a gun grab argument*, which overlooks the history of such measures.  You end up assuring the criminals are better armed than law abiding citizens trying to protect their families and you expose the people to tyranny.  Ain't gonna happen.
Click to expand...


"Gun grab" is a phrase used by the Right, who apparently also believe there's a tax for dying, and that there's an actual medical procedure called "partial birth abortion."

In reality, banning the future sale of certain weapons does not grab anyone's gun.

No shit.  Remember when we tried a marginally-effective survival/assault weapons ban for 10 years not so long ago?  And at any time were any guns grabbed from lawful owners?  Even one?


----------



## catzmeow

Foxfyre said:


> To Ravi, I am aware of Castronova's dispute with the negative impact of video games and yes, that should be part of the debate.  I am also aware, however, that Castronova is a huge video game guy, loves all aspects of them, and he is a telecommunications guy with no training or education that I know of in pschology or psychiatry.
> 
> And I am respectfully requesting that you take the gun discussion to another thread please.



You can't prove that there is a negative impact from violent video games based upon crime data.  Mass murders have only increased 1.2% since the 1980s (and violent video games were not available in those years).  In fact, during 2012, mass murders decreased by 7% from the average rate since 2000.  That renders the rest of your arguments moot, unless you are able to quantify harm from these games in some other way.

See post above for more explanation.


----------



## Ravi

Here's another debunking:

Developing Intelligence - The Old Version: Video Game Violence and Desensitization


----------



## catzmeow

The uproar about violent video games is based upon an imaginary correlation to an inflated perception of harm, not valid statistical analysis.


----------



## Foxfyre

Ravi said:


> Here's another debunking:
> 
> Developing Intelligence - The Old Version: Video Game Violence and Desensitization



So who is Chris Chatham and what are his credentials for critiquing the review?


----------



## Ravi

Foxfyre said:


> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> 
> Here's another debunking:
> 
> Developing Intelligence - The Old Version: Video Game Violence and Desensitization
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So who is Chris Chatham and what are his credentials for critiquing the review?
Click to expand...


One doesn't need credentials to spot logical errors and the hiding of data.


----------



## catzmeow

Foxfyre said:


> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> 
> Here's another debunking:
> 
> Developing Intelligence - The Old Version: Video Game Violence and Desensitization
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So who is Chris Chatham and what are his credentials for critiquing the review?
Click to expand...


It doesn't matter.  If you can't show that an escalation of mass murder has occurred since the introduction of violent video games, your point is moot.

And you can't, because there hasn't been one.


----------



## Ravi

catzmeow said:


> The uproar about violent video games is based upon an imaginary correlation to an inflated perception of harm, not valid statistical analysis.



I don't need video games to get all juiced up on violence. I simply read the OT.


----------



## catzmeow

All I need is a hoodie, some iced tea, and some skittles.


----------



## Ravi

catzmeow said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> But the debate isn't about the crime rate in general or the murder rate in general.  The debate is about the escalation of senseless mass murders of innocents, whether violent video games and media contributes to that, and on a broader scale whether violent video games and media is generally harmful to kids.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Statistically speaking, we are still at historically low levels of violence in the U.S., even with the recent mass murders.  In fact, there hasn't even been an escalation of mass murder since the 1980s, though there has been a small increase (1.2% annually).
> 
> Mass murder rises as other killings decline - East Valley Tribune: Nation / World
> 
> 
> 
> 
> According to recently released FBI statistics, homicides involving two or more victims rose from 1,360 incidents in 2008 to 1,428 incidents last year. That's a 5 percent increase even though homicides, overall, dropped nearly 7 percent...
> 
> Data on mass murders for 2009 are not yet available, but these killings involving four or more victims have been rising slightly in recent years. For the three-year period 2006 to 2008, an annual average of 163 Americans perished in acts of mass killing, up from the annual average of 161 during the 1980s.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> An increase of 1.2% over mass murder rates in the 1980s is not an escalation in mass murder.
> 
> I know it's a horrifying topic, but this isn't a new problem.  In fact, it's barely changed since the 80s.
> 
> Realizing that fact can keep us from the sorts of overreactions that you've engaged in here.
> 
> It's helpful to look at crime stats in context:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> From 1980 to 2008, at least 4,685 people have perished in 965 reported incidents of mass murder involving at least four fatalities committed during the same incident. Multiple homicides involving at least two victims took 44,163 lives in 19,568 incidents.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's an annual average of about 163.   In 2012, there were 151 victims of mass murder in the U.S.
> 
> That's actually lower than average.
> 
> Here's another helpful article...mass murders represent only about 1% of all homicides.  In spite of the horrifying nature of the mass murders in 2012, they have remained rare.
> 
> Mass killings occur in USA once every two weeks
> 
> Personally, I'm not a fan of overreacting.
Click to expand...

These are all excellent points. If you had posted this immediately after the OP the thread would have died long ago.


----------



## Foxfyre

Ravi said:


> He is a professor of telecommunications and cognitive science. Not scoff worthy.
> 
> Nor are the points he made in his article.



Which is why I didn't scoff.  I was happy to include his perspective in the debate.

But neither will I automatically accept his opinion as more worthy than others who have studied this particular phenomenon.  Most especially since he is an avid video gamer, enamored with video games, and a founder of the game research blog Terra Nova where you got your link.  He also created an Indiana University program built on the structure of a collaborative game environemnt.  Folks who love the violent video games have strong motive to portray them as a harmless activity.


----------



## catzmeow

Foxfyre said:


> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> 
> He is a professor of telecommunications and cognitive science. Not scoff worthy.
> 
> Nor are the points he made in his article.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Which is why I didn't scoff.  I was happy to include his perspective in the debate.
> 
> But neither will I automatically accept his opinion as more worthy than others who have studied this particular phenomenon.  Most especially since he is an avid video gamer, enamored with video games, and a founder of the game research blog Terra Nova where you got your link.  He also created an Indiana University program built on the structure of a collaborative game environemnt.  Folks who love the violent video games have strong motive to portray them as a harmless activity.
Click to expand...


Your argument was based upon the (mistaken) belief that there has been an escalation in mass murder since the advent of violent video games.  That belief has been debunked, rendering your other points irrelevant.


----------



## Foxfyre

catzmeow said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> 
> He is a professor of telecommunications and cognitive science. Not scoff worthy.
> 
> Nor are the points he made in his article.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Which is why I didn't scoff.  I was happy to include his perspective in the debate.
> 
> But neither will I automatically accept his opinion as more worthy than others who have studied this particular phenomenon.  Most especially since he is an avid video gamer, enamored with video games, and a founder of the game research blog Terra Nova where you got your link.  He also created an Indiana University program built on the structure of a collaborative game environemnt.  Folks who love the violent video games have strong motive to portray them as a harmless activity.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your argument was based upon the (mistaken) belief that there has been an escalation in mass murder since the advent of violent video games.  That belief has been debunked, rendering your other points irrelevant.
Click to expand...


No.  I have not made any argument on violence perse other than demonstrating that an increase in gun ownership has not increased violence and suggested that more guns or access to guns were not the problem.

I have I believe made an effective case that these senseless mass murders of innocents is a relatively new phenomenon in America and has been escalating in recent decades.  Whether that correlates or has any relationship to the simultaneous escalation of gratuitious media violence, graphic violence in music, and violent video games is what we are debating.

We have cited a number of scientific studies by professionals who suggest there is likely a correlation and possible causation.  The topic is whether such violence is harmful to kids.  I would think those who care about kids would want to know that.  If the conclusion is that there is no harm, so be it.  If there is, then that needs to be dealt with.  There must be some reason they put "M" as a rating on some video games.

I bet you could even focus on that one particular issue if you really tried real hard.

What I don't understand is why some would want to derail or kill the topic.  What is it about it that frightens you so?


----------



## AmyNation

It wasn't a new phenomenon in 1764 when 2 men went into an American school and shot a bunch of children, and its still not.


----------



## catzmeow

Foxfyre said:


> I have I believe made an effective case that these senseless mass murders of innocents is a relatively new phenomenon in America and has been escalating in recent decades.



Citation needed for this claim.  The FBI statistics I provided above show that mass murder  is not a new phenomenon, and has not escalated.

In fact, mass murder as a phenomenon long predates the advent of video games.

I suppose next you'll tell me that Henry Lee Moore played Call of Duty.


----------



## Swagger

AmyNation said:


> It wasn't a new phenomenon in 1764 when 2 men went into an American school and shot a bunch of children, and its still not.



America didn't exist then. Anyway, who did this and where?


----------



## eflatminor

Koios said:


> eflatminor said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> 
> If video games cause violence (which I don't believe) then we have a vested interest in taking away the tools of violence....and that would be weapons that are easily used to shoot multiple victims.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Any firearm can be used to shoot multiple victims.  Besides, *you're making a gun grab argument*, which overlooks the history of such measures.  You end up assuring the criminals are better armed than law abiding citizens trying to protect their families and you expose the people to tyranny.  Ain't gonna happen.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "Gun grab" is a phrase used by the Right, who apparently also believe there's a tax for dying, and that there's an actual medical procedure called "partial birth abortion."
Click to expand...


Has nothing to do with the debate at hand.  And I'm not "the Right".



> Remember when we tried a marginally-effective survival/assault weapons ban for 10 years not so long ago?



Marginally effective my butt.  A ban that in no way deters criminals from breaking the law with banned firearms while putting good people at a disadvantage is in no way effective.  Stop making stuff up. 



> And at any time were any guns grabbed from lawful owners?  Even one?



Not by the Feds due to that inane law, but if you have any doubt that governments in the US have confiscated firearms, you should look into what happened in New Orleans not so long ago.  Look into what the TSA has grabbed.  Look at what we're considering in the UN.  Look at the fate of other countries that had their firearms confiscated.  

Sorry, but not only will not you take away what we have, you'll not prevent us from obtaining what we want.  The Supreme Court has ruled and your bans don't help, they hurt.


----------



## catzmeow

Also, here's a little light reading for you, Foxy, since I know you like to be well-informed:

http://wcr.sonoma.edu/v6n1/manuscripts/duwe.pdf



> Over the past twenty years, claimsmakers have asserted that the mid-1960s marked the beginning of an unprecedented and ever-growing mass murder wave in the United States. *Recent research has shown, however, that mass murder was just as common during the 1920s and 30s as it has been since the mid-1960s.* Using the FBI&#8217;s Supplementary Homicide Reports (SHR) and newspaper, network television news, and newsweekly magazine coverage as sources of data, this study examines why and how mass murder was constructed as a new crime problem.



For the record, there weren't many violent video games in circulation in the 1920s.

p.s.  those who don't study history are doomed to repeat it.


----------



## Ravi

Foxfyre said:


> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> 
> He is a professor of telecommunications and cognitive science. Not scoff worthy.
> 
> Nor are the points he made in his article.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Which is why I didn't scoff.  I was happy to include his perspective in the debate.
> 
> But neither will I automatically accept his opinion as more worthy than others who have studied this particular phenomenon.  Most especially since he is an avid video gamer, enamored with video games, and a founder of the game research blog Terra Nova where you got your link.  He also created an Indiana University program built on the structure of a collaborative game environemnt.  Folks who love the violent video games have strong motive to portray them as a harmless activity.
Click to expand...


You're attacking the messenger. His points are valid.


----------



## Foxfyre

Mass murders have happened in the past yes.  Most of it related to organized crime or gang violence or other crimes in which the motive was to intimidate or terrorize or punish wrong doings.  Of course there has been senseless carnage by madmen in the past as many of your keep posting; as was evidenced in te Manson murders, etc.

But the specific type of mass murder of innocents in theaters and schools was nowhere near as frequent or common until the last few decades.  Before that none of us saw a need for high levels of school security.  We went to the theater without a thought in our heads that some gunman would come in to start shooting people at random.

It is THAT phenomenon I want to focus on.  Not violence in general.  Not murder in general.

Is that a topic offensive to anybody?


----------



## Foxfyre

And if you think I'm attacking the messenger, Ravi, what are you doing when you say the sources others have linked are debunked?   I am only pointing out why I think Castronova's opinion, while it belongs in the debate, is not sufficient to debunk other experts on the subject.


----------



## AmyNation

Swagger said:


> AmyNation said:
> 
> 
> 
> It wasn't a new phenomenon in 1764 when 2 men went into an American school and shot a bunch of children, and its still not.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> America didn't exist then. Anyway, who did this and where?
Click to expand...


I've already posted the link eariler in the thread.


----------



## catzmeow

Foxfyre said:


> But the specific type of mass murder of innocents in theaters and schools was nowhere near as frequent or common until the last few decades.  Before that none of us saw a need for high levels of school security.  We went to the theater without a thought in our heads that some gunman would come in to start shooting people at random.



Untrue.  Your lack of awareness of these kinds of mass killings =/= the lack of existence of them.



> Over the past twenty years, claimsmakers have asserted that the mid-1960s marked the beginning of an unprecedented and ever-growing mass murder wave in the United States. *Recent research has shown, however, that mass murder was just as common during the 1920s and 30s as it has been since the mid-1960s. *Using the FBI&#8217;s Supplementary Homicide Reports (SHR) and newspaper, network television news, and newsweekly magazine coverage as sources of data, this study examines why and how mass murder was constructed as a new crime problem.



http://wcr.sonoma.edu/v6n1/manuscripts/duwe.pdf

Mass murders in the 1960s and before occurred in homes, schools, public locations, and the workplace.

In fact, you're doing exactly what was done in the 1960s...making non-factual claims about a changing crime wave that wasn't a changing crime wave.



> On July 14, 1966, Richard Speck committed one of the most notorious mass murders in American history when he killed eight student nurses in Chicago. The mass killing attracted an enormous amount of media attention and was dubbed the &#8220;crime of the century&#8221; by the coroner working on the case (Time 1966a: 19-21).
> 
> A little more than two weeks later on August 1, 1966, the United States witnessed another catastrophic mass murder. This time, the location was the University of Texas at Austin, where 25-year-old student Charles Whitman climbed atop the 307-foot high campus tower and began shooting at passersby below. Whitman killed 16 and wounded 30 before he was fatally shot by police. Recalling that the Speck massacre was labeled the &#8220;crime of the century,&#8221; Austin Police Chief Robert A. Miles observed, &#8220;It isn&#8217;t anymore&#8221; (Time 1966b: 14-19).
> 
> Together, the Speck and Whitman murders were thought to have had a substantial impact on beliefs and perceptions about crime...
> 
> During the 1980s, journalists, scholars, and other commentators began to assert that the mid-1960s marked the onset of an unprecedented and ever-growing mass murder wave.  And the Speck and Whitman massacres were frequently cited as the bellwether of a sharp upward trend in mass murder activity. Results from a recent study have shown, however, that although the mid-1960s marked the beginning of a mass murder wave, it was not unprecedented. *Rather, mass murder was nearly as common during the 1920s and 30s as it has been since the mid-1960s *(Duwe 2004)


----------



## JustTheFacts

catzmeow said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> NOTE:  Clean debate zone thread here. . . .
> 
> This morning I was listening to a concept put out by a military psychologist who suggests that it is not guns that are the problem in a 'violent America', but rather the changed American culture.  Violent concepts are prevalent in our television programs, movies, comic books, music, and most especially in video games that are available in large quantities to very young children.
> 
> His theory is that this is desensitizing young people to violence and even exalting and promoting it.
> 
> Are video games conditioning kids to accept violence as virtue?  As the way to get things accomplished?  To win?  To reach the pinnacle of success?  In many/most of video games out there, it is necessary to be ruthless in order to win the game.  Does this change the way people view their world in an unhealthy way?
> 
> If you do see this as a problem, how do you get around censorship as being somehow better than gun control?  Do you want the government to have power in that area?
> 
> Or is there a way for the public/radio/Hollywood  to self censor itself as it once did?  And should we push for that?
> 
> Or maybe you don't see it as a problem at all?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Statistically speaking, violence in the U.S. has decreased to the lowest level since 1978:
> 
> United States Crime Rates 1960 - 2011
> 
> The sky isn't falling, and Americans are safer than they've been at any point the past 40 years.
> 
> I believe that violent video games weren't really widely distributed in the U.S. until the 1990s, and violence has decreased since the 1990s.
> 
> Based upon that data, violent video games aren't the problem.  In fact, based upon the data, violence isn't as much of a problem as it used to be, either.
Click to expand...


Actually I believe that the "violent video games" weren't introduced until around 2006 when Sony created the so called next generation console market and game makers could suddenly create worlds that looked as real as any movie. Video games are no longer the cartoons bashing each other over the head , or characters who look like men firing what looks like guns at other guys. Now you can, if you wish, literally blow another character's brains out, and watch the bits of brain fly everywhere.

I mean it's not just violent games that are more graphic, I remember my first video sports game, it was Soccer for the Atari2600. It was literally 9 X's against 9 O's kicking a dot around now. look at the graphics today, the players look absolutely real.

As an example of this, want to use a dead cat as a silencer? No problem in this game.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=pU5M-vlm0PA]Postal 2 - Share the Pain - Tuesday [1/2] - YouTube[/ame]


Just like there is no argument that guns can be used for evil, there is no argument that video games today are far more violent and graphic than in the past.

Now I counter that with the argument that video games can also have good effects, but as with ALL things moderation and parental supervision are musts.

Games like the one I showed above simply are NOT created for or geared toward children, they are ADULT games. No different than an R rated movie, or alcohol, or smokes. And shame on parents who don't remember that.


----------



## Ravi

Swagger said:


> AmyNation said:
> 
> 
> 
> It wasn't a new phenomenon in 1764 when 2 men went into an American school and shot a bunch of children, and its still not.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> America didn't exist then. Anyway, who did this and where?
Click to expand...

In 1507, German cartographer Martin Waldseemüller produced a world map on which he named the lands of the Western Hemisphere "America" after Italian explorer and cartographer Amerigo Vespucci.[14] wikipedia


----------



## Foxfyre

catzmeow said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> But the specific type of mass murder of innocents in theaters and schools was nowhere near as frequent or common until the last few decades.  Before that none of us saw a need for high levels of school security.  We went to the theater without a thought in our heads that some gunman would come in to start shooting people at random.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Untrue.  Your lack of awareness of these kinds of mass killings =/= the lack of existence of them.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Over the past twenty years, claimsmakers have asserted that the mid-1960s marked the beginning of an unprecedented and ever-growing mass murder wave in the United States. *Recent research has shown, however, that mass murder was just as common during the 1920s and 30s as it has been since the mid-1960s. *Using the FBIs Supplementary Homicide Reports (SHR) and newspaper, network television news, and newsweekly magazine coverage as sources of data, this study examines why and how mass murder was constructed as a new crime problem.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Mass murders in the 1960s and before occurred in homes, schools, public locations, and the workplace.
Click to expand...


I've already accepted that some of you are perfectly fine with the situation as it exists and don't think any further study is necessary.  That's cool.  I just don't happen to share the same confidence that some of the rest of you do.

However, please back up your claim.  Please take out all the organized crime activity, gang activity, and other mass murders that were committed with intent to punish or intimidate somebody specific--those we know WHY they happened-- and post all the mass murders of innocents--most the killers didn't know--in all those other years.


----------



## catzmeow

Foxfyre said:


> I've already accepted that some of you are perfectly fine with the situation as it exists and don't think any further study is necessary.  That's cool.  I just don't happen to share the same confidence that some of the rest of you do.



Strawman.  Actually, what you don't share with me is basic awareness of murder trends.  It's easy to avoid chicken little overreactions when you realize that we had plenty of axe murdering sociopaths in the old days.



Foxfyre said:


> However, please back up your claim.  Please take out all the organized crime activity, gang activity, and other mass murders that were committed with intent to punish or intimidate somebody specific--those we know WHY they happened-- and post all the mass murders of innocents--most the killers didn't know--in all those other years.



Read the article I linked above.  It thoroughly debunks your opinions.  For instance, it outlines two mass murders at schools in 1966 that involved murders of innocent students, and points to the fact that the same types of crimes occurred in the 1920s and 1930s.

I understand why you have the perceptions you do.  But, they're inaccurate.


----------



## JustTheFacts

Ravi said:


> Swagger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AmyNation said:
> 
> 
> 
> It wasn't a new phenomenon in 1764 when 2 men went into an American school and shot a bunch of children, and its still not.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> America didn't exist then. Anyway, who did this and where?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> In 1507, German cartographer Martin Waldseemüller produced a world map on which he named the lands of the Western Hemisphere "America" after Italian explorer and cartographer Amerigo Vespucci.[14] wikipedia
Click to expand...


Pretty obvious that Swagger meant the United States of America didn't exist then.

That's the kind of nit picking that leads to conversations getting nothing done. Not that we're accomplishing anything here anyway, but you know what I mean.


----------



## Ravi

JustTheFacts said:


> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Swagger said:
> 
> 
> 
> America didn't exist then. Anyway, who did this and where?
> 
> 
> 
> In 1507, German cartographer Martin Waldseemüller produced a world map on which he named the lands of the Western Hemisphere "America" after Italian explorer and cartographer Amerigo Vespucci.[14] wikipedia
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Pretty obvious that Swagger meant the United States of America didn't exist then.
> 
> That's the kind of nit picking that leads to conversations getting nothing done. Not that we're accomplishing anything here anyway, but you know what I mean.
Click to expand...

ha, I was nit-picking his nit-picking.


----------



## Foxfyre

Well for sure some don't seem to want anything to be accomplished here.   I do believe we have USMB members with the intellect and ability to really explore and dissect a topic and I would like to do that with this topic.  But oh well.  Whatever floats anybody's boat.


----------



## catzmeow

Foxfyre said:


> Well for sure some don't seem to want anything to be accomplished here.   I do believe we have USMB members with the intellect and ability to really explore and dissect a topic and I would like to do that with this topic.  But oh well.  Whatever floats anybody's boat.



The topic is based upon linked faulty assumptions.  First, that the U.S. is experiencing an escalation of mass murder.  Second, that there is a correlation between violent video games and mass murder.

Neither of your assumptions are supported by data.  *If there were a correlation between violent video games and mass murder, we'd almost certainly have experienced a large increase in mass murder that was congruent with increases in the dissemination of violent video games in society*.

That has not occurred.

Thus, your arguments are innately flawed.

Here's some more interesting reading:

http://www.rit.edu/cla/cpsi/WorkingPapers/2009/2009-11.pdf

The deadliest school attack in U.S. history occurred *in 1927 *in Bath, Michigan, and used bombs.  45 children were killed, and 53 were wounded/injured.


----------



## AmyNation

To "discuss the topic" we would have to accept the premise that mass murder is 

1) a new phenomenon
2) on the rise


However, this thread is filled with links that prove both of those conclusions false.


----------



## Koios

Foxfyre said:


> *Well for sure some don't seem to want anything to be accomplished here.*   I do believe we have USMB members with the intellect and ability to really explore and dissect a topic and I would like to do that with this topic.  But oh well.  Whatever floats anybody's boat.



Accomplishment is in the doing.  It's entertainment.  You do know that; yeah?

Zip else is accomplished.  No shit.  Millions of posts, probably.  Number of opinions altered, still zero.

Try not to overthink it.


----------



## TakeAStepBack

Accomplishment is in the results, not in the doing.


----------



## catzmeow

I've accomplished a debunking of an argument based upon faulty premises.  What do I win?


----------



## Koios

catzmeow said:


> I've accomplished a debunking of an argument based upon faulty premises.  What do I win?



Self-delusion Award.

Congrats.


----------



## Foxfyre

JustTheFacts said:


> Actually I believe that the "violent video games" weren't introduced until around 2006 when Sony created the so called next generation console market and game makers could suddenly create worlds that looked as real as any movie. Video games are no longer the cartoons bashing each other over the head , or characters who look like men firing what looks like guns at other guys. Now you can, if you wish, literally blow another character's brains out, and watch the bits of brain fly everywhere.
> 
> I mean it's not just violent games that are more graphic, I remember my first video sports game, it was Soccer for the Atari2600. It was literally 9 X's against 9 O's kicking a dot around now. look at the graphics today, the players look absolutely real.
> 
> As an example of this, want to use a dead cat as a silencer? No problem in this game.
> 
> Postal 2 - Share the Pain - Tuesday [1/2] - YouTube
> 
> 
> Just like there is no argument that guns can be used for evil, there is no argument that video games today are far more violent and graphic than in the past.
> 
> Now I counter that with the argument that video games can also have good effects, but as with ALL things moderation and parental supervision are musts.
> 
> Games like the one I showed above simply are NOT created for or geared toward children, they are ADULT games. No different than an R rated movie, or alcohol, or smokes. And shame on parents who don't remember that.



Some of the studies--or more accurately reviews of studies--I have been reading suggest that it isn't the realism that is the problem but rather the repetitive nature of the violence in these games. 

As an anecdotal illustration I have a Hoyle Card Game program that I love in which I play Bridge or Spades or whatever with cartoonish but realistic characters, some human, some not, each with his or her own distinct personality expressed in intermittent comments.  And the game has a feature in which you can bonk on the head or make an insulting comment to one of those players that trumps your ace or otherwise annoys you in the game.  Fun and funny for those of us who use that program.

What surprised me, however, is when I have played real time Bridge or Spades with real flesh and blood folks on line, and somebody trumps my ace or whatever, I found myself automatically looking for that button that would let me bonk them on the head or insult them.  It had become part of my game psyche.  No biggie.  No problem.  But I found that interesting.

However your observation that the graphic violent  video games didn't come into play until 2006, if you are right about that, this would be an interesting statistic.


----------



## Koios

TakeAStepBack said:


> Accomplishment is in the results, not in the doing.



It's both.  Laying on a mexican beach drinking Corona, and the tan afteward, are both accomplishments.


----------



## TakeAStepBack

You win a trip into another thread at your volition to do it again.


----------



## JustTheFacts

AmyNation said:


> To "discuss the topic" we would have to accept the premise that mass murder is
> 
> 1) a new phenomenon
> 2) on the rise
> 
> 
> However, this thread is filled with links that prove both of those conclusions false.



Untrue. The question asked in THIS thread is have video games played some part in causing the recent shootings. What happened in the past is irrelevant to that since we KNOW that video games were not to blame for anyone being shot pre 1970 or so for sure.

Your argument would be akin to if I stated that I think the high level mercury content in the water in the 20s caused people to kill other people and you rejoined with "well we don't have mercury in our water now and people are still killing each other" a perfectly valid statement , also completely unrelated to my post as I didn't claim that mercury in water was the ONLY cause of murders nor did I claim they played any role in murders TODAY.


----------



## Foxfyre

Koios said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Well for sure some don't seem to want anything to be accomplished here.*   I do believe we have USMB members with the intellect and ability to really explore and dissect a topic and I would like to do that with this topic.  But oh well.  Whatever floats anybody's boat.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Accomplishment is in the doing.  It's entertainment.  You do know that; yeah?
> 
> Zip else is accomplished.  No shit.  Millions of posts, probably.  Number of opinions altered, still zero.
> 
> Try not to overthink it.
Click to expand...


Good advice.  However I am already spoiled having encountered on line friends who actually do have a clue, who can articulate an intelligent opinion, and who enjoy actually exploring a subject and testing to see whether their point of view can hold up against those who argue against it.  And I really appreciate them.   And sometimes get impatient with those who don't share my enthusiasm for that sort of thing.  Which is my bad, I know.


----------



## Koios

Foxfyre said:


> Koios said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Well for sure some don't seem to want anything to be accomplished here.*   I do believe we have USMB members with the intellect and ability to really explore and dissect a topic and I would like to do that with this topic.  But oh well.  Whatever floats anybody's boat.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Accomplishment is in the doing.  It's entertainment.  You do know that; yeah?
> 
> Zip else is accomplished.  No shit.  Millions of posts, probably.  Number of opinions altered, still zero.
> 
> Try not to overthink it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Good advice.  However I am already spoiled having encountered on line friends who actually do have a clue, who can articulate an intelligent opinion, and who enjoy actually exploring a subject and testing to see whether their point of view can hold up against those who argue against it.  And I really appreciate them.   And sometimes get impatient with those who don't share my enthusiasm for reasoned conversation, discussion, and debate.  Which is my bad, I know.
Click to expand...


Cool.  I'm sure that agreeing with you is "having a clue."  Good thinking; and as an added bonus, you might just have wrestled Catz' award away from him/her.


----------



## Ravi

Foxfyre said:


> Well for sure some don't seem to want anything to be accomplished here.   I do believe we have USMB members with the intellect and ability to really explore and dissect a topic and I would like to do that with this topic.  But oh well.  Whatever floats anybody's boat.



Huh. I saw many people debunk your OP while you pretended it wasn't debunked. Not sure what you were trying to get out of it unless you were just looking for atta boys.


----------



## JustTheFacts

Ravi said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well for sure some don't seem to want anything to be accomplished here.   I do believe we have USMB members with the intellect and ability to really explore and dissect a topic and I would like to do that with this topic.  But oh well.  Whatever floats anybody's boat.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Huh. I saw many people debunk your OP while you pretended it wasn't debunked. Not sure what you were trying to get out of it unless you were just looking for atta boys.
Click to expand...


Who debunked her OP? I saw not one post that PROVED that video games play no part in why these kids murder. Not one. Oh sure you proved that people murdered before video games were invented, but I doubt the OP believed that to be untrue even absent your proof.


----------



## Foxfyre

JustTheFacts said:


> AmyNation said:
> 
> 
> 
> To "discuss the topic" we would have to accept the premise that mass murder is
> 
> 1) a new phenomenon
> 2) on the rise
> 
> 
> However, this thread is filled with links that prove both of those conclusions false.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Untrue. The question asked in THIS thread is have video games played some part in causing the recent shootings. What happened in the past is irrelevant to that since we KNOW that video games were not to blame for anyone being shot pre 1970 or so for sure.
> 
> Your argument would be akin to if I stated that I think the high level mercury content in the water in the 20s caused people to kill other people and you rejoined with "well we don't have mercury in our water now and people are still killing each other" a perfectly valid statement , also completely unrelated to my post as I didn't claim that mercury in water was the ONLY cause of murders nor did I claim they played any role in murders TODAY.
Click to expand...


Thank you.  And also to the point is the uncommon component of these shootings in recent decades being targeted at total innocents.  Has it happened in the past yes.  Has it happened on the scale it has been happening in the last thirty years?  No.

This phenomenon is similar to common recognized syndromes like autism, a word I had never hard when I was a kid, that was extremely uncommon  when the movie "Rainman" was made, but now is recognized as more and more common.  Is there more autism now than there used to be?  If so, who among us doesn't want to know why?

Are schools and theaters now less safe places and more prone to attacks of young men determined to kill as many as they can?  If so, who among us doesn't want to now why?


----------



## catzmeow

Foxfyre said:


> Good advice.  However I am already spoiled having encountered on line friends who actually do have a clue, who can articulate an intelligent opinion, and who enjoy actually exploring a subject and testing to see whether their point of view can hold up against those who argue against it.  And I really appreciate them.   And sometimes get impatient with those who don't share my enthusiasm for that sort of thing.  Which is my bad, I know.



Are those friends able to read and interpret scientific studies on mass murder?  If so, their presence would be helpful, since you've chosen to ignore them in favor of clinging to an existing paradigm.

You've created a false syllogism in this thread.

1.  Mass murder is escalating.
2.  Violent video games are contributing to this effect.
3.  Violent video games should be censored.

#1 & #2 are false, rendering #3 false as well.

If you want to debate a logical syllogism based upon factual data, that would be interesting.  But, it's ridiculous to debate the merits of a conclusion that is based a flawed and inaccurate reasoning.

*There is no escalation of mass murder.*

If there were a link between mass murder and violent video games, there would have been an increase in mass murder since the 2000s, when violent video games began to be widely disseminated.

In point of fact, mass murders decreased in 2012, and the average for 2000-current is only 1.2% higher than the average in the 1980s.

Thus, your premise is false.  

I'm sure you believe violent video games are bad.  You may well be correct.  But, there is no evidence that violent video games caused an increase in mass murder, and the increase in mass murder is actually flat since 1980.  Thus, censoring violent video games would not reduce mass murder.

You and Tipper Gore will need to find another justification for censorship.


----------



## Ravi

JustTheFacts said:


> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well for sure some don't seem to want anything to be accomplished here.   I do believe we have USMB members with the intellect and ability to really explore and dissect a topic and I would like to do that with this topic.  But oh well.  Whatever floats anybody's boat.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Huh. I saw many people debunk your OP while you pretended it wasn't debunked. Not sure what you were trying to get out of it unless you were just looking for atta boys.
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Who debunked her OP? I saw not one post that PROVED that video games play no part in why these kids murder. Not one. Oh sure you proved that people murdered before video games were invented, but I doubt the OP believed that to be untrue even absent your proof.
Click to expand...

The premise is that video games cause mass murders. That premise hasn't been proven and is rather far-fetched.


----------



## catzmeow

JustTheFacts said:


> Untrue. The question asked in THIS thread is have video games played some part in causing the recent shootings. What happened in the past is irrelevant to that since we KNOW that video games were not to blame for anyone being shot pre 1970 or so for sure.
> 
> Your argument would be akin to if I stated that I think the high level mercury content in the water in the 20s caused people to kill other people and you rejoined with "well we don't have mercury in our water now and people are still killing each other" a perfectly valid statement , also completely unrelated to my post as I didn't claim that mercury in water was the ONLY cause of murders nor did I claim they played any role in murders TODAY.



The number of mass murders has changed very little since the 1960s.  Thus, it is unlikely that a new causal factor has arisen.  If the causes of mass murder had changed, the number of mass murders would also be affected.  The numbers haven't changed, which suggests the causes also haven't changed.


----------



## JustTheFacts

catzmeow said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> Good advice.  However I am already spoiled having encountered on line friends who actually do have a clue, who can articulate an intelligent opinion, and who enjoy actually exploring a subject and testing to see whether their point of view can hold up against those who argue against it.  And I really appreciate them.   And sometimes get impatient with those who don't share my enthusiasm for that sort of thing.  Which is my bad, I know.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Are those friends able to read and interpret scientific studies on mass murder?  If so, please invite them to explain the studies to you.
> 
> You've created a false syllogism here.
> 
> 1.  Mass murder is escalating.
> 2.  Violent video games are contributing to this effect.
> 3.  Therefore, Violent video games should be censored.
> 
> #1 & #2 are false, rendering #3 false as well.
> 
> If you want to debate a logical syllogism based upon factual data, that would be interesting.  But, it's ridiculous to debate the merits of a conclusion that is based upon a flawed and inaccurate reasoning.
> 
> There is no escalation of mass murder.
> 
> If there were a link between mass murder and violent video games, there would have been an increase in mass murder since the 2000s, when violent video games began to be widely disseminated.
> 
> In point of fact, mass murders decreased in 2012, and the average for 2000-current is only 1.2% higher than the average in the 1980s.
> 
> Thus, your premise is false.
Click to expand...


Now you're the one creating false premises. IF video games contributed to greater violence that doesn't necessarily mean violence would absolutely go up. Perhaps another factor that previously contributed to violence has went down at around the same period.

We just really don't know, which makes this a valid conversation.


----------



## Foxfyre

Koios said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Koios said:
> 
> 
> 
> Accomplishment is in the doing.  It's entertainment.  You do know that; yeah?
> 
> Zip else is accomplished.  No shit.  Millions of posts, probably.  Number of opinions altered, still zero.
> 
> Try not to overthink it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Good advice.  However I am already spoiled having encountered on line friends who actually do have a clue, who can articulate an intelligent opinion, and who enjoy actually exploring a subject and testing to see whether their point of view can hold up against those who argue against it.  And I really appreciate them.   And sometimes get impatient with those who don't share my enthusiasm for reasoned conversation, discussion, and debate.  Which is my bad, I know.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Cool.  I'm sure that agreeing with you is "having a clue."  Good thinking; and as an added bonus, you might just have wrestled Catz' award away from him/her.
Click to expand...


You would be very wrong that I require anybody to agree with me in order to have a clue.  I certainly have not required that on this thread.  I thoroughly enjoy an exercise with a worthy debater who argues against my opinion or concept or conviction.  And usually rep anybody who makes a better argument than I can.  

All I am saying is that I know people on line, even here on USMB, who are excellent debaters and enjoy the exercise and do it competently.  Some I agree with.  Some I don't.

I also realize others have no interest or capability of doing that.  And I'm good with them doing their thing too, just so they allow me to do mine.

I think we have a topic in this thread worth discussing.  I invite anybody who agrees with that to participate and hope we get many different points of view.  And I invite those who have no interest in the subject to find one they do like.


----------



## catzmeow

JustTheFacts said:


> catzmeow said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> Good advice.  However I am already spoiled having encountered on line friends who actually do have a clue, who can articulate an intelligent opinion, and who enjoy actually exploring a subject and testing to see whether their point of view can hold up against those who argue against it.  And I really appreciate them.   And sometimes get impatient with those who don't share my enthusiasm for that sort of thing.  Which is my bad, I know.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Are those friends able to read and interpret scientific studies on mass murder?  If so, please invite them to explain the studies to you.
> 
> You've created a false syllogism here.
> 
> 1.  Mass murder is escalating.
> 2.  Violent video games are contributing to this effect.
> 3.  Therefore, Violent video games should be censored.
> 
> #1 & #2 are false, rendering #3 false as well.
> 
> If you want to debate a logical syllogism based upon factual data, that would be interesting.  But, it's ridiculous to debate the merits of a conclusion that is based upon a flawed and inaccurate reasoning.
> 
> There is no escalation of mass murder.
> 
> If there were a link between mass murder and violent video games, there would have been an increase in mass murder since the 2000s, when violent video games began to be widely disseminated.
> 
> In point of fact, mass murders decreased in 2012, and the average for 2000-current is only 1.2% higher than the average in the 1980s.
> 
> Thus, your premise is false.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Now you're the one creating false premises. IF video games contributed to greater violence that doesn't necessarily mean violence would absolutely go up. Perhaps another factor that previously contributed to violence has went down at around the same period.
> 
> We just really don't know, which makes this a valid conversation.
Click to expand...


The statistics show that the level of mass murder has only increased 1.2%.  And, overall  violent crimes are down.  Thus, there is zero correlation between consumption of violent video games and societal violence (except maybe that consumption of violent video games decreases people's tendencies to offend violently since increased consumption of violent games has occurred at the same time as decreased levels of societal violence).  

*Statistics do not show that increased consumption of violent video games correlates to higher rates of violence or mass murder.  *  The data is readily available:  Violent video consumption has drastically increased; overall violence has decreased and mass murder is flat.  If there were correlation, these statistics would be tracking together.  Though looking at it in this thread, someone might well argue that there is a correlation between violent games and *decreased violent crimes*.

Proving causality would require further research, and is unlikely to be the case given the lack of correlation.

Just because two things seem to be related doesn't mean they are.  Another example is rape and consumption of pornography.  People often assume that rape is caused by pornography use.  However, the societies with the highest consumption of porn typically have the lowest rates of sexual assault.

"Common sense" often isn't accurate.


----------



## catzmeow

JustTheFacts said:


> Now you're the one creating false premises. IF video games contributed to greater violence that doesn't necessarily mean violence would absolutely go up. Perhaps another factor that previously contributed to violence has went down at around the same period.
> 
> We just really don't know, which makes this a valid conversation.



Fail.


----------



## JustTheFacts

catzmeow said:


> JustTheFacts said:
> 
> 
> 
> Untrue. The question asked in THIS thread is have video games played some part in causing the recent shootings. What happened in the past is irrelevant to that since we KNOW that video games were not to blame for anyone being shot pre 1970 or so for sure.
> 
> Your argument would be akin to if I stated that I think the high level mercury content in the water in the 20s caused people to kill other people and you rejoined with "well we don't have mercury in our water now and people are still killing each other" a perfectly valid statement , also completely unrelated to my post as I didn't claim that mercury in water was the ONLY cause of murders nor did I claim they played any role in murders TODAY.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The number of mass murders has changed very little since the 1960s.  Thus, it is unlikely that a new causal factor has arisen.  If the causes of mass murder had changed, the number of mass murders would also be affected.  The numbers haven't changed, which suggests the causes also haven't changed.
Click to expand...


Again that is untrue

If A contributes to Z and so does B contribute to Z that doesn't mean that A and B are interdependent A can rise or fall irrespective of what B does and still affect Z.

Take my scenario of water. Water purification really came online in this country at about the same time as video games hit the market. So maybe video games took the place of contaminated water in causing mental instability that leads to shootings.

You certainly don't have the data to prove that isn't a possibility.

Personally, I think there is some merit to charge that video games are unhealthy for kids who are fucked up to begin with. The same as guns are unhealthy for those kids.

IF these games didn't have physiological impact on people who play them, then why does the US military itself use them as recruiting tools and training aids?

They want their soldiers to be able to shoot, look past the gore , and move on, and so they use similar games to train to that end. Why if it doesn't have that effect?

Denying the possibility accomplishes nothing. Now the idea of banning video games is ludicrous and n fact I think the voluntary ESBRP rating system is adequate except that shitty parents ignore it.


----------



## Foxfyre

Again correlation is not the same thing as causation.  It is a reason to look at something as a possible causation, but it is really easy to draw a faulty conclusion just because two things are happening at the same time.

The ONLY reason to suspect violent video games and gratuitous violence in movies and on television is a factor in the mass shootings is because of the MANY studies that have been conducted suggesting we may have a problem there.  And yes there are those like Castronova et al who reject those studies and some here who shrug them off as irrelevent.

But if there is a problem, I would think responsible parents and grandparents would want to know it.  And if there isn't, well, that is good to know too.


----------



## catzmeow

Foxfyre said:


> You would be very wrong that I require anybody to agree with me in order to have a clue.  I certainly have not required that on this thread.  I thoroughly enjoy an exercise with a worthy debater who argues against my opinion or concept or conviction.  And usually rep anybody who makes a better argument than I can.
> 
> All I am saying is that I know people on line, even here on USMB, who are excellent debaters and enjoy the exercise and do it competently.  Some I agree with.  Some I don't.
> 
> I also realize others have no interest or capability of doing that.  And I'm good with them doing their thing too, just so they allow me to do mine.
> 
> I think we have a topic in this thread worth discussing.  I invite anybody who agrees with that to participate and hope we get many different points of view.  And I invite those who have no interest in the subject to find one they do like.



Oh, I see.  You are not interested in ensuring that your claims are factually supported by evidence (i.e., debate).  You're interested in having uninformed opinion given equal weight with facts.

The topic in this thread is based upon false assumptions, rendering any conclusions you might draw from the discussion false, and thus, resulting in pointless opinion-sharing and continued self-delusion.


----------



## JustTheFacts

catzmeow said:


> JustTheFacts said:
> 
> 
> 
> Now you're the one creating false premises. IF video games contributed to greater violence that doesn't necessarily mean violence would absolutely go up. Perhaps another factor that previously contributed to violence has went down at around the same period.
> 
> We just really don't know, which makes this a valid conversation.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fail.
Click to expand...


Why? Because you say so? Offer some proof that whatever caused people to shoot people in say any era pre 1970 is still a factor and I will consider your premise. Absent that, you are just guessing to make the data fit your preformed conclusion. Which I find odd coming from you based on are other interactions in this forum.


----------



## catzmeow

Foxfyre said:


> Again correlation is not the same thing as causation.  It is a reason to look at something as a possible causation, but it is really easy to draw a faulty conclusion just because two things are happening at the same time.
> 
> The ONLY reason to suspect violent video games and gratuitous violence in movies and on television is a factor in the mass shootings is because of the MANY studies that have been conducted suggesting we may have a problem there.  And yes there are those like Castronova et al who reject those studies and some here who shrug them off as irrelevent.
> 
> But if there is a problem, I would think responsible parents and grandparents would want to know it.  And if there isn't, well, that is good to know too.



There is a lack of correlation, and no evidence of causality. There was a massive increase in consumption of violent video games from 2000-2012.  If causality existed, a similar increase in mass murder would have occurred.  This did not occur, in spite of your perceptions that it did. Thus, the likeliest explanation is that your perceptions are flawed.

No evidence of causality exists, nor is there data to support your fundamental assumptions.  Thus, your presumption that violent video games should be censored rests upon nothing but uninformed opinion.

Your posts do not demonstrate a strong understanding of either the factual data on mass murder or on causality.

Causality - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## catzmeow

JustTheFacts said:


> catzmeow said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JustTheFacts said:
> 
> 
> 
> Now you're the one creating false premises. IF video games contributed to greater violence that doesn't necessarily mean violence would absolutely go up. Perhaps another factor that previously contributed to violence has went down at around the same period.
> 
> We just really don't know, which makes this a valid conversation.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fail.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why? Because you say so? Offer some proof that whatever caused people to shoot people in say any era pre 1970 is still a factor and I will consider your premise. Absent that, you are just guessing to make the data fit your preformed conclusion. Which I find odd coming from you based on are other interactions in this forum.
Click to expand...


I provided the answer above, which you either did not understand, or ignored.


----------



## Foxfyre

catzmeow said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> You would be very wrong that I require anybody to agree with me in order to have a clue.  I certainly have not required that on this thread.  I thoroughly enjoy an exercise with a worthy debater who argues against my opinion or concept or conviction.  And usually rep anybody who makes a better argument than I can.
> 
> All I am saying is that I know people on line, even here on USMB, who are excellent debaters and enjoy the exercise and do it competently.  Some I agree with.  Some I don't.
> 
> I also realize others have no interest or capability of doing that.  And I'm good with them doing their thing too, just so they allow me to do mine.
> 
> I think we have a topic in this thread worth discussing.  I invite anybody who agrees with that to participate and hope we get many different points of view.  And I invite those who have no interest in the subject to find one they do like.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh, I see.  You are not interested in ensuring that your claims are factually supported by evidence (i.e., debate).  You're interested in having uninformed opinion given equal weight with facts.
> 
> The topic in this thread is based upon false assumptions, rendering any conclusions you might draw from the discussion false, and thus, resulting in pointless opinion-sharing and continued self-delusion.
Click to expand...


Don't look now Catz, but I have made no claims of any kind on this subject.  All I have done is report my own observations and what the studies are reporting and ask the question.  If you think opinion sharing here is pointless and based on self-delusion you are as entitled to your opinion as anybody else.  But it does beg the question of why you would enter a thread on a topic you thought pointless and delusional.

Please excuse me if I find the opinions of those who have done exhaustive studies on this subject and those who have given some thoughtful consideration to the various components, pro and con, to all be interesting.  I'm sure you won't mind if I enjoy the exercise.


----------



## Koios

Foxfyre said:


> Koios said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> Good advice.  However I am already spoiled having encountered on line friends who actually do have a clue, who can articulate an intelligent opinion, and who enjoy actually exploring a subject and testing to see whether their point of view can hold up against those who argue against it.  And I really appreciate them.   And sometimes get impatient with those who don't share my enthusiasm for reasoned conversation, discussion, and debate.  Which is my bad, I know.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cool.  I'm sure that agreeing with you is "having a clue."  Good thinking; and as an added bonus, you might just have wrestled Catz' award away from him/her.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *You would be very wrong that I require anybody to agree with me in order to have a clue. * I certainly have not required that on this thread.  I thoroughly enjoy an exercise with a worthy debater who argues against my opinion or concept or conviction.  And usually rep anybody who makes a better argument than I can.
> 
> All I am saying is that I know people on line, even here on USMB, who are excellent debaters and enjoy the exercise and do it competently.  Some I agree with.  Some I don't.
> 
> I also realize others have no interest or capability of doing that.  And I'm good with them doing their thing too, just so they allow me to do mine.
> 
> I think we have a topic in this thread worth discussing.  I invite anybody who agrees with that to participate and hope we get many different points of view.  And I invite those who have no interest in the subject to find one they do like.
Click to expand...


I'm never wrong.  Jeez!!!  Get a clue!!!!


----------



## Ravi

This "debate" reminds me of other debates, namely the ones that claim a causation between gay marriage and the destruction of heterosexual marriage.


----------



## JustTheFacts

catzmeow said:


> JustTheFacts said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> catzmeow said:
> 
> 
> 
> Fail.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why? Because you say so? Offer some proof that whatever caused people to shoot people in say any era pre 1970 is still a factor and I will consider your premise. Absent that, you are just guessing to make the data fit your preformed conclusion. Which I find odd coming from you based on are other interactions in this forum.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I provided the answer above, which you either did not understand, or ignored.
Click to expand...


You provided nothing. And no reason to resort to claiming I don't understand what you are saying. I have shown you nothing but respect and ask for the same in return.

Let's say I have 3 water jugs and I use two of them to keep the third full at all times. Let's name them A, B, and C. 

Now let's assume that I use A five times as often as I use B to fill C. In other words I use B every sixth time.

Now let's assume that you come along and observe for awhile and decide that hey A is responsible for C being full.

Now let's further assume that at some point I buy a new jug, we'll call it D, and I start using it 50% of the time to fill C. Now C is still getting filled, it's no more or no less filled than it was before I bought D, but it only stands to reason that my usage of A had to go down if C didn't rise. Correct or not?


----------



## Ravi

JustTheFacts said:


> catzmeow said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JustTheFacts said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why? Because you say so? Offer some proof that whatever caused people to shoot people in say any era pre 1970 is still a factor and I will consider your premise. Absent that, you are just guessing to make the data fit your preformed conclusion. Which I find odd coming from you based on are other interactions in this forum.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I provided the answer above, which you either did not understand, or ignored.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You provided nothing. And no reason to resort to claiming I don't understand what you are saying. I have shown you nothing but respect and ask for the same in return.
> 
> Let's say I have 3 water jugs and I use two of them to keep the third full at all times. Let's name them A, B, and C.
> 
> Now let's assume that I use A five times as often as I use B to fill C. In other words I use B every sixth time.
> *
> Now let's assume that you come along and observe for awhile and decide that hey A is responsible for C being full.*
> 
> Now let's further assume that at some point I buy a new jug, we'll call it D, and I start using it 50% of the time to fill C. Now C is still getting filled, it's no more or no less filled than it was before I bought D, but it only stands to reason that my usage of A had to go down if C didn't rise. Correct or not?
Click to expand...

No, YOU are responsible for C being full.


----------



## catzmeow

JustTheFacts said:


> Take my scenario of water. Water purification really came online in this country at about the same time as video games hit the market. So maybe video games took the place of contaminated water in causing mental instability that leads to shootings.
> 
> You certainly don't have the data to prove that isn't a possibility.



If you don't have data that shows a link, you can't prove correlation or causality.  The thread is based upon an assumption of a link between games and increased mass murder.  The data on mass murder does not support this assumption, (i.e., mass murders have not increased), so the assumption cannot be supported and is rendered impotent for the purposes of discussion.

Foxfyre should feel intellectual responsibility for proving her affirmative claims, which she has not done.  And, I am not required to prove a negative, merely to show that her positive assertions are not supported by data.



> Personally, I think there is some merit to charge that video games are unhealthy for kids who are fucked up to begin with. The same as guns are unhealthy for those kids.



The argument, established by foxfyre, in the initial thread, is that there has been an escalation of mass murder, and that this escalation was caused by exposure to violent video games.

There hasn't been an escalation of mass murder.  Thus, her claim is moot.


----------



## JustTheFacts

Ravi said:


> This "debate" reminds me of other debates, namely the ones that claim a causation between gay marriage and the destruction of heterosexual marriage.



This directly illustrates my America is done thread.

Americans have devolved into "That doesn't fit with my preconceived notions and I'm not changing my mind" instead of actual give and take debate.

Abraham Lincoln would shoot himself in the head if he were around to see the level of discourse in this country.


----------



## catzmeow

Foxfyre said:


> Don't look now Catz, but I have made no claims of any kind on this subject.  All I have done is report my own observations and what the studies are reporting and ask the question.  If you think opinion sharing here is pointless and based on self-delusion you are as entitled to your opinion as anybody else.  But it does beg the question of why you would enter a thread on a topic you thought pointless and delusional.



The studies do not support a link between violent video game consumption and mass murder.  And, I entered the thread to correct your mistaken assumption in post 1.


----------



## Foxfyre

Here is an interesting piece in WAPO citing those who argue that violent video games provoke violent thoughts etc. in players and those who argue that this has not been confirmed.   Both make credible arguments.

I am not going to excerpt any of it as I think you have to read the whole thing--it is fairly short--to get the whole argument presented in the piece:

The Checkup - Study links violent video games to violent thought, action


----------



## catzmeow

JustTheFacts said:


> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> 
> This "debate" reminds me of other debates, namely the ones that claim a causation between gay marriage and the destruction of heterosexual marriage.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This directly illustrates my America is done thread.
> 
> Americans have devolved into "That doesn't fit with my preconceived notions and I'm not changing my mind" instead of actual give and take debate.
> 
> Abraham Lincoln would shoot himself in the head if he were around to see the level of discourse in this country.
Click to expand...


Opinions are worthless if they are unsupported by facts.


----------



## catzmeow

Foxfyre said:


> Here is an interesting piece in WAPO citing those who argue that violent video games provoke violent thoughts etc. in players and those who argue that this has not been confirmed.   Both make credible arguments.
> 
> I am not going to excerpt any of it as I think you have to read the whole thing--it is fairly short--to get the whole argument presented in the piece:
> 
> The Checkup - Study links violent video games to violent thought, action



That's not the link you claim existed in the OP.  Violent thoughts =/= mass murder.


----------



## JustTheFacts

catzmeow said:


> JustTheFacts said:
> 
> 
> 
> Take my scenario of water. Water purification really came online in this country at about the same time as video games hit the market. So maybe video games took the place of contaminated water in causing mental instability that leads to shootings.
> 
> You certainly don't have the data to prove that isn't a possibility.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If you don't have data that shows a link, you can't prove correlation or causality.  The thread is based upon an assumption of a link between games and increased mass murder.  The data on mass murder does not support this assumption, (i.e., mass murders have not increased), so the assumption cannot be supported and is rendered impotent for the purposes of discussion.
> 
> Foxfyre should feel intellectual responsibility for proving her affirmative claims, which she has not done.  And, I am not required to prove a negative, merely to show that her positive assertions are not supported by data.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Personally, I think there is some merit to charge that video games are unhealthy for kids who are fucked up to begin with. The same as guns are unhealthy for those kids.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The argument, established by foxfyre, in the initial thread, is that there has been an escalation of mass murder, and that this escalation was caused by exposure to violent video games.
> 
> There hasn't been an escalation of mass murder.  Thus, her claim is moot.
Click to expand...


The OP is clearly asking for OPINIONS on whether there is correlation or not, I think it's pretty obvious that she herself thinks there is, but she hasn't claimed it as a fact.

As for an escalation of mass murder, I think we can safely say that isn't true based on ONE person. Genghis Kahn, certainly he didn't play video games as a child, he was just an asshole. 

But that is IRRELEVANT to whether video games can cause kids to turn into killers.


----------



## Ravi

JustTheFacts said:


> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> 
> This "debate" reminds me of other debates, namely the ones that claim a causation between gay marriage and the destruction of heterosexual marriage.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This directly illustrates my America is done thread.
> 
> Americans have devolved into "That doesn't fit with my preconceived notions and I'm not changing my mind" instead of actual give and take debate.
> 
> Abraham Lincoln would shoot himself in the head if he were around to see the level of discourse in this country.
Click to expand...


There is no doubt in my mind that in Lincoln's time logical fallacies were met with derision. Just like they are today.


----------



## JustTheFacts

catzmeow said:


> JustTheFacts said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> 
> This "debate" reminds me of other debates, namely the ones that claim a causation between gay marriage and the destruction of heterosexual marriage.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This directly illustrates my America is done thread.
> 
> Americans have devolved into "That doesn't fit with my preconceived notions and I'm not changing my mind" instead of actual give and take debate.
> 
> Abraham Lincoln would shoot himself in the head if he were around to see the level of discourse in this country.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Opinions are worthless if they are unsupported by facts.
Click to expand...



Glad you acknowledge that. Now please post some facts that show that video games don't lead to real life violence.


----------



## catzmeow

JustTheFacts said:


> You certainly don't have the data to prove that isn't a possibility.



I am not the person in this thread who made a clear, affirmative claim of harm.  Read the OP.  

The OP is the one who made an affirmative claim and is required to substantiate it with evidence.  I've shown that the affirmative claim (escalating mass murder) did not occur (mass murder statistics are flat), thus rendering the affirmative claim moot.


----------



## catzmeow

JustTheFacts said:


> Glad you acknowledge that. Now please post some facts that show that video games don't lead to real life violence.



Done.

*Violence in the U.S. has decreased or remained flat since the introduction of violent video games.*

That is all the data that is required.


----------



## JustTheFacts

Ravi said:


> JustTheFacts said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> 
> This "debate" reminds me of other debates, namely the ones that claim a causation between gay marriage and the destruction of heterosexual marriage.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This directly illustrates my America is done thread.
> 
> Americans have devolved into "That doesn't fit with my preconceived notions and I'm not changing my mind" instead of actual give and take debate.
> 
> Abraham Lincoln would shoot himself in the head if he were around to see the level of discourse in this country.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There is no doubt in my mind that in Lincoln's time logical fallacies were met with derision. Just like they are today.
Click to expand...


No doubt, but I don't think the debaters of the time would accuse their opponents of doing exactly what they themselves do all the while with a smirk on their faces.

And that is all to prevalent today.


----------



## Koios

catzmeow said:


> JustTheFacts said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> 
> This "debate" reminds me of other debates, namely the ones that claim a causation between gay marriage and the destruction of heterosexual marriage.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This directly illustrates my America is done thread.
> 
> Americans have devolved into "That doesn't fit with my preconceived notions and I'm not changing my mind" instead of actual give and take debate.
> 
> Abraham Lincoln would shoot himself in the head if he were around to see the level of discourse in this country.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Opinions are worthless if they are unsupported by facts.
Click to expand...


Exactly!!!  For example, this fact: we do, nearly, all agree that letting everyone have nukes is not a good idea nor protected in the 2A.  Okie doke.

So if reasonable limits on types of "arms" is cool, why not survival / assault weapons on the ixne list?

Back to you ...


----------



## catzmeow

Koios said:


> Exactly!!!  For example, this fact: we do, nearly, all agree that letting everyone have nukes is not a good idea nor protected in the 2A.  Okie doke.
> 
> So if reasonable limits on types of "arms" is cool, why not survival / assault weapons on the ixne list?
> 
> Back to you ...



Wrong thread.


----------



## Ravi

Foxfyre said:


> Here is an interesting piece in WAPO citing those who argue that violent video games provoke violent thoughts etc. in players and those who argue that this has not been confirmed.   Both make credible arguments.
> 
> I am not going to excerpt any of it as I think you have to read the whole thing--it is fairly short--to get the whole argument presented in the piece:
> 
> The Checkup - Study links violent video games to violent thought, action


He's also been found to be a bad researcher with an agenda.


> Proponents against the video game violence and aggression effect state that Dr. Anderson's research has been criticized at times for overstating his results and failing to adequately acknowledge alternate views or limitations of the data on media violence. A number of scholars have expressed the concern that his statements of causal certainty regarding video game violence effects are not well supported by the existing data.[3][4] Anderson also had ties to the former National Institute on Media and the Family (NIMF), which Jerald Block, a psychiatrist at the Oregon Health Science University, likened to a lobbying group,[5] and some of his studies have been funded by NIMF.[6] In Brown v. Entertainment Merchants Association, testimonies were provided criticizing Anderson's studies, noting that they "have been rejected by every court to consider them", "do not prove that violent video games cause minors to act aggressively", and "suffer from significant, admitted flaws in methodology".[7]


wikipedia


----------



## JustTheFacts

Ravi said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> Here is an interesting piece in WAPO citing those who argue that violent video games provoke violent thoughts etc. in players and those who argue that this has not been confirmed.   Both make credible arguments.
> 
> I am not going to excerpt any of it as I think you have to read the whole thing--it is fairly short--to get the whole argument presented in the piece:
> 
> The Checkup - Study links violent video games to violent thought, action
> 
> 
> 
> He's also been found to be a bad researcher with an agenda.
> 
> 
> 
> Proponents against the video game violence and aggression effect state that Dr. Anderson's research has been criticized at times for overstating his results and failing to adequately acknowledge alternate views or limitations of the data on media violence. A number of scholars have expressed the concern that his statements of causal certainty regarding video game violence effects are not well supported by the existing data.[3][4] Anderson also had ties to the former National Institute on Media and the Family (NIMF), which Jerald Block, a psychiatrist at the Oregon Health Science University, likened to a lobbying group,[5] and some of his studies have been funded by NIMF.[6] In Brown v. Entertainment Merchants Association, testimonies were provided criticizing Anderson's studies, noting that they "have been rejected by every court to consider them", "do not prove that violent video games cause minors to act aggressively", and "suffer from significant, admitted flaws in methodology".[7]
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> wikipedia
Click to expand...


Same question I asked Catz, maybe you'll answer. IF there is no correlation between violent video games and becoming predisposed to violence, why does the US military use them as a training aid for that express purpose?


----------



## catzmeow

JustTheFacts said:


> The OP is clearly asking for OPINIONS on whether there is correlation or not, I think it's pretty obvious that she herself thinks there is, but she hasn't claimed it as a fact.
> 
> As for an escalation of mass murder, I think we can safely say that isn't true based on ONE person. Genghis Kahn, certainly he didn't play video games as a child, he was just an asshole.
> 
> But that is IRRELEVANT to whether video games can cause kids to turn into killers.



No one here has the expertise to render an informed opinion on the subject, so evidence is important.

If video games caused kids to turn into killers...

Video game consumption has increased steadily since the invention of gaming consoles, going from zero percent of teens in the late 1980s to* 97% of children between the ages of 12-17* in 2008.  source:  Over half of American adults play video games, and four out of five young adults play. Among adults, computers are the most popular gaming device, but among young adults gaming consoles are preferred. Virtual worlds only draw a small crowd. | Pew Int

During the same time period (late 1980s - present), there was a strong decrease in violent crimes committed by juveniles.  Source:  Stats - Basic Statistics | Juvenile Justice | FRONTLINE | PBS

In other words, while game consumption by juveniles has drastically increased over the past 15 years, violent crimes committed by juveniles have fallen steadily.

If violent video games were designed to turn kids into killers, *they're failing, miserably*.


----------



## Uncensored2008

Katzndogz said:


> I like to play video games, although they are a little to sophisticated for me today.  I've played some of the older Elder Scrolls games.   Even the most shoot em up of shoot em up games are really games of strategy.  The end is always the triumph of good over evil.  Like Star Wars, or Lord of the Rings.  They have a definite story line and goal.   It's more like being an interactive character in a good movie than simply a game.



Let's take the Elder Scrolls. In Skyrim, l there is a very clear sense of right and wrong. You can and will kill, but if you kill innocents, you'll be hunted and locked out of the major cities and the people hate you.

Sure, Saints Row and Grand Theft Auto are completely anti-social, but they are satire for the most part. (GTA IV dropped satire for the main story)

But then the Modern Warfare series has you selflessly fighting for puppies, God, and the American way. Of course the Moscow Airport scene in COD Modern Warfare 2 is the most disturbing thing I've seen in any media.


----------



## Foxfyre

JustTheFacts said:


> catzmeow said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JustTheFacts said:
> 
> 
> 
> Take my scenario of water. Water purification really came online in this country at about the same time as video games hit the market. So maybe video games took the place of contaminated water in causing mental instability that leads to shootings.
> 
> You certainly don't have the data to prove that isn't a possibility.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If you don't have data that shows a link, you can't prove correlation or causality.  The thread is based upon an assumption of a link between games and increased mass murder.  The data on mass murder does not support this assumption, (i.e., mass murders have not increased), so the assumption cannot be supported and is rendered impotent for the purposes of discussion.
> 
> Foxfyre should feel intellectual responsibility for proving her affirmative claims, which she has not done.  And, I am not required to prove a negative, merely to show that her positive assertions are not supported by data.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Personally, I think there is some merit to charge that video games are unhealthy for kids who are fucked up to begin with. The same as guns are unhealthy for those kids.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The argument, established by foxfyre, in the initial thread, is that there has been an escalation of mass murder, and that this escalation was caused by exposure to violent video games.
> 
> There hasn't been an escalation of mass murder.  Thus, her claim is moot.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The OP is clearly asking for OPINIONS on whether there is correlation or not, I think it's pretty obvious that she herself thinks there is, but she hasn't claimed it as a fact.
> 
> As for an escalation of mass murder, I think we can safely say that isn't true based on ONE person. Genghis Kahn, certainly he didn't play video games as a child, he was just an asshole.
> 
> But that is IRRELEVANT to whether video games can cause kids to turn into killers.
Click to expand...


I don't intend for it to be obvious because the truth is, I don't know.

I do know if I focus on blood and gore and violence or torture or other unpleasant thoughts, my mood is far less pleasant than if I focus on good, positive things.  I refuse to watch movies that are downers any more.  I want movies that elevate the human spirit, that have me on my feet cheering at the end.   Why?  Because I just enjoy those emotions a whole lot more.

Since there were no video games and little graphic violence in the movies or on television and none in music when I was a kid, I have no experience of how those things made me feel.  But after a good Roy Rogers or Hopalong Cassidy movie we all would go out a play cowboys and robbers and shoot up the neighborhood.   It was great fun.

So that is why I want to KNOW whether there is a serious negative effect on kids when they are exposed again and again and again to this stuff.


----------



## Koios

catzmeow said:


> Koios said:
> 
> 
> 
> Exactly!!!  For example, this fact: we do, nearly, all agree that letting everyone have nukes is not a good idea nor protected in the 2A.  Okie doke.
> 
> So if reasonable limits on types of "arms" is cool, why not survival / assault weapons on the ixne list?
> 
> Back to you ...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong thread.
Click to expand...


Wrong!!!!  This is guns and video games (the point-and-splatter variety, aka, pick a virtual assult rifle of your choosing).  And I'm almost certain that survival / assault weapons = guns.  Surely I recall reading it in my American Rifleman mag, praise babywayne.

Back to you ...


----------



## catzmeow

JustTheFacts said:


> Same question I asked Catz, maybe you'll answer. IF there is no correlation between violent video games and becoming predisposed to violence, why does the US military use them as a training aid for that express purpose?



Does serving in the military cause people to commit violent criminal acts?  If your argument were true, serving in the military would increase offending rates.

Is that the case?

LEOs also use video training.  If your hypothesis were true, this training would increase the odds that a law enforcement officer would commit a violent act against an innocent party.  Does data support this?


----------



## Foxfyre

Please take the gun discussion to a gun thread.  Thank you once again.


----------



## Koios

catzmeow said:


> JustTheFacts said:
> 
> 
> 
> Same question I asked Catz, maybe you'll answer. IF there is no correlation between violent video games and becoming predisposed to violence, why does the US military use them as a training aid for that express purpose?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Does serving in the military cause people to commit violent criminal acts?*  If your argument were true, serving in the military would increase offending rates.
> 
> Is that the case?
Click to expand...


Nope; just dramatically raises the likelihood (on average) that you will, if you sign up, rather than stay home and not join the military.


----------



## Uncensored2008

Foxfyre said:


> I LOVE video games.  One of my favorites is a Microsoft Big and Huge games called "Rise of Nations".  Though there is one format that allows you to take a purely defensive posture, the most fun goal is to bring your country forward from a very primitive time to the modern age and conquer enough or all of the rest of the world to win.
> 
> So first rattle out of the box you have to attack other countries though you do focus on their military installations and armies.  But your defenses automatically attack any non military citizens they see too if those citizens aren't our own.
> 
> The thing in the game that most bothers me is a limitation on the population each country is allowed to acquire.  So when I get to the point that I am at the population max and need more military types, I can identify my 'idle' citizens and eliminate them.  Hit the zap button and they scream and die.
> 
> And that bothers me though not enough to not play the game.  You do wonder if it somehow programs a vulnerable and perhaps unstable young mind though.  And my game is way WAY less violent and graphic than most of them out there now.



Why not just put the idle villagers to work? There's always metal, timber, and farms to be tended. New capitals to build, and new universities.


----------



## Koios

Foxfyre said:


> Please take the gun discussion to a gun thread.  Thank you once again.



As in one that has the word "gun" in the title?  Or do I look for threads with the word "rabbit" in the title?

Whadaya think?


----------



## catzmeow

Foxfyre said:


> I don't intend for it to be obvious because the truth is, I don't know.
> 
> I do know if I focus on blood and gore and violence or torture or other unpleasant thoughts, my mood is far less pleasant than if I focus on good, positive things.  I refuse to watch movies that are downers any more.  I want movies that elevate the human spirit, that have me on my feet cheering at the end.   Why?  Because I just enjoy those emotions a whole lot more.
> 
> Since there were no video games and little graphic violence in the movies or on television and none in music when I was a kid, I have no experience of how those things made me feel.  But after a good Roy Rogers or Hopalong Cassidy movie we all would go out a play cowboys and robbers and shoot up the neighborhood.   It was great fun.
> 
> So that is why I want to KNOW whether there is a serious negative effect on kids when they are exposed again and again and again to this stuff.



If there were a serious negative effect on kids when they are exposed to these games, there would likely have been an increase in juvenile delinquency in the 2000s to present when these games were introduced and began to enjoy widespread consumption.

*This did not occur.*

In fact, overall juvenile offenses (both person and property offenses) decreased during that time period.

So, while these games may have effects on kids, there appears to be zero evidence that the effects include criminal involvement or mass murder.

Hope that relieves your concerns.


----------



## Swagger

catzmeow said:


> JustTheFacts said:
> 
> 
> 
> You certainly don't have the data to prove that isn't a possibility.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *I am not the person in this thread who made a clear, affirmative claim of harm.*  Read the OP.
> 
> The OP is the one who made an affirmative claim and is required to substantiate it with evidence.  I've shown that the affirmative claim (escalating mass murder) did not occur (mass murder statistics are flat), thus rendering the affirmative claim moot.
Click to expand...


Neither did Foxfyre in her OP. She relayed what she says she heard on the radio, and invited others to opine/comment on what she heard. If she'd written that she suspected and/or believed that the violence that's more prevalent on our screens today is influencing the perpetrators of these massacres to seek a target and act upon their urges/violent inclinations, then I'd agree with you when you say that she's made a "clear, affirmative claim of harm". But she hasn't.


----------



## JustTheFacts

catzmeow said:


> JustTheFacts said:
> 
> 
> 
> The OP is clearly asking for OPINIONS on whether there is correlation or not, I think it's pretty obvious that she herself thinks there is, but she hasn't claimed it as a fact.
> 
> As for an escalation of mass murder, I think we can safely say that isn't true based on ONE person. Genghis Kahn, certainly he didn't play video games as a child, he was just an asshole.
> 
> But that is IRRELEVANT to whether video games can cause kids to turn into killers.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No one here has the expertise to render an informed opinion on the subject, so evidence is important.
> 
> If video games caused kids to turn into killers...
> 
> Video game consumption has increased steadily since the invention of gaming consoles, going from zero percent of teens in the late 1980s to* 97% of children between the ages of 12-17* in 2008.  source:  Over half of American adults play video games, and four out of five young adults play. Among adults, computers are the most popular gaming device, but among young adults gaming consoles are preferred. Virtual worlds only draw a small crowd. | Pew Int
> 
> During the same time period (late 1980s - present), there was a strong decrease in violent crimes committed by juveniles.  Source:  Stats - Basic Statistics | Juvenile Justice | FRONTLINE | PBS
> 
> In other words, while game consumption by juveniles has drastically increased over the past 15 years, violent crimes committed by juveniles have fallen steadily.
> 
> If violent video games were designed to turn kids into killers, *they're failing, miserably*.
Click to expand...



That's completely true Catz, but you are ignoring the absolutely true statement I made earlier about video games from 2006- on are COMPLETELY different than video games of yore. They are not the same and should not be treated as the same. So let's look at only that time frame. I'd be interested in seeing that data.

You jack online with Call of Duty on an Xbox360 on a 50" led tv and it doesn't leave much to the imagination. 

I stand by my assertion that these are NOT kid's games and I absolutely believe that if a child is predisposed to violence these games can blend their sense of reality.

Do you or have you ever played video games? I'm not trying to be condescending, I'm asking an honest question. Have you seen the types of games that are on the market today? 

There are actually games out there that are so bloody that the game creators themselves put in an option to turn off the blood, because frankly it is disgusting but some people like disgusting.

I don't know the answer unless we are going to start charging parents for some crime for allowing their kids to play these types of games, but there is ZERO doubt that these games are at best unhealthy for young minds, that is why they are rated the way they are.


----------



## JustTheFacts

Swagger said:


> catzmeow said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JustTheFacts said:
> 
> 
> 
> You certainly don't have the data to prove that isn't a possibility.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *I am not the person in this thread who made a clear, affirmative claim of harm.*  Read the OP.
> 
> The OP is the one who made an affirmative claim and is required to substantiate it with evidence.  I've shown that the affirmative claim (escalating mass murder) did not occur (mass murder statistics are flat), thus rendering the affirmative claim moot.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Neither did Foxfyre in her OP. She relayed what she says she heard on the radio, and invited others to opine/comment on what she heard. If she'd written that she suspected and/or believed that the violence that's more prevalent on our screens today is influencing the perpetrators of these massacres to seek a target and act upon their urges/violent inclinations, then I'd agree with you when you say that she's made a "clear, affirmative claim of harm". But she hasn't.
Click to expand...


Exactly my point, she did nothing more than offer up an article and ask for opinions. My guess is that neither Fox nor Catz has ever even played any of these video games , but only one is pretending as if they know one way or the other for sure.


----------



## Ravi

JustTheFacts said:


> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> Here is an interesting piece in WAPO citing those who argue that violent video games provoke violent thoughts etc. in players and those who argue that this has not been confirmed.   Both make credible arguments.
> 
> I am not going to excerpt any of it as I think you have to read the whole thing--it is fairly short--to get the whole argument presented in the piece:
> 
> The Checkup - Study links violent video games to violent thought, action
> 
> 
> 
> He's also been found to be a bad researcher with an agenda.
> 
> 
> 
> Proponents against the video game violence and aggression effect state that Dr. Anderson's research has been criticized at times for overstating his results and failing to adequately acknowledge alternate views or limitations of the data on media violence. A number of scholars have expressed the concern that his statements of causal certainty regarding video game violence effects are not well supported by the existing data.[3][4] Anderson also had ties to the former National Institute on Media and the Family (NIMF), which Jerald Block, a psychiatrist at the Oregon Health Science University, likened to a lobbying group,[5] and some of his studies have been funded by NIMF.[6] In Brown v. Entertainment Merchants Association, testimonies were provided criticizing Anderson's studies, noting that they "have been rejected by every court to consider them", "do not prove that violent video games cause minors to act aggressively", and "suffer from significant, admitted flaws in methodology".[7]
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> wikipedia
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Same question I asked Catz, maybe you'll answer. IF there is no correlation between violent video games and becoming predisposed to violence, why does the US military use them as a training aid for that express purpose?
Click to expand...


Reflexes.


----------



## Foxfyre

Uncensored2008 said:


> Katzndogz said:
> 
> 
> 
> I like to play video games, although they are a little to sophisticated for me today.  I've played some of the older Elder Scrolls games.   Even the most shoot em up of shoot em up games are really games of strategy.  The end is always the triumph of good over evil.  Like Star Wars, or Lord of the Rings.  They have a definite story line and goal.   It's more like being an interactive character in a good movie than simply a game.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Let's take the Elder Scrolls. In Skyrim, l there is a very clear sense of right and wrong. You can and will kill, but if you kill innocents, you'll be hunted and locked out of the major cities and the people hate you.
> 
> Sure, Saints Row and Grand Theft Auto are completely anti-social, but they are satire for the most part. (GTA IV dropped satire for the main story)
> 
> But then the Modern Warfare series has you selflessly fighting for puppies, God, and the American way. Of course the Moscow Airport scene in COD Modern Warfare 2 is the most disturbing thing I've seen in any media.
Click to expand...


I haven't seen any of the more questionable video games some of you folks have mentioned.  It is suggested that Civ IV and Rise of Nations, both of which I do have, are less realistic than the newer games, but in Rise of Nations, especially, unless you take the defensive mode which is boring, the object is to conquer the world.  So your armies mow down everybody they see, military and civlian alike.  The civilians scream as you kill them.   Does playing that game have a negative effect on me?  Not that I can tell.  But then I am not a kid and I don't play the game endlessly for hours.


----------



## Uncensored2008

Ravi said:


> JustTheFacts said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> 
> He's also been found to be a bad researcher with an agenda.
> wikipedia
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Same question I asked Catz, maybe you'll answer. IF there is no correlation between violent video games and becoming predisposed to violence, why does the US military use them as a training aid for that express purpose?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Reflexes.
Click to expand...


Also developing team work and an understanding of battlefield tactics.


----------



## catzmeow

Ravi said:


> JustTheFacts said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> 
> He's also been found to be a bad researcher with an agenda.
> wikipedia
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Same question I asked Catz, maybe you'll answer. IF there is no correlation between violent video games and becoming predisposed to violence, why does the US military use them as a training aid for that express purpose?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Reflexes.
Click to expand...


Exactly.  They aren't used to desensitize military personnel to violence, because real world violence is not the same as video violence.  They do, however, teach personnel how to identify and respond to threats appropriately, and in collaboration with peers.

Real world exposure to violence has much more demonstrable effects, including trauma and mental health ramifications.

Both children and military personnel understand that a game is a game, and a game is not the real world.  And, if they don't, they have serious mental health issues that are separate from their video game use.


----------



## JustTheFacts

Ravi said:


> JustTheFacts said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> 
> He's also been found to be a bad researcher with an agenda.
> wikipedia
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Same question I asked Catz, maybe you'll answer. IF there is no correlation between violent video games and becoming predisposed to violence, why does the US military use them as a training aid for that express purpose?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Reflexes.
Click to expand...


Hmm, really? Wrong. Try again.

Reflexes LOL laughable on the surface. I have GREAT reflexes in Madden 2013. I'd get killed if I was to ever play QB in the NFL though.


----------



## catzmeow

JustTheFacts said:


> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JustTheFacts said:
> 
> 
> 
> Same question I asked Catz, maybe you'll answer. IF there is no correlation between violent video games and becoming predisposed to violence, why does the US military use them as a training aid for that express purpose?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Reflexes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hmm, really? Wrong. Try again.
> 
> Reflexes LOL laughable on the surface. I have GREAT reflexes in Madden 2013. I'd get killed if I was to ever play QB in the NFL though.
Click to expand...


My son had never shot a gun until he was 14, but his dad introduced him to Halo and Call of Duty starting at around age 11.    A neighbor was doing some target shooting on his property and invited my son to participate.  My son didn't miss a single target.  The skills required to accurately shoot someone in a video game are virtually identical to the skills required to target a drone or hit a target with an actual gun.

The correlation between the skills required to play Guitar Hero or Madden 2013 are only distantly linked to the skills required to actively perform a football pass or guitar play, but on a first person shooter, learning to target accurately is very similar to targetting accurately in real life.


----------



## Koios

Foxfyre said:


> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Katzndogz said:
> 
> 
> 
> I like to play video games, although they are a little to sophisticated for me today.  I've played some of the older Elder Scrolls games.   Even the most shoot em up of shoot em up games are really games of strategy.  The end is always the triumph of good over evil.  Like Star Wars, or Lord of the Rings.  They have a definite story line and goal.   It's more like being an interactive character in a good movie than simply a game.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Let's take the Elder Scrolls. In Skyrim, l there is a very clear sense of right and wrong. You can and will kill, but if you kill innocents, you'll be hunted and locked out of the major cities and the people hate you.
> 
> Sure, Saints Row and Grand Theft Auto are completely anti-social, but they are satire for the most part. (GTA IV dropped satire for the main story)
> 
> But then the Modern Warfare series has you selflessly fighting for puppies, God, and the American way. Of course the Moscow Airport scene in COD Modern Warfare 2 is the most disturbing thing I've seen in any media.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *I haven't seen any of the more questionable video games some of you folks have mentioned.*  It is suggested that Civ IV and Rise of Nations, both of which I do have, are less realistic than the newer games, but in Rise of Nations, especially, unless you take the defensive mode which is boring, the object is to conquer the world.  So your armies mow down everybody they see, military and civlian alike.  The civilians scream as you kill them.   Does playing that game have a negative effect on me?  Not that I can tell.  But then I am not a kid and I don't play the game endlessly for hours.
Click to expand...


I bought my children Grand Theft Auto since I thought it healthy for them to develop a hate for police and enjoyment in cop-killing.


----------



## catzmeow

Koios said:


> I bought my children Grand Theft Auto since I thought it healthy for them to develop a hate for police and enjoyment in cop-killing.



A lot of the cops I know play GTA.  Your strategy is destined to fail.


----------



## Uncensored2008

Foxfyre said:


> I haven't seen any of the more questionable video games some of you folks have mentioned.  It is suggested that Civ IV and Rise of Nations, both of which I do have, are less realistic than the newer games, but in Rise of Nations, especially, unless you take the defensive mode which is boring, the object is to conquer the world.  So your armies mow down everybody they see, military and civlian alike.  The civilians scream as you kill them.   Does playing that game have a negative effect on me?  Not that I can tell.  But then I am not a kid and I don't play the game endlessly for hours.



They are very different games. I loved RON back in the day. But never would consider it violent in any way. It's a  real time strategy game with implied rather than actual violence. Civ is similar in ways.

The first person shooters are where the real violence is. Call of Duty games are essentially war simulations that get more realistic all the time. They are violent and deal with very adult themes. The airport scene I alluded to earlier has a very bad Russian mob boss leading a team of terrorist through the Moscow airport and slaughtering everyone in sight. It's very disturbing, but also has a very black and white morality to it - the backdrop of WHY going to war is justified. 

I agree with Katz that the lack of moral compass, rather than the actual violence is the problem.

Oh, and I don't think Call of Duty games should be played by anyone under 18 - ever.

BTW, you ever play Empire Earth? Similar to RON but without the population caps.

Empire Earth II - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Lousy graphics, brilliant game play.


----------



## Koios

catzmeow said:


> Koios said:
> 
> 
> 
> I bought my children Grand Theft Auto since I thought it healthy for them to develop a hate for police and enjoyment in cop-killing.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A lot of the cops I know play GTA.  Your strategy is destined to fail.
Click to expand...


Nah; just not fully implimented strategy.  My bad.  If only I'd completed the project by making them disenfranchised losers and buying them assualt rifles for their 18th birthdays.  Maybe then I could drive home faster, with fewer cops around.

God bless the USA.  Amen.


----------



## Foxfyre

Computer games are also used by therapists to improve hand eye coordination and for other purposes of rehabilitation.  The time old game of Solitaire is invaluable in teaching new computer users to a mouse and how to use it to accomplish tasks on the screen.  There are programs to teach kids to read, to learn new languages, to recognize colors, etc. all accomplished through repetitive exercises.

So if repetitive action can be used to effect good results, would it not follow that repetitive action could also have a negative effect?


----------



## Koios

Foxfyre said:


> Computer games are also used by therapists to improve hand eye coordination and for other purposes of rehabilitation.  The time old game of Solitaire is invaluable in teaching new computer users to a mouse and how to use it to accomplish tasks on the screen.  There are programs to teach kids to read, to learn new languages, to recognize colors, etc. all accomplished through repetitive exercises.
> 
> So if repetitive action can be used to effect good results, would it not follow that repetitive action could also have a negative effect?



Water too is good for kids, but the wrong kind can make them ill, and too much can drown them.

Are you seeing?


----------



## catzmeow

Uncensored2008 said:


> Oh, and I don't think Call of Duty games should be played by anyone under 18 - ever.



My son started playing FPS games in elementary school, against my protests.  His dad introduced him to them while he was on visitation.  I had zero control over the issue, other than to ban them from our home.

I have to say, he's 15 now and I don't see any observable effects from shooting zombies/aliens/enemy soldiers for the past 4 years.  He gets good grades and is a student athlete who spends 3-5 hours a day training for his sport (wrestling).

I'd say that there is stronger evidence supporting negative outcomes in his behavior from my divorce than the video games.  I don't believe he's been any more prone to get into fights or conflicts with other kids than other boys at his school.  Probably less so than most.

And, I say this to my relief, because it's something I've spent a lot of time worrying about. All things being equal, I think the effect of the games is relatively minor, but if the kid has some level of instability in his/her life, there might be more effect.


----------



## Uncensored2008

catzmeow said:


> My son started playing FPS games in elementary school, against my protests.  His dad introduced him to them while he was on visitation.  I had zero control over the issue, other than to ban them from our home.
> 
> I have to say, he's 15 now and I don't see any observable effects from shooting zombies/aliens/enemy soldiers for the past 4 years.  He gets good grades and is a student athlete who spends 3-5 hours a day training for his sport (wrestling).
> 
> I'd say that there is stronger evidence supporting negative outcomes in his behavior from my divorce than the video games.  I don't believe he's been any more prone to get into fights or conflicts with other kids than other boys at his school.  Probably less so than most.
> 
> And, I say this to my relief, because it's something I've spent a lot of time worrying about. All things being equal, I think the effect of the games is relatively minor, but if the kid has some level of instability in his/her life, there might be more effect.



Just as with movies, the themes of many modern games are very adult.

No child should see or play this.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gXBDkevx5lM]Call of Duty Modern Warfare 2 - No Russian - Airport Mission Uncut - Veteran - High Quality - YouTube[/ame]


----------



## Foxfyre

Uncensored2008 said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> I haven't seen any of the more questionable video games some of you folks have mentioned.  It is suggested that Civ IV and Rise of Nations, both of which I do have, are less realistic than the newer games, but in Rise of Nations, especially, unless you take the defensive mode which is boring, the object is to conquer the world.  So your armies mow down everybody they see, military and civlian alike.  The civilians scream as you kill them.   Does playing that game have a negative effect on me?  Not that I can tell.  But then I am not a kid and I don't play the game endlessly for hours.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They are very different games. I loved RON back in the day. But never would consider it violent in any way. It's a  real time strategy game with implied rather than actual violence. Civ is similar in ways.
> 
> The first person shooters are where the real violence is. Call of Duty games are essentially war simulations that get more realistic all the time. They are violent and deal with very adult themes. The airport scene I alluded to earlier has a very bad Russian mob boss leading a team of terrorist through the Moscow airport and slaughtering everyone in sight. It's very disturbing, but also has a very black and white morality to it - the backdrop of WHY going to war is justified.
> 
> I agree with Katz that the lack of moral compass, rather than the actual violence is the problem.
> 
> Oh, and I don't think Call of Duty games should be played by anyone under 18 - ever.
> 
> BTW, you ever play Empire Earth? Similar to RON but without the population caps.
> 
> Empire Earth II - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> Lousy graphics, brilliant game play.
Click to expand...


Well since RON has pretty good graphics, I would hate lousy graphics.  I don't mind the population caps and enjoy the features that lets me increase population in RON.  I do hate having to kill the poor civilians in order to increase the size of my army though.   And I get irritated when I catch one of my tanks or whatever veering off to gun down some sweet young thing working in a field.  

Before I started playing computer games, I had a Nintendo that played on the television set.  My kids were in college at the time.  Absolutely loved it and had maybe 50 different games at the time I retired it.  I love games.  All kinds of games.  And still get a kick out of RON always trying to strategize how to prevent ANY losses anywhere as I conquer the world.  I've ventured into a few on line role playing games and stuff too, and have killed my share of monsters and witches and trolls and other players who opposed me, but didn't enjoy those so much and didn't stay with them for long.

So I can certainly appreciate both sides of the debate here.  But anything that might be hurting kids in a way that shouldn't be happening is of interest to me.  And if that includes video games or certain kinds of video games, I think we need to know that.


----------



## Koios

Uncensored2008 said:


> catzmeow said:
> 
> 
> 
> My son started playing FPS games in elementary school, against my protests.  His dad introduced him to them while he was on visitation.  I had zero control over the issue, other than to ban them from our home.
> 
> I have to say, he's 15 now and I don't see any observable effects from shooting zombies/aliens/enemy soldiers for the past 4 years.  He gets good grades and is a student athlete who spends 3-5 hours a day training for his sport (wrestling).
> 
> I'd say that there is stronger evidence supporting negative outcomes in his behavior from my divorce than the video games.  I don't believe he's been any more prone to get into fights or conflicts with other kids than other boys at his school.  Probably less so than most.
> 
> And, I say this to my relief, because it's something I've spent a lot of time worrying about. All things being equal, I think the effect of the games is relatively minor, but if the kid has some level of instability in his/her life, there might be more effect.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Just as with movies, the themes of many modern games are very adult.
> 
> No child should see or play this.
> 
> [ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gXBDkevx5lM]Call of Duty Modern Warfare 2 - No Russian - Airport Mission Uncut - Veteran - High Quality - YouTube[/ame]
Click to expand...


Nor adults with IQs north of 85.


----------



## Uncensored2008

Koios said:


> Nor adults with IQs north of 85.



Oh? Then it's tailor made for you.


----------



## Foxfyre

Uncensored2008 said:


> catzmeow said:
> 
> 
> 
> My son started playing FPS games in elementary school, against my protests.  His dad introduced him to them while he was on visitation.  I had zero control over the issue, other than to ban them from our home.
> 
> I have to say, he's 15 now and I don't see any observable effects from shooting zombies/aliens/enemy soldiers for the past 4 years.  He gets good grades and is a student athlete who spends 3-5 hours a day training for his sport (wrestling).
> 
> I'd say that there is stronger evidence supporting negative outcomes in his behavior from my divorce than the video games.  I don't believe he's been any more prone to get into fights or conflicts with other kids than other boys at his school.  Probably less so than most.
> 
> And, I say this to my relief, because it's something I've spent a lot of time worrying about. All things being equal, I think the effect of the games is relatively minor, but if the kid has some level of instability in his/her life, there might be more effect.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Just as with movies, the themes of many modern games are very adult.
> 
> No child should see or play this.
> 
> [ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gXBDkevx5lM]Call of Duty Modern Warfare 2 - No Russian - Airport Mission Uncut - Veteran - High Quality - YouTube[/ame]
Click to expand...


Geez, what is the purpose of that?  Is there any way in the game to stop it?  Or it just happens?


----------



## Koios

Uncensored2008 said:


> Koios said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nor adults with IQs north of 85.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh? Then it's tailor made for you.
Click to expand...


Ahhhh!  I kicked the door wide open for that brilliant retort!!!!

I'm such a fool, but in utter awe of your repartee genius.


----------



## Uncensored2008

Foxfyre said:


> Geez, what is the purpose of that?  Is there any way in the game to stop it?  Or it just happens?



It can be skipped, but it's crucial as the backstory to why the United States and Russia go to war. The attack is a setup, the Marakov framing the USA for it, leading to a nuclear exchange and a ground war on the Easter Seaboard. 

BUT, it just isn't suitable for children. Just as Saving Private Ryan and Braveheart are not. Good movies, but ADULT movies.


----------



## Foxfyre

Uncensored2008 said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> Geez, what is the purpose of that?  Is there any way in the game to stop it?  Or it just happens?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It can be skipped, but it's crucial as the backstory to why the United States and Russia go to war. The attack is a setup, the Marakov framing the USA for it, leading to a nuclear exchange and a ground war on the Easter Seaboard.
> 
> BUT, it just isn't suitable for children. Just as Saving Private Ryan and Braveheart are not. Good movies, but ADULT movies.
Click to expand...


I think I won't be getting that game.


----------



## catzmeow

Uncensored2008 said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> Geez, what is the purpose of that?  Is there any way in the game to stop it?  Or it just happens?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It can be skipped, but it's crucial as the backstory to why the United States and Russia go to war. The attack is a setup, the Marakov framing the USA for it, leading to a nuclear exchange and a ground war on the Easter Seaboard.
> 
> BUT, it just isn't suitable for children. Just as Saving Private Ryan and Braveheart are not. Good movies, but ADULT movies.
Click to expand...


It's fine to say that these things aren't suitable for children, and I agree with you.

The problem is with Foxy's claim that they lead to mass murder and/or increased violence.  That's not substantiated and doesn't appear to be true, so it falls in the category of hyperbole.


----------



## Foxfyre

catzmeow said:


> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> Geez, what is the purpose of that?  Is there any way in the game to stop it?  Or it just happens?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It can be skipped, but it's crucial as the backstory to why the United States and Russia go to war. The attack is a setup, the Marakov framing the USA for it, leading to a nuclear exchange and a ground war on the Easter Seaboard.
> 
> BUT, it just isn't suitable for children. Just as Saving Private Ryan and Braveheart are not. Good movies, but ADULT movies.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's fine to say that these things aren't suitable for children, and I agree with you.
> 
> The problem is with Foxy's claim that they lead to mass murder and/or increased violence.  That's not substantiated and doesn't appear to be true, so it falls in the category of hyperbole.
Click to expand...


Except that as others have pointed out, Foxy has made no such claim and has not made any effort to substantiate such a claim.


----------



## Swagger

Foxfyre said:


> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> catzmeow said:
> 
> 
> 
> My son started playing FPS games in elementary school, against my protests.  His dad introduced him to them while he was on visitation.  I had zero control over the issue, other than to ban them from our home.
> 
> I have to say, he's 15 now and I don't see any observable effects from shooting zombies/aliens/enemy soldiers for the past 4 years.  He gets good grades and is a student athlete who spends 3-5 hours a day training for his sport (wrestling).
> 
> I'd say that there is stronger evidence supporting negative outcomes in his behavior from my divorce than the video games.  I don't believe he's been any more prone to get into fights or conflicts with other kids than other boys at his school.  Probably less so than most.
> 
> And, I say this to my relief, because it's something I've spent a lot of time worrying about. All things being equal, I think the effect of the games is relatively minor, but if the kid has some level of instability in his/her life, there might be more effect.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Just as with movies, the themes of many modern games are very adult.
> 
> No child should see or play this.
> 
> [ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gXBDkevx5lM]Call of Duty Modern Warfare 2 - No Russian - Airport Mission Uncut - Veteran - High Quality - YouTube[/ame]
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *Geez, what is the purpose of that?*  Is there any way in the game to stop it?  Or it just happens?
Click to expand...


Gain notoriety. If your product's up for Congressional/Parliamentary review (which is what happened), then its 'cool factor' shoots right up and your sales increase.


----------



## catzmeow

Foxfyre said:


> Except that as others have pointed out, Foxy has made no such claim and has not made any effort to substantiate such a claim.



Let me restate:


Foxfyre said:


> But the debate isn't about the crime rate in general or the murder rate in general.  *The debate is about the escalation of senseless mass murders of innocents*, whether violent video games and media contributes to that, and on a broader scale whether violent video games and media is generally harmful to kids.



You made a claim that there is an escalation of senseless mass murders of innocents, and speculated about the link to violent video games.

There hasn't been an escalation of senseless mass murders of innocents.


----------



## Foxfyre

catzmeow said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> Except that as others have pointed out, Foxy has made no such claim and has not made any effort to substantiate such a claim.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Let me restate:
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> But the debate isn't about the crime rate in general or the murder rate in general.  *The debate is about the escalation of senseless mass murders of innocents*, whether violent video games and media contributes to that, and on a broader scale whether violent video games and media is generally harmful to kids.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You made a claim that there is an escalation of senseless mass murders of innocents, and speculated about the link to violent video games.
> 
> There hasn't been an escalation of senseless mass murders of innocents.
Click to expand...


I indeed believe there has been a senseless increase in mass murders of innocents, and asked the question about whether video games and media contributes to that.  The question was posed because many influential and knowledgeable people have also raised the question and are studying the issue.

Now if you wish to extrapolate that into ME speculating about anything and making that the issue, I suggest you find something else to do because I have neither speculated, attempted to claim, or tried to make a case for anything here.  I offered a thread topic.  You are invited to discuss it.   But if you wish to make this about me, I suggest you find something else to do because I'm not going to cooperate with that agenda.


----------



## Uncensored2008

Foxfyre said:


> I think I won't be getting that game.



Sadly though, some 11 year olds are playing it.

I fully support the right of adults to play anything they like, but do pause at the idea that this is being distributed to children.


----------



## Uncensored2008

catzmeow said:


> It's fine to say that these things aren't suitable for children, and I agree with you.
> 
> The problem is with Foxy's claim that they lead to mass murder and/or increased violence.  That's not substantiated and doesn't appear to be true, so it falls in the category of hyperbole.



I agree that it has nothing to do with the mass murders like Sandy Hook.


----------



## Foxfyre

Uncensored2008 said:


> catzmeow said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's fine to say that these things aren't suitable for children, and I agree with you.
> 
> The problem is with Foxy's claim that they lead to mass murder and/or increased violence.  That's not substantiated and doesn't appear to be true, so it falls in the category of hyperbole.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I agree that it has nothing to do with the mass murders like Sandy Hook.
Click to expand...


But how do you arrive at your opinion that it has nothing to do with the mass murders like Sandy Hook?  Have you read any of commentary on studies we have linked thus far?  Lots of pro and con discussion there, but the fact that there have been some 3000 studies to date suggests that a whole lot of professional people are NOT convinced that violence in media, music, and video games has nothing at all to do with it.

Again if the evidence shows that such violence has no lasting negative affect on the young, so be it.  But if it does, I think that merits some attention.

There are so many different angles different groups/people are working for.  One suggestion is that the violence is dismissed by those who want to blame the proliferation and availability of guns.  (Conversely, it is reasonable to argue that the gun lobby could have a motive to look for something to blame other than guns.)   Another suggestion is that violent content is not harmful to the young, yet they support the rating of the content.  If it isn't harmful, why rate it?  But as I and other have posted, there are credible people saying that the studies showing that violent content can be harmful to kids are flawed.

So since nobody seems to have a firm fix on it, I want to know.  And that's why I started the thread.


----------



## Ravi

JustTheFacts said:


> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JustTheFacts said:
> 
> 
> 
> Same question I asked Catz, maybe you'll answer. IF there is no correlation between violent video games and becoming predisposed to violence, why does the US military use them as a training aid for that express purpose?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Reflexes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hmm, really? Wrong. Try again.
> 
> Reflexes LOL laughable on the surface. I have GREAT reflexes in Madden 2013. I'd get killed if I was to ever play QB in the NFL though.
Click to expand...


Apples and oranges. Don't take my word for it, google or ask the military.


----------



## Ravi

I have a hard time believing that there are many parents out there that let their children grow up playing these uber-violent video games anyway. Sure, some kids sneak and do it just like some of us raided our parents liquor cabinets. But those kids aren't the norm.


----------



## Uncensored2008

Foxfyre said:


> But how do you arrive at your opinion that it has nothing to do with the mass murders like Sandy Hook?  Have you read any of commentary on studies we have linked thus far?  Lots of pro and con discussion there, but the fact that there have been some 3000 studies to date suggests that a whole lot of professional people are NOT convinced that violence in media, music, and video games has nothing at all to do with it.



When we get into issue like this, it boils down to opinion. There is no actual evidence that video game violence is causative. If anything, the violence in video games is a reflection of the breakdown of social norms. I say that since violence is a major theme of all forms of popular entertainment. Rap chants are about the most violent popular media around.



> Again if the evidence shows that such violence has no lasting negative affect on the young, so be it.  But if it does, I think that merits some attention.



I've already said that this should be kept away from the young. But that falls back to parenting. Just as is the case with violent movies and Rap chants, the only way to keep this away from children is for parents to act.



> There are so many different angles different groups/people are working for.  One suggestion is that the violence is dismissed by those who want to blame the proliferation and availability of guns.  (Conversely, it is reasonable to think the gun lobby would have a motive to look for something to blame other than guns.)   Another suggestion is that violent content is not harmful to the young, yet they support the rating of the content.  If it isn't harmful, why rate it?  But as I and other have posted, there are credible people saying that the studies showing that violent content can be harmful to kids are flawed.



I'm old enough to remember a time when subject matter was geared toward age appropriateness. I still support these notions.



> So since nobody seems to have a firm fix on it, I want to know.  And that's why I started the thread.



Sexual and violent content should be kept from kids.


----------



## Uncensored2008

Ravi said:


> I have a hard time believing that there are many parents out there that let their children grow up playing these uber-violent video games anyway. Sure, some kids sneak and do it just like some of us raided our parents liquor cabinets. But those kids aren't the norm.



Just go onto any multiplayer server and you'll fine out quickly the millions of children who are playing the uber-violent games.

The problem is that parents don't parent.


----------



## Foxfyre

Uncensored2008 said:


> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have a hard time believing that there are many parents out there that let their children grow up playing these uber-violent video games anyway. Sure, some kids sneak and do it just like some of us raided our parents liquor cabinets. But those kids aren't the norm.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Just go onto any multiplayer server and you'll fine out quickly the millions of children who are playing the uber-violent games.
> 
> The problem is that parents don't parent.
Click to expand...


Yes, and more than one who have posted on this thread have said the very same thing.  And nobody suggested that parenting is not and should not be part of the equation.

Personally I don't think occasional exposure to media, music, or video violence is probably going to have lasting affect on any kid, even the screwed up ones.  But with frequent, prolonged, repetitive exposure, my instincts tell me that at least some of those studies might be right.  You see too many young kids acting out--in frustration or for fun--some of the stuff they see on television or whatever.  And I am curious whether this could carry over into older kids who have the ability and perhaps the inclination to act out more realistically?

I honestly don't know.  I'm not ready to say yes or no re that theory.

For sure it doesn't help if parents hear that there is nothing really harmful in the content their kids are watching and therefore the parents shouldn't worry about it.


----------



## Koios

Foxfyre said:


> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have a hard time believing that there are many parents out there that let their children grow up playing these uber-violent video games anyway. Sure, some kids sneak and do it just like some of us raided our parents liquor cabinets. But those kids aren't the norm.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Just go onto any multiplayer server and you'll fine out quickly the millions of children who are playing the uber-violent games.
> 
> The problem is that parents don't parent.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, and more than one who have posted on this thread have said the very same thing.  *And nobody suggested that parenting is not and should not be part of the equation.*
> 
> Personally I don't think occasional exposure to media, music, or video violence is probably going to have lasting affect on any kid, even the screwed up ones.  But with frequent, prolonged, repetitive exposure, my instincts tell me that at least some of those studies might be right.  You see too many young kids acting out--in frustration or for fun--some of the stuff they see on television or whatever.  And I am curious whether this could carry over into older kids who have the ability and perhaps the inclination to act out more realistically?
> 
> I honestly don't know.  I'm not ready to say yes or no re that theory.
> 
> For sure it doesn't help if parents hear that there is nothing really harmful in the content their kids are watching and therefore the parents shouldn't worry about it.
Click to expand...


Parenting is in the equation already.  The question then is: is that enough, or do we need stricter regulatory controls?


----------



## Uncensored2008

Foxfyre said:


> Yes, and more than one who have posted on this thread have said the very same thing.  And nobody suggested that parenting is not and should not be part of the equation.
> 
> Personally I don't think occasional exposure to media, music, or video violence is probably going to have lasting affect on any kid, even the screwed up ones.  But with frequent, prolonged, repetitive exposure, my instincts tell me that at least some of those studies might be right.  You see too many young kids acting out--in frustration or for fun--some of the stuff they see on television or whatever.  And I am curious whether this could carry over into older kids who have the ability and perhaps the inclination to act out more realistically?
> 
> I honestly don't know.  I'm not ready to say yes or no re that theory.
> 
> For sure it doesn't help if parents hear that there is nothing really harmful in the content their kids are watching and therefore the parents shouldn't worry about it.



Catz brought up a good point in that in broken families, parenting can be sporadic. It sounds like she parented but her ex didn't. That happens all too often. I'm not criticizing, I'm on my second and final marriage, but divorce often destroys the united front that parents need to present. So even with the best of intentions, the child is still exposed to objectionable content.


----------



## Foxfyre

Uncensored2008 said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, and more than one who have posted on this thread have said the very same thing.  And nobody suggested that parenting is not and should not be part of the equation.
> 
> Personally I don't think occasional exposure to media, music, or video violence is probably going to have lasting affect on any kid, even the screwed up ones.  But with frequent, prolonged, repetitive exposure, my instincts tell me that at least some of those studies might be right.  You see too many young kids acting out--in frustration or for fun--some of the stuff they see on television or whatever.  And I am curious whether this could carry over into older kids who have the ability and perhaps the inclination to act out more realistically?
> 
> I honestly don't know.  I'm not ready to say yes or no re that theory.
> 
> For sure it doesn't help if parents hear that there is nothing really harmful in the content their kids are watching and therefore the parents shouldn't worry about it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Catz brought up a good point in that in broken families, parenting can be sporadic. It sounds like she parented but her ex didn't. That happens all too often. I'm not criticizing, I'm on my second and final marriage, but divorce often destroys the united front that parents need to present. So even with the best of intentions, the child is still exposed to objectionable content.
Click to expand...


All too true.  Many of us could write a book on how NOT to parent and how parents who don't provide a unified front can be extremely destructive.  And while we are all agreed that parenting is important, how to parent well is also a topic for another thread.

But before we can move to a debate on how to deal with the problem re violent media, music, and video games, unified or not and most especially related to the mass killings in recent decades, we first need to know whether there is a problem that needs to be fixed.  You don't fix a broken faucet by painting the porch.


----------



## blackhawk

Just for the record I play Call Of Duty and Medal Of Honor don't mess with my games.


----------



## Uncensored2008

blackhawk said:


> Just for the record I play Call Of Duty and Medal Of Honor don't mess with my games.



If you're an adult, you have every right to play them. 

I don't believe any law can address a lack of parenting, so I oppose any restrictions on video games.


----------



## beagle9

Ravi said:


> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eflatminor said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't think history supports that conclusion.  Charles Whitman, the 1963 Texas bell tower sniper, that was akin to what we see today.  We've had mass killings for a long time.  They're on the decline despite more firearms and more violent entertainment.  There is no empirical evidence to suggest either lead to actual violence.
> 
> Nobody is happy with crazies killing innocents but it's reasonable to keep in mind that this kind of thing is exceedingly rare, less than one tenth of one percent of murders.  There are ways to guard against such things without impeding on the rights of others.  IMO, Free people making voluntary choices will respond the best way possible to deal with this kind of craziness.
> 
> 
> 
> You know I have lived in this nation since I was born in 1960, and I remember it never being this bad for our youth over the years in this way, and this especially so as is found in percentages of now, and to the bombardment we are experiencing in this nation to date, so there is no way that you can go back and mention a few bad instances that were few and far between in percentages of, in order to suggest that we are not really in that bad a shape these days, because you are wrong on that assumption or statement my friend, and everyone here knows it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I guess you have a faulty memory. Here's an interesting article on school shootings in just the Northeast during the 1940s and 1950s.
> 
> Concealed Carry Laws and School Safety: Evidence from the 1940s and 1950s «
Click to expand...

This nation is huge and hugely populated, and yes we have had many events over time that were tragic and murderous, however in percentages of, we have got to be breaking records these days in the amount that these events are taking place now more frequently, and also in the ages that we are seeing involved in these events that of being younger and younger as we go. I mean look at the single kid on kid murders that have been taking place in the past 25 years alone, and then these school shootings by these young men, and the rape that has become more prevalent now in America. It seems that a volatile cocktail gets mixed into these young people heads, and all depending on the young person or young adult's character, we get what we get as a result of this cocktail and/or mixture. 

Problem is that people have had their head in the sand about this stuff forever now, but why ? Why have we sat back and allowed these things to get this bad ?


----------



## beagle9

Uncensored2008 said:


> blackhawk said:
> 
> 
> 
> Just for the record I play Call Of Duty and Medal Of Honor don't mess with my games.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If you're an adult, you have every right to play them.
> 
> I don't believe any law can address a lack of parenting, so I oppose any restrictions on video games.
Click to expand...

Another serious problem found in this nation, is the "selfishness" as is found in some people for whom make such a statement as this in which you had responded to above. Just because he see's nothing wrong in his games according to him, doesn't mean that we don't have many whom can't handle these same games, yet are easily being bombarded with them now in the worst ways, and then they are learning some bad stuff from these games in the form in which they have been taken in script there of, so you take these games and add some mental health problems, some drugs, a gun or guns, bad parents maybe, tough economics, abuse as a child possibly, and wa-la you get a situation that is dangerous as it can be out in society.  They then use all of it as reality brought to life in their twisted minds, instead of keeping this stuff in fiction where it always needs to stay in which they can't seem to do. 

I am not for taking anyone's games, just like I am not for taking anyone's guns, but we could do more to protect the good people who use these things legally and righteously, and this by keeping this sort of stuff out of the hands of those who don't need these things at all in their torn and tormented lives.

Now we just need to get our selfish attitudes and put them away for a second, and figure out how to keep these things out of the hands of the mentally ill, the criminals, and those who are easily followers of crime instead of leaders of good in their lives.

Hey maybe not mess with your games I agree, but how about changing them a bit in content of, you know just so if a bad kid or young adult gets introduced to them or getting his or her hands on them, and thus ending up with them, then maybe if they were re-programed to not be anything that the person would want to use as a training tool to do combat against innocent citizens within a virtual reality, and this by being allowed to kill them (the innocents in the game), you know if one wants to be the bad guy in that way, then we will have made progress again in our society as a whole.

We have a lot of spoiled rotten people in this nation now, whom only think of me, me, me, and then they dis-regard the fall out from these games, when they end up into the wrong hands, and for all the wrong reasons.


----------



## beagle9

Ravi said:


> I have a hard time believing that there are many parents out there that let their children grow up playing these uber-violent video games anyway. Sure, some kids sneak and do it just like some of us raided our parents liquor cabinets. But those kids aren't the norm.


The parents are working all the time or breaking up all the time now, so the kids are raising themselves. 

Where the parents are not, and the cubs are weakened because of them not being there or they are there but not there, then this is where the wolf / the devil's seat is, who very easily and readily becomes the father of these children. Then we all know where that leads to next.


----------



## JustTheFacts

Ravi said:


> JustTheFacts said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> 
> Reflexes.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hmm, really? Wrong. Try again.
> 
> Reflexes LOL laughable on the surface. I have GREAT reflexes in Madden 2013. I'd get killed if I was to ever play QB in the NFL tits not hough.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Apples and oranges. Don't take my word for it, google or ask the military.
Click to expand...


Its not apples and oranges. I can out shoot my son uaing my off hand any day of the week and he kills me in modern warfare.

Ps hes an adult and was not allowed to have m rated games until he turned 17


----------



## Ravi

JustTheFacts said:


> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JustTheFacts said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hmm, really? Wrong. Try again.
> 
> Reflexes LOL laughable on the surface. I have GREAT reflexes in Madden 2013. I'd get killed if I was to ever play QB in the NFL tits not hough.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Apples and oranges. Don't take my word for it, google or ask the military.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Its not apples and oranges. I can out shoot my son uaing my off hand any day of the week and he kills me in modern warfare.
> 
> Ps hes an adult and was not allowed to have m rated games until he turned 17
Click to expand...



Beyond the flight simulators used to train pilots, the U.S. military branches use other virtual reality military applications to put soldiers in virtual war scenarios. For example, the Army's Engagement Skills Trainer (EST) gives each student the sound and feel of the different firearms he or she might use on the job. Beyond practice firing, the EST provides real-life scenarios to help soldiers determine when to shoot and when not to shoot. Another simulator, the Virtual Convoy Operations Trainer (VCOT), puts a team of soldiers in different roles in combat scenarios, training them to communicate and work together.

HowStuffWorks "Military Training Goes Digital"


----------



## JustTheFacts

Ravi said:


> JustTheFacts said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> 
> Apples and oranges. Don't take my word for it, google or ask the military.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Its not apples and oranges. I can out shoot my son uaing my off hand any day of the week and he kills me in modern warfare.
> 
> Ps hes an adult and was not allowed to have m rated games until he turned 17
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Beyond the flight simulators used to train pilots, the U.S. military branches use other virtual reality military applications to put soldiers in virtual war scenarios. For example, the Army's Engagement Skills Trainer (EST) gives each student the sound and feel of the different firearms he or she might use on the job. Beyond practice firing, the EST provides real-life scenarios to help soldiers determine when to shoot and when not to shoot. Another simulator, the Virtual Convoy Operations Trainer (VCOT), puts a team of soldiers in different roles in combat scenarios, training them to communicate and work together.
> 
> HowStuffWorks "Military Training Goes Digital"
Click to expand...


Which is entirely different than "reflexes"

Actually the Army is confirming what I said about video games many pages ago. They are UBER realistic nowadays. 

But no so realistic as to teach a person how to shoot. Big difference between mashing buttons and pulling triggers.

Now to touch on something you said earlier about children not playing these games in big numbers. You're wrong on that score to. I don't know if you know it or not, but you can go online, and play multiplayer in these games. You can even use a headset to talk to the people you're playing with.

It's quite depressing to hear so many children not just playng the games , but to be screaming obscenities and what not while doing so, so depressing that I have given up playing there


----------



## catzmeow

beagle9 said:


> This nation is huge and hugely populated, and yes we have had many events over time that were tragic and murderous, however in percentages of, we have got to be breaking records these days in the amount that these events are taking place now more frequently



Actual data on mass murders from the FBI says no.

In fact, the number of incidents in 2012 was 7% lower than the average for 2000-2010.


----------



## catzmeow

Foxfyre said:


> I indeed believe there has been a senseless increase in mass murders of innocents,



What is your belief based upon?  I've provided you with crime data from the FBI and a scholarly research publication that shows that *there has not been an increase in mass murders of innocents since the 1960s.*

Instead, there has been an increase in the amount of media coverage that each of these acts receives.

Your belief is not factual.  When the actual crime data on mass murders shows the opposite of your perceptions, which do you choose?  Do you continue to hold onto your belief, or revise it in accordance with the facts?


----------



## Foxfyre

As long as you try to turn this discussion into my agenda Catz, we have nothing to discuss since I don't have an agenda here other than to have a discussion about how best to deal with the problem.  I have already conceded that you don't think we have a problem.   And you have been invited to show how if you take the organized crime, drug stuff, gang activity etc. out of the equation and show that killers gunning down large groups of innocent people is no more prevalent now than it has ever been, go for it.

I am perfectly willing to be wrong in my perception.  But so far, nobody has shown me that I am.  Without demonstrated evidence anybody's opinion is as good as anybody's.


----------



## Uncensored2008

beagle9 said:


> This nation is huge and hugely populated, and yes we have had many events over time that were tragic and murderous, however in percentages of, we have got to be breaking records these days in the amount that these events are taking place now more frequently, and also in the ages that we are seeing involved in these events that of being younger and younger as we go.



It would seem that way, wouldn't it? But that isn't the case.

{ And yet those who study mass shootings say they are not becoming more common.

"There is no pattern, there is no increase," says criminologist James Allen Fox of Boston's Northeastern University, who has been studying the subject since the 1980s, spurred by a rash of mass shootings in post offices.

The random mass shootings that get the most media attention are the rarest, Fox says. Most people who die of bullet wounds knew the identity of their killer.

Society moves on, he says, because of our ability to distance ourselves from the horror of the day, and because people believe that these tragedies are "one of the unfortunate prices we pay for our freedoms."}

Mass shootings are not growing in frequency, experts say - NY Daily News



> I mean look at the single kid on kid murders that have been taking place in the past 25 years alone, and then these school shootings by these young men, and the rape that has become more prevalent now in America.



Real rape is at an all time low. "Date rape" is impossible to quantify since it only became recognized in the last couple of decades 

{The U.S. Justice Department's National Crime Victimization Survey (considered our best measure of crime because its anonymous surveys capture offenses not reported to police) reports that rape has been falling dramatically for decades}

The decline of rape - Los Angeles Times

The chances of a woman being attacked and raped are the lowest in human history. A woman still might get drunk and wake up deciding the guy she fucked is ugly (date rape) though.



> It seems that a volatile cocktail gets mixed into these young people heads, and all depending on the young person or young adult's character, we get what we get as a result of this cocktail and/or mixture.



We have a serious problem with our culture. We celebrate the lowest points and denigrate anything that rises above. We are a nation in decline.



> Problem is that people have had their head in the sand about this stuff forever now, but why ? Why have we sat back and allowed these things to get this bad ?



The assault on our culture was a deliberately conducted war. Those prosecuting the culture war had eyes wide open, and they had a plan.


----------



## catzmeow

Foxfyre said:


> As long as you try to turn this discussion into my agenda Catz, we have nothing to discuss since I don't have an agenda here other than to have a discussion about how best to deal with the problem.  I have already conceded that you don't think we have a problem.   And you have been invited to show how if you take the and show that killers gunning down large groups of innocent people is no more prevalent now than it has ever been, go for it.
> 
> I am perfectly willing to be wrong in my perception.  *But so far, nobody has shown me that I am. * Without demonstrated evidence anybody's opinion is as good as anybody's.



I've already provided the evidence you asked for.  Uncensored just provided it again, in the post above this one.  Is the FBI not a trustworthy source for you?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass_murder

Mass murders by gang members are relatively rare (because by definition, a mass murder has at least 4 victims), and they generally aren't gang-related (committed to further the purposes of the gang).  One of my former clients committed a multiple homicide in a taqueria in the 1990s.  He didn't do it for the gang, he did it because he was mentally ill, high on cocaine, and it happened during the comission of a felony robbery.  The people he killed were random and innocent, not rival gang members. 

A lot of the drug-related mass murders you are probably thinking about haven't happened in the U.S., though they are commonly committed by drug gangs in Mexico.

Here's another article.  i'm posting it in the hopes that you will actually read it.

http://www.auburn.edu/~peteeta/massmurder1.htm


----------



## JustTheFacts

Uncensored2008 said:


> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> This nation is huge and hugely populated, and yes we have had many events over time that were tragic and murderous, however in percentages of, we have got to be breaking records these days in the amount that these events are taking place now more frequently, and also in the ages that we are seeing involved in these events that of being younger and younger as we go.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It would seem that way, wouldn't it? But that isn't the case.
> 
> { And yet those who study mass shootings say they are not becoming more common.
> 
> "There is no pattern, there is no increase," says criminologist James Allen Fox of Boston's Northeastern University, who has been studying the subject since the 1980s, spurred by a rash of mass shootings in post offices.
> 
> The random mass shootings that get the most media attention are the rarest, Fox says. Most people who die of bullet wounds knew the identity of their killer.
> 
> Society moves on, he says, because of our ability to distance ourselves from the horror of the day, and because people believe that these tragedies are "one of the unfortunate prices we pay for our freedoms."}
> 
> Mass shootings are not growing in frequency, experts say - NY Daily News
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I mean look at the single kid on kid murders that have been taking place in the past 25 years alone, and then these school shootings by these young men, and the rape that has become more prevalent now in America.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Real rape is at an all time low. "Date rape" is impossible to quantify since it only became recognized in the last couple of decades
> 
> {The U.S. Justice Department's National Crime Victimization Survey (considered our best measure of crime because its anonymous surveys capture offenses not reported to police) reports that rape has been falling dramatically for decades}
> 
> The decline of rape - Los Angeles Times
> 
> The chances of a woman being attacked and raped are the lowest in human history. A woman still might get drunk and wake up deciding the guy she fucked is ugly (date rape) though.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It seems that a volatile cocktail gets mixed into these young people heads, and all depending on the young person or young adult's character, we get what we get as a result of this cocktail and/or mixture.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We have a serious problem with our culture. We celebrate the lowest points and denigrate anything that rises above. We are a nation in decline.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Problem is that people have had their head in the sand about this stuff forever now, but why ? Why have we sat back and allowed these things to get this bad ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The assault on our culture was a deliberately conducted war. Those prosecuting the culture war had eyes wide open, and they had a plan.
Click to expand...


There is no increase in how many of these crimes are committed. I think an argument could be made that SOMETHING has changed WHO is committing these crimes.

Young, white , middle class males haven't typically been killing multiple people for no apparent reason.

Typically in the past it was mid 20s white males , outside of gang or mob related murders, I'm just talking about the "WTF murders" and most of those targeted a specific group, women who reminded them of mommy, gays, or whatever.

These shootings are by KIDS and apparently at random.


----------



## Uncensored2008

JustTheFacts said:


> There is no increase in how many of these crimes are committed. I think an argument could be made that SOMETHING has changed WHO is committing these crimes.
> 
> Young, white , middle class males haven't typically been killing multiple people for no apparent reason.



Actually they have, going back to Billy the Kid. What has changed is that our media is far more tabloid in the past, and we are a more racist country than we used to be, so the color of the perpetrator is a major part of the story.



> Typically in the past it was mid 20s white males , outside of gang or mob related murders, I'm just talking about the "WTF murders" and most of those targeted a specific group, women who reminded them of mommy, gays, or whatever.
> 
> These shootings are by KIDS and apparently at random.



I doubt they are actually random.


----------



## Katzndogz

We accommodate the mentally ill more now.  We don't have a gun problem but a violence problem and a problem with the mentally ill.   They are out on the streets by design.


----------



## Uncensored2008

Katzndogz said:


> We accommodate the mentally ill more now.  We don't have a gun problem but a violence problem and a problem with the mentally ill.   They are out on the streets by design.



Good point.


----------



## catzmeow

Mother Jones looked as mass murders since 1982 (though they missed quite a few cases).  Their report becomes more accurate the closer you get to today.



> Half of the cases involved school or workplace shootings (12 and 19, respectively); the other 31 cases took place in locations including shopping malls, restaurants, and religious and government buildings. *Forty four of the killers were white males*. Only one of them was a woman. (See Goleta, Calif., in 2006.) *The average age of the killers was 35*, though the youngest among them was a mere 11 years old. (See Jonesboro, Ark., in 1998.)



There haven't been more mass murders (Mother Jones gets this wrong).  The average number of mass murder victims, annually, has been between 161 and 163 since the 1980s.  Adam Lanza wasn't a kid.  Nor was James Holmes.  

The pictures you saw of Adam Lanza mostly dated from his school years because he was a recluse after graduation.

But, the vast amount of press coverage that these incidents receive skews our perception of them.

Good article by James Fox, a criminology who has specialized in mass murder:

Back-to-school fears - James Alan Fox - Crime & Punishment blog - Boston.com


----------



## Ravi

catzmeow said:


> Mother Jones looked as mass murders since 1982 (though they missed quite a few cases).  Their report becomes more accurate the closer you get to today.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Half of the cases involved school or workplace shootings (12 and 19, respectively); the other 31 cases took place in locations including shopping malls, restaurants, and religious and government buildings. *Forty four of the killers were white males*. Only one of them was a woman. (See Goleta, Calif., in 2006.) *The average age of the killers was 35*, though the youngest among them was a mere 11 years old. (See Jonesboro, Ark., in 1998.)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There haven't been more mass murders (Mother Jones gets this wrong).  The average number of mass murder victims, annually, has been between 161 and 163 since the 1980s.  Adam Lanza wasn't a kid.  Nor was James Holmes.
> 
> The pictures you saw of Adam Lanza mostly dated from his school years because he was a recluse after graduation.
> 
> But, the vast amount of press coverage that these incidents receive skews our perception of them.
> 
> Good article by James Fox, a criminology who has specialized in mass murder:
> 
> Back-to-school fears - James Alan Fox - Crime & Punishment blog - Boston.com
Click to expand...


Are there more victims per incident?


----------



## catzmeow

Another REALLY good read:  Top 10 myths about mass shootings - James Alan Fox - Crime & Punishment blog - Boston.com


----------



## peach174

We are giving our children mind altering drugs and then sit them in front of violent video games,movies and TV shows.
Parents are using TV,Movies and video games as babysitters.
A Nation on Mind Altering Drugs: Antidepressants Most Commonly Prescribed Drugs in US

In all, the researchers found that the rate of antidepressant treatment increased from 5.84 percent to 10.12 percent between 1996 and 2005. That translates into a remarkable increase from an estimated 13.3 million taking antidepressants to 27 million people now on the mind and body-altering drugs.

The use of these drugs increased in1996 and then we had Columbine in 1999.
From the article;
Curiously, the only people who aren't apparently being prescribed these medications in droves are those in racial and ethnic minorities.

Here is your answer as to why it's young white males who are doing this.


----------



## catzmeow

Ravi said:


> catzmeow said:
> 
> 
> 
> Mother Jones looked as mass murders since 1982 (though they missed quite a few cases).  Their report becomes more accurate the closer you get to today.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Half of the cases involved school or workplace shootings (12 and 19, respectively); the other 31 cases took place in locations including shopping malls, restaurants, and religious and government buildings. *Forty four of the killers were white males*. Only one of them was a woman. (See Goleta, Calif., in 2006.) *The average age of the killers was 35*, though the youngest among them was a mere 11 years old. (See Jonesboro, Ark., in 1998.)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There haven't been more mass murders (Mother Jones gets this wrong).  The average number of mass murder victims, annually, has been between 161 and 163 since the 1980s.  Adam Lanza wasn't a kid.  Nor was James Holmes.
> 
> The pictures you saw of Adam Lanza mostly dated from his school years because he was a recluse after graduation.
> 
> But, the vast amount of press coverage that these incidents receive skews our perception of them.
> 
> Good article by James Fox, a criminology who has specialized in mass murder:
> 
> Back-to-school fears - James Alan Fox - Crime & Punishment blog - Boston.com
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Are there more victims per incident?
Click to expand...


It varies dramatically.  This is a great graphic representation prepared by James Fox (based upon the FBI NIBRS system):







I would say, generally, though that there aren't.  Some years are bad, but frequently, the following year will have a dramatic decrease in victims.  I think if you plotted the top green line (victims) in a trend map, it would be flat, but I haven't done that, so I can't be sure.

http://boston.com/community/blogs/c...s Shootings 1980-2010-thumb-533x320-79419.jpg


----------



## Uncensored2008

So playing off of the posts from Katzndogz and Fox, should there be an effort to keep the mentally ill away from violent video games?

I like games, I admit that at times it's as much about building the hardware with me as it is about the games themselves. (But I get 230 FPS from BF3 maxed out with 16X AA and  16:1 Anisotropic filtering!)

I play, mostly on weekends for a few hours. But someone who would spend 16 or more hours a day on a game is probably not right in the head. It's an obsession with some.


----------



## catzmeow

peach174 said:


> We are giving our children mind altering drugs and then sit them in front of violent video games,movies and TV shows.
> Parents are using TV,Movies and video games as babysitters.
> A Nation on Mind Altering Drugs: Antidepressants Most Commonly Prescribed Drugs in US
> 
> In all, the researchers found that the rate of antidepressant treatment increased from 5.84 percent to 10.12 percent between 1996 and 2005. That translates into a remarkable increase from an estimated 13.3 million taking antidepressants to 27 million people now on the mind and body-altering drugs.
> 
> The use of these drugs increased in1996 and then we had Columbine in 1999.
> From the article;
> Curiously, the only people who aren't apparently being prescribed these medications in droves are those in racial and ethnic minorities.
> 
> Here is your answer as to why it's young white males who are doing this.



I'm not going to say that people don't have poor parenting practices and that drugs aren't possibly over-prescribed.

On the flip side, *violence in the U.S. is down, and it is down by a lot since 1996*.

And, the bulk of mass murderers, *since 1982*, have been white.


----------



## catzmeow

Uncensored2008 said:


> So playing off of the posts from Katzndogz and Fox, should there be an effort to keep the mentally ill away from violent video games?
> 
> I like games, I admit that at times it's as much about building the hardware with me as it is about the games themselves. (But I get 230 FPS from BF3 maxed out with 16X AA and  16:1 Anisotropic filtering!)
> 
> I play, mostly on weekends for a few hours. But someone who would spend 16 or more hours a day on a game is probably not right in the head. It's an obsession with some.



Generally speaking, we can't even keep semi-automatic weapons out of the hands of the mentally ill (James Holmes, Adam Lanza).   How on earth would we keep video games (which can be easily accessed as illegal utorrent downloads on the internet in places like thepiratebay.org) out of their hands?


----------



## Ravi

catzmeow said:


> peach174 said:
> 
> 
> 
> We are giving our children mind altering drugs and then sit them in front of violent video games,movies and TV shows.
> Parents are using TV,Movies and video games as babysitters.
> A Nation on Mind Altering Drugs: Antidepressants Most Commonly Prescribed Drugs in US
> 
> In all, the researchers found that the rate of antidepressant treatment increased from 5.84 percent to 10.12 percent between 1996 and 2005. That translates into a remarkable increase from an estimated 13.3 million taking antidepressants to 27 million people now on the mind and body-altering drugs.
> 
> The use of these drugs increased in1996 and then we had Columbine in 1999.
> From the article;
> Curiously, the only people who aren't apparently being prescribed these medications in droves are those in racial and ethnic minorities.
> 
> Here is your answer as to why it's young white males who are doing this.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not going to say that people don't have poor parenting practices and that drugs aren't possibly over-prescribed.
> 
> On the flip side, *violence in the U.S. is down, and it is down by a lot since 1996*.
Click to expand...


Then maybe the other studies I've seen are correct. Violent video games lead to a decrease in mass shootings.


----------



## Foxfyre

JustTheFacts said:


> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> This nation is huge and hugely populated, and yes we have had many events over time that were tragic and murderous, however in percentages of, we have got to be breaking records these days in the amount that these events are taking place now more frequently, and also in the ages that we are seeing involved in these events that of being younger and younger as we go.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It would seem that way, wouldn't it? But that isn't the case.
> 
> { And yet those who study mass shootings say they are not becoming more common.
> 
> "There is no pattern, there is no increase," says criminologist James Allen Fox of Boston's Northeastern University, who has been studying the subject since the 1980s, spurred by a rash of mass shootings in post offices.
> 
> The random mass shootings that get the most media attention are the rarest, Fox says. Most people who die of bullet wounds knew the identity of their killer.
> 
> Society moves on, he says, because of our ability to distance ourselves from the horror of the day, and because people believe that these tragedies are "one of the unfortunate prices we pay for our freedoms."}
> 
> Mass shootings are not growing in frequency, experts say - NY Daily News
> 
> 
> 
> Real rape is at an all time low. "Date rape" is impossible to quantify since it only became recognized in the last couple of decades
> 
> {The U.S. Justice Department's National Crime Victimization Survey (considered our best measure of crime because its anonymous surveys capture offenses not reported to police) reports that rape has been falling dramatically for decades}
> 
> The decline of rape - Los Angeles Times
> 
> The chances of a woman being attacked and raped are the lowest in human history. A woman still might get drunk and wake up deciding the guy she fucked is ugly (date rape) though.
> 
> 
> 
> We have a serious problem with our culture. We celebrate the lowest points and denigrate anything that rises above. We are a nation in decline.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Problem is that people have had their head in the sand about this stuff forever now, but why ? Why have we sat back and allowed these things to get this bad ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The assault on our culture was a deliberately conducted war. Those prosecuting the culture war had eyes wide open, and they had a plan.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There is no increase in how many of these crimes are committed. I think an argument could be made that SOMETHING has changed WHO is committing these crimes.
> 
> Young, white , middle class males haven't typically been killing multiple people for no apparent reason.
> 
> Typically in the past it was mid 20s white males , outside of gang or mob related murders, I'm just talking about the "WTF murders" and most of those targeted a specific group, women who reminded them of mommy, gays, or whatever.
> 
> These shootings are by KIDS and apparently at random.
Click to expand...


Again I am perfectly willing to be wrong about this, but so far the stuff ya'll have been posting is sort of reinforcing my perception.  Again, if you take out the mob violence, gang activity, drug related stuff, and also the 'going postal' incidents--note the most recent article published mentioned that most victims KNOW their shooter, and focus on those senseless massacres in which there is no obvious motive and the victims are apparently purely random, can you still say there has been no increase in these?

If you can show that fine.  I am perfectly willing to accept it.

But in the world of opinion pieces, you can find plenty who take the opposite view such as this:



> In the wake of the massacres this year at a Colorado movie theater, a Sikh temple in Wisconsin, and Sandy Hook Elementary School in Connecticut, we set out to track mass shootings in the United States over the last 30 years. We identified and analyzed 62 of them, and one striking pattern in the data is this: In not a single case was the killing stopped by a civilian using a gun. And in other recent (but less lethal) rampages in which armed civilians attempted to intervene, those civilians not only failed to stop the shooter but also were gravely wounded or killed. *Moreover, we found that the rate of mass shootings has increased in recent years*at a time when America has been flooded with millions of additional firearms and a barrage of new laws has made it easier than ever to carry them in public places, including bars, parks, and schools.
> More Guns, More Mass Shootings?Coincidence? | Mother Jones



Now admittedly, Mother Jones is consistently anti-gun, pro gun control and we can expect an opinion piece in their publication to reflect that.

But look at the language in this piece in Reason that supports yall who say there is no increase in mass murders of innocents such as we saw at Sandy Hook:
Are Mass Shootings Becoming More Common in the United States? - Hit & Run : Reason.com

The identical words you see repeated again and again in article after article.  None seem to be doing their own research but are copying from each other.  And most don't cite who the 'experts' are or make any distinction in the types of mass murder that are included in the statistics.  Probably most of those writers haven't even looked at any statistics.

I remain unconvinced and think it warrants a closer look.


----------



## Uncensored2008

catzmeow said:


> Generally speaking, we can't even keep semi-automatic weapons out of the hands of the mentally ill (James Holmes, Adam Lanza).   How on earth would we keep video games (which can be easily accessed as illegal utorrent downloads on the internet in places like thepiratebay.org) out of their hands?



By institutionalizing the mentally ill.


----------



## catzmeow

Foxfyre said:


> I remain unconvinced and think it warrants a closer look.



Nobody knows more about mass murder and serial killings in the U.S. than James Alan Cox and Jack Levin at Northeastern University.  Using FBI NIBRS police incident report data, they've compile a database of serial killings and mass murders that date back to 1980.   The database includes suspect demographics and possible motives in the killings from investigative notes.  They segregated out the data that you're describing and examined these instances in depth.

Based on that database, mass murders have not increased since 1980.  






No increase in mass shootings - James Alan Fox - Crime & Punishment blog - Boston.com

You've been given adequate opportunities to examine the data for yourself, and you choose to ignore it in favor of your paradigms.

Clearly, you would rather believe what you want to believe than objectively examine the evidence.


----------



## catzmeow

Uncensored2008 said:


> catzmeow said:
> 
> 
> 
> Generally speaking, we can't even keep semi-automatic weapons out of the hands of the mentally ill (James Holmes, Adam Lanza).   How on earth would we keep video games (which can be easily accessed as illegal utorrent downloads on the internet in places like thepiratebay.org) out of their hands?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> By institutionalizing the mentally ill.
Click to expand...


Except that Fox and Levin found that a lot of the perpetrators weren't noticeably mentally ill:



> Myth: Greater attention and response to the telltale warning signs will allow us to identify would-be mass killers before they act.
> Reality: While there are some common features in the profile of a mass murderer (depression, resentment, social isolation, tendency to blame others for their misfortunes, fascination with violence, and interest in weaponry), *those characteristics are all fairly prevalent in the general population. Any attempt to predict would produce many false positives. Actually, the telltale warning signs come into clear focus only after the deadly deed.*
> 
> Myth: Widening the availability of mental-health services and reducing the stigma associated with mental illness will allow unstable individuals to get the treatment they need.
> Reality: *With their tendency to externalize blame and see themselves as victims of mistreatment, mass murderers perceive the problem to be in others, not themselves. *They would generally resist attempts to encourage them to seek help. And, besides, our constant references to mass murderers as wackos or sickos dont do much to destigmatize the mentally ill.


Top 10 myths about mass shootings - James Alan Fox - Crime & Punishment blog - Boston.com

I had to put myself in check on this subject, as well, since I'm one of the people who has advocated that the existing gaps in our mental health system are to blame.


----------



## catzmeow

Foxfyre said:


> [Now admittedly, Mother Jones is consistently anti-gun, pro gun control and we can expect an opinion piece in their publication to reflect that.



Mother Jones ignored most of the instances of mass murder that occurred in the 1980s, resulting in their conclusions being flawed.

Fox & Levin have the most accurate records on mass murder and their information has been provided above.


----------



## Foxfyre

catzmeow said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> I remain unconvinced and think it warrants a closer look.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nobody knows more about mass murder and serial killings in the U.S. than James Alan Cox and Jack Levin at Northeastern University.  Using FBI NIBRS police incident report data, they've compile a database of serial killings and mass murders that date back to 1980.   The database includes suspect demographics and possible motives in the killings from investigative notes.  They segregated out the data that you're describing and examined these instances in depth.
> 
> Based on that database, mass murders have not increased since 1980.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No increase in mass shootings - James Alan Fox - Crime & Punishment blog - Boston.com
> 
> You've been given adequate opportunities to examine the data for yourself, and you choose to ignore it in favor of your paradigms.
> 
> Clearly, you would rather believe what you want to believe than objectively examine the evidence.
Click to expand...


I have no paradigms Catz.  I respectfully request that you acknowledge that I have said that.  I do have perceptions, and if they are wrong I am perfectly willing to accept that.

Show me in that graph, which has also been posted again and again and again on message boards and in various articles on this subject, that it reflects only those senseless murders with no apparent motive.  Or does it include organized crime activity, gang activity, drug activity, work place violence?   I have asked that question several times now and asked you to address it.  Will you?


----------



## JustTheFacts

Uncensored2008 said:


> JustTheFacts said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is no increase in how many of these crimes are committed. I think an argument could be made that SOMETHING has changed WHO is committing these crimes.
> 
> Young, white , middle class males haven't typically been killing multiple people for no apparent reason.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Actually they have, going back to Billy the Kid. What has changed is that our media is far more tabloid in the past, and we are a more racist country than we used to be, so the color of the perpetrator is a major part of the story.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Typically in the past it was mid 20s white males , outside of gang or mob related murders, I'm just talking about the "WTF murders" and most of those targeted a specific group, women who reminded them of mommy, gays, or whatever.
> 
> These shootings are by KIDS and apparently at random.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I doubt they are actually random.
Click to expand...


Ah Billy the Kid. You do realize that historians say he actually only killed four men right? And two of those were in self defense.

Hardly the same as killing 22 kindergartners.


----------



## Koios

catzmeow said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> I remain unconvinced and think it warrants a closer look.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nobody knows more about mass murder and serial killings in the U.S. than James Alan Cox and Jack Levin at Northeastern University.  Using FBI NIBRS police incident report data, they've compile a database of serial killings and mass murders that date back to 1980.   The database includes suspect demographics and possible motives in the killings from investigative notes.  They segregated out the data that you're describing and examined these instances in depth.
> 
> Based on that database, mass murders have not increased since 1980.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No increase in mass shootings - James Alan Fox - Crime & Punishment blog - Boston.com
> 
> You've been given adequate opportunities to examine the data for yourself, and you choose to ignore it in favor of your paradigms.
> 
> Clearly, you would rather believe what you want to believe than objectively examine the evidence.
Click to expand...


Prayjesus it is not you discussing guns in a thread NOT about guns, despite guns being in the title, authored by you.

Yeah?


----------



## JustTheFacts

Koios said:


> catzmeow said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> I remain unconvinced and think it warrants a closer look.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nobody knows more about mass murder and serial killings in the U.S. than James Alan Cox and Jack Levin at Northeastern University.  Using FBI NIBRS police incident report data, they've compile a database of serial killings and mass murders that date back to 1980.   The database includes suspect demographics and possible motives in the killings from investigative notes.  They segregated out the data that you're describing and examined these instances in depth.
> 
> Based on that database, mass murders have not increased since 1980.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No increase in mass shootings - James Alan Fox - Crime & Punishment blog - Boston.com
> 
> You've been given adequate opportunities to examine the data for yourself, and you choose to ignore it in favor of your paradigms.
> 
> Clearly, you would rather believe what you want to believe than objectively examine the evidence.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Prayjesus it is not you discussing guns in a thread NOT about guns, despite guns being in the title, authored by you.
> 
> Yeah?
Click to expand...



CatzMeow didn't author this thread, maybe you just quoted the wrong person.


----------



## Koios

JustTheFacts said:


> Koios said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> catzmeow said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nobody knows more about mass murder and serial killings in the U.S. than James Alan Cox and Jack Levin at Northeastern University.  Using FBI NIBRS police incident report data, they've compile a database of serial killings and mass murders that date back to 1980.   The database includes suspect demographics and possible motives in the killings from investigative notes.  They segregated out the data that you're describing and examined these instances in depth.
> 
> Based on that database, mass murders have not increased since 1980.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No increase in mass shootings - James Alan Fox - Crime & Punishment blog - Boston.com
> 
> You've been given adequate opportunities to examine the data for yourself, and you choose to ignore it in favor of your paradigms.
> 
> Clearly, you would rather believe what you want to believe than objectively examine the evidence.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Prayjesus it is not you discussing guns in a thread NOT about guns, despite guns being in the title, authored by you.
> 
> Yeah?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> CatzMeow didn't author this thread, maybe you just quoted the wrong person.
Click to expand...


Oops.  My bad.  I'd intended to respond to post #339 

Thanks for catching my mistake.


----------



## Foxfyre

I did author the thread and the thread title ends with a question mark.  It was not intended to be a proclamation, people, but a question inviting discussion.  And I specifically put it in the CDZ to invite a civil discussion by civil people who are as interested in exploring the topic as I as.

Guns are mentioned because the initial knee jerk response to one of these terrible events is almost always more gun control.  But when I started running across articles speculating that the media violence and video games should be looked at, I found that interesting and wished to explore it more.

So I honestly don't CARE how many mass murders have occurred over recorded history as relevant to this topic .  My perception remains that these senseless mass murders of innocents-- those that have no apparent motive--have escalated in recent decades.  So far I have seen no statistics to dispute my perception.  But my perception has been wrong on other things in the past, and I'm perfectly happy for it to be wrong on this.

But I still want to know whether the media violence and violent video games is having an adverse affect on children and are in any way contributing to these events.  And if it is, I do think we need to address that.  And no, I am not making any proclamation yet about what should be done about it.


----------



## Ravi

Foxfyre said:


> catzmeow said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> I remain unconvinced and think it warrants a closer look.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nobody knows more about mass murder and serial killings in the U.S. than James Alan Cox and Jack Levin at Northeastern University.  Using FBI NIBRS police incident report data, they've compile a database of serial killings and mass murders that date back to 1980.   The database includes suspect demographics and possible motives in the killings from investigative notes.  They segregated out the data that you're describing and examined these instances in depth.
> 
> Based on that database, mass murders have not increased since 1980.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No increase in mass shootings - James Alan Fox - Crime & Punishment blog - Boston.com
> 
> You've been given adequate opportunities to examine the data for yourself, and you choose to ignore it in favor of your paradigms.
> 
> Clearly, you would rather believe what you want to believe than objectively examine the evidence.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I have no paradigms Catz.  I respectfully request that you acknowledge that I have said that.  I do have perceptions, and if they are wrong I am perfectly willing to accept that.
> 
> Show me in that graph, which has also been posted again and again and again on message boards and in various articles on this subject, that it reflects only those senseless murders with no apparent motive.  Or does it include organized crime activity, gang activity, drug activity, work place violence?   I have asked that question several times now and asked you to address it.  Will you?
Click to expand...




> Generally, mass murder was described as a number of murders (four or more) occurring during the same incident, with no distinctive time period between the murders. These events typically involved a single location, where the killer murdered a number of victims in an ongoing incident (e.g. the 1984 San Ysidro McDonalds incident in San Diego, California; the 1991 Lubys Restaurant massacre in Killeen, Texas; and the 2007 Virginia Tech murders in Blacksburg, Virginia).



FBI ? Serial Murder


----------



## Foxfyre

Not sure what you are communicating with your post Ravi.  I have not at any point suggested there haven't been mass murders.  My focus is on those involving innocents for which there is no apparent motive, and the illustrations in your post does nothing to sway my perception that these have been escalating in recent decades.


----------



## AmyNation

I can completely understand the perception that they are. The MSM has really gotten out of hand over the last decade.


----------



## catzmeow

Foxfyre said:


> catzmeow said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> I remain unconvinced and think it warrants a closer look.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nobody knows more about mass murder and serial killings in the U.S. than James Alan Cox and Jack Levin at Northeastern University.  Using FBI NIBRS police incident report data, they've compile a database of serial killings and mass murders that date back to 1980.   The database includes suspect demographics and possible motives in the killings from investigative notes.  They segregated out the data that you're describing and examined these instances in depth.
> 
> Based on that database, mass murders have not increased since 1980.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No increase in mass shootings - James Alan Fox - Crime & Punishment blog - Boston.com
> 
> You've been given adequate opportunities to examine the data for yourself, and you choose to ignore it in favor of your paradigms.
> 
> Clearly, you would rather believe what you want to believe than objectively examine the evidence.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I have no paradigms Catz.  I respectfully request that you acknowledge that I have said that.  I do have perceptions, and if they are wrong I am perfectly willing to accept that.
> 
> Show me in that graph, which has also been posted again and again and again on message boards and in various articles on this subject, that it reflects only those senseless murders with no apparent motive.  Or does it include organized crime activity, gang activity, drug activity, work place violence?   I have asked that question several times now and asked you to address it.  Will you?
Click to expand...


I answered it in the post and provided you with a link to how Fox/Levin categorize mass murders.

Here it is again:

http://www.academia.edu/1199492/Hegemonic_Masculinity_and_Mass_Murderers_in_the_United_States

The information you are looking for is on page 63-64, and begins under the heading "Mass Murder."

Mass murders, as quantified by Fox/Levin, don't include the types of activities that you've asked about.   However, workplace violence belongs in the category of mass murder, *because it is committed for the same types of reasons as school mass murders*.  

If you'd read the links that have been provided to you several times in this thread, you would already know the answers to these questions.  Besides that, you could have taken the time to google this stuff for yourself in order to answer your own questions, as the rest of us did.  Clearly, you know how to use the google function, because when it suits you, you google and post articles that support your own views.

In other words, the answers were here, *in the links that were given to you*, more than once.   

I can give you the links to the relevant articles (and have), but you are responsible for taking the time to read them and inform yourself.  This isn't school, and I'm not the teacher.


----------



## Katzndogz

Uncensored2008 said:


> So playing off of the posts from Katzndogz and Fox, should there be an effort to keep the mentally ill away from violent video games?
> 
> I like games, I admit that at times it's as much about building the hardware with me as it is about the games themselves. (But I get 230 FPS from BF3 maxed out with 16X AA and  16:1 Anisotropic filtering!)
> 
> I play, mostly on weekends for a few hours. But someone who would spend 16 or more hours a day on a game is probably not right in the head. It's an obsession with some.



There should be an effort to stop the mentally ill from anything harmful to them.   A man who is mentally ill and believes the dog is telling him to kill people should be kept away from dogs.  Did David Berkowitz play video games?  No.  Should we ban dogs because Berkowitz got messages to kill people from a dog?  No.  .  It might mean actually locking away mentally ill people and keeping them confined.  At one time, families locked away the mentally ill family members, they were kept in attics or basements.  That's against the law now.  

Instead, we are reducing the entirety of the US population to the level of the mentally ill.  In order to treat the mentally ill as normal, everyone must be treated as if they are mentally ill.  Ban video games.


----------



## JustTheFacts

Katzndogz said:


> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> 
> So playing off of the posts from Katzndogz and Fox, should there be an effort to keep the mentally ill away from violent video games?
> 
> I like games, I admit that at times it's as much about building the hardware with me as it is about the games themselves. (But I get 230 FPS from BF3 maxed out with 16X AA and  16:1 Anisotropic filtering!)
> 
> I play, mostly on weekends for a few hours. But someone who would spend 16 or more hours a day on a game is probably not right in the head. It's an obsession with some.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There should be an effort to stop the mentally ill from anything harmful to them.   A man who is mentally ill and believes the dog is telling him to kill people should be kept away from dogs.  Did David Berkowitz play video games?  No.  Should we ban dogs because Berkowitz got messages to kill people from a dog?  No.  .  It might mean actually locking away mentally ill people and keeping them confined.  At one time, families locked away the mentally ill family members, they were kept in attics or basements.  That's against the law now.
> 
> Instead, we are reducing the entirety of the US population to the level of the mentally ill.  In order to treat the mentally ill as normal, everyone must be treated as if they are mentally ill.  Ban video games.
Click to expand...


if we went around locking retards up, there would be very few free people left in this country. And NO politicians.

I'm for it.


----------



## Foxfyre

Let's look at what we have so far at least as nearly as I can determine:

The issue is mass murders of innocents that have no apparent motive and the people who commit them.

We have more than 3000 studies with plenty of folks commenting on them pro and con.  Some support the studies and post them as evidence.  Some dispute them and post critics of the studies as evidence.

The pro gun control people seem to want a proliferation of guns to be the primary factor.

The pro 2nd Amendment and gun lobby people deny a proliferation of guns is the primary factor.

Those who deplore excessive and gratuitous violence in movies, on television, and in music and video games are more likely to believe that could be a factor.

Those who enjoy the violence as entertainment themselves are more likely to dismiss that as a factor.

And of course there are those who point to any number of things including parenting, government leadership or the lack thereof, a changing culture, bullying at school, partisan extremism, social extremism, crummy teachers, using behavior altering drugs or illegal drugs, diet, etc. etc. etc. as the underlying cause and just as many who dismiss any and/or all of those and do so with various arguments.

So whether it is those determined to be combative and/or engage in a blame game, or whether it is thoughtful people who are sincerely wanting honest and competent answers, I wonder if we are any closer to identifying a cause, much less identifying a solution, than before?


----------



## Ravi

Foxfyre said:


> Not sure what you are communicating with your post Ravi.  I have not at any point suggested there haven't been mass murders.  My focus is on those involving innocents for which there is no apparent motive, and the illustrations in your post does nothing to sway my perception that these have been escalating in recent decades.


I was giving you the FBI's definition of mass murder. Which put together with links you've been given would lead you to the knowledge that the graphic posted does not include gang related shootings, serial killers, or common murders. It includes MASS MURDERS.


----------



## Koios

Foxfyre said:


> *I did author the thread and the thread title ends with a question mark.*  It was not intended to be a proclamation, people, but a question inviting discussion.  And I specifically put it in the CDZ to invite a civil discussion by civil people who are as interested in exploring the topic as I as.
> 
> Guns are mentioned because the initial knee jerk response to one of these terrible events is almost always more gun control.  But when I started running across articles speculating that the media violence and video games should be looked at, I found that interesting and wished to explore it more.
> 
> So I honestly don't CARE how many mass murders have occurred over recorded history as relevant to this topic .  My perception remains that these senseless mass murders of innocents-- those that have no apparent motive--have escalated in recent decades.  So far I have seen no statistics to dispute my perception.  But my perception has been wrong on other things in the past, and I'm perfectly happy for it to be wrong on this.
> 
> But I still want to know whether the media violence and violent video games is having an adverse affect on children and are in any way contributing to these events.  And if it is, I do think we need to address that.  And no, I am not making any proclamation yet about what should be done about it.



Gotcha.  Good to know.  But some food for thought: when querying about guns and such, one or more responses to your QUESTION!!! might likely pertain to guns.

Be so advised.


----------



## Ravi

Katzndogz said:


> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> 
> So playing off of the posts from Katzndogz and Fox, should there be an effort to keep the mentally ill away from violent video games?
> 
> I like games, I admit that at times it's as much about building the hardware with me as it is about the games themselves. (But I get 230 FPS from BF3 maxed out with 16X AA and  16:1 Anisotropic filtering!)
> 
> I play, mostly on weekends for a few hours. But someone who would spend 16 or more hours a day on a game is probably not right in the head. It's an obsession with some.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There should be an effort to stop the mentally ill from anything harmful to them.   A man who is mentally ill and believes the dog is telling him to kill people should be kept away from dogs.  Did David Berkowitz play video games?  No.  Should we ban dogs because Berkowitz got messages to kill people from a dog?  No.  .  It might mean actually locking away mentally ill people and keeping them confined.  At one time, families locked away the mentally ill family members, they were kept in attics or basements.  That's against the law now.
> 
> Instead, we are reducing the entirety of the US population to the level of the mentally ill.  In order to treat the mentally ill as normal, everyone must be treated as if they are mentally ill.  Ban video games.
Click to expand...

Problem being that a casual reading of your posts on this forum would lead many people to believe that you are mentally ill. Does this mean we should lock you away in the attic or insane asylum? I'd have to say yes.


----------



## catzmeow

Foxfyre said:


> So whether it is those determined to be combative and/or engage in a blame game, or whether it is thoughtful people who are sincerely wanting honest and competent answers, I wonder if we are any closer to identifying a cause, much less identifying a solution, than before?



Given that the suspects are overwhelmingly white, male, and older than other homicide perpetrators, I think this is an interesting theory:

http://www.usmessageboard.com/clean-debate-zone/272759-white-male-mass-murderers.html

I posted it above and in a thread called "White Male Mass Murderers."

You should read it.


----------



## Ravi

No apparent motive? There is always a motive. It just isn't always sane.


----------



## Foxfyre

Then pray tell, Ravi.  Please give us the motive of the Columbine shooters.  The Aurora shooter.  The Sandy Hook shooter.   And explain why so many learned people with PhDs and psychiatric credentials have not arrived at a motive but rather are proposing possible reasons that go in all directions.

Catz, thank you for the links.  But you are right.  None address the question I have asked that you answer.


----------



## Foxfyre

Koios said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> *I did author the thread and the thread title ends with a question mark.*  It was not intended to be a proclamation, people, but a question inviting discussion.  And I specifically put it in the CDZ to invite a civil discussion by civil people who are as interested in exploring the topic as I as.
> 
> Guns are mentioned because the initial knee jerk response to one of these terrible events is almost always more gun control.  But when I started running across articles speculating that the media violence and video games should be looked at, I found that interesting and wished to explore it more.
> 
> So I honestly don't CARE how many mass murders have occurred over recorded history as relevant to this topic .  My perception remains that these senseless mass murders of innocents-- those that have no apparent motive--have escalated in recent decades.  So far I have seen no statistics to dispute my perception.  But my perception has been wrong on other things in the past, and I'm perfectly happy for it to be wrong on this.
> 
> But I still want to know whether the media violence and violent video games is having an adverse affect on children and are in any way contributing to these events.  And if it is, I do think we need to address that.  And no, I am not making any proclamation yet about what should be done about it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Gotcha.  Good to know.  But some food for thought: when querying about guns and such, one or more responses to your QUESTION!!! might likely pertain to guns.
> 
> Be so advised.
Click to expand...


The punctuation in the thread title would be strongly interpreted by most that this was not another gun thread.  It was to offer an alternative to the gun debate related to Sandy Hook et al. and focus on discussion of another issue that has been presented as a possible factor in such killings.   And the OP was intended to be very specific about what the topic of this thread is.


----------



## JustTheFacts

Ravi said:


> No apparent motive? There is always a motive. It just isn't always sane.



I disagree. I think there are in fact just evil people in the world who sometimes do this kinda shit, for NO reason.

I mean I guess you could define their motive as "evil" but that isn't really a motive in and of itself.

Obviously this doesn't apply to all of these guys.


----------



## Koios

Foxfyre said:


> Koios said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> *I did author the thread and the thread title ends with a question mark.*  It was not intended to be a proclamation, people, but a question inviting discussion.  And I specifically put it in the CDZ to invite a civil discussion by civil people who are as interested in exploring the topic as I as.
> 
> Guns are mentioned because the initial knee jerk response to one of these terrible events is almost always more gun control.  But when I started running across articles speculating that the media violence and video games should be looked at, I found that interesting and wished to explore it more.
> 
> So I honestly don't CARE how many mass murders have occurred over recorded history as relevant to this topic .  My perception remains that these senseless mass murders of innocents-- those that have no apparent motive--have escalated in recent decades.  So far I have seen no statistics to dispute my perception.  But my perception has been wrong on other things in the past, and I'm perfectly happy for it to be wrong on this.
> 
> But I still want to know whether the media violence and violent video games is having an adverse affect on children and are in any way contributing to these events.  And if it is, I do think we need to address that.  And no, I am not making any proclamation yet about what should be done about it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Gotcha.  Good to know.  But some food for thought: when querying about guns and such, one or more responses to your QUESTION!!! might likely pertain to guns.
> 
> Be so advised.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The punctuation in the thread title would be strongly interpreted by most that this was not another gun thread.  It was to offer an alternative to the gun debate related to Sandy Hook et al. and focus on discussion of another issue that has been presented as a possible factor in such killings.   And the OP was intended to be very specific about what the topic of this thread is.
Click to expand...


Gotcha.  So let's say I query: Coke, better than Pepsi?  That in your opinion means we should talk only about Coke?

Hmmmm?


----------



## JustTheFacts

Koios said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Koios said:
> 
> 
> 
> Gotcha.  Good to know.  But some food for thought: when querying about guns and such, one or more responses to your QUESTION!!! might likely pertain to guns.
> 
> Be so advised.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The punctuation in the thread title would be strongly interpreted by most that this was not another gun thread.  It was to offer an alternative to the gun debate related to Sandy Hook et al. and focus on discussion of another issue that has been presented as a possible factor in such killings.   And the OP was intended to be very specific about what the topic of this thread is.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Gotcha.  So let's say I query: Coke, better than Pepsi?  That in your opinion means we should talk only about Coke?
> 
> Hmmmm?
Click to expand...


No but if you started a thread asking which is better Coke or Pepsi and I said Dr Pepper, my answer would surely be irrelevant to YOUR question. LOL


----------



## Foxfyre

JustTheFacts said:


> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> 
> No apparent motive? There is always a motive. It just isn't always sane.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I disagree. I think there are in fact just evil people in the world who sometimes do this kinda shit, for NO reason.
> 
> I mean I guess you could define their motive as "evil" but that isn't really a motive in and of itself.
> 
> Obviously this doesn't apply to all of these guys.
Click to expand...


But going back to those studies, the one concept I found most provocative was the suggestion that repetitive violent content/action in video games, reinforced by making heroes of the most violent characters in the movies and on television, etc., that might, to a mind wired a certain way, translate violence and commiting mayhem as the way to be applauded, admired, and seen as a success.

I am not claiming that is the motive.  But that makes more sense to me than anything anybody has come up with yet.


----------



## JustTheFacts

Foxfyre said:


> JustTheFacts said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> 
> No apparent motive? There is always a motive. It just isn't always sane.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I disagree. I think there are in fact just evil people in the world who sometimes do this kinda shit, for NO reason.
> 
> I mean I guess you could define their motive as "evil" but that isn't really a motive in and of itself.
> 
> Obviously this doesn't apply to all of these guys.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But going back to those studies, the one concept I found most provocative was the suggestion that repetitive violent content/action in video games, reinforced by making heroes of the most violent characters in the movies and on television, etc., that might, to a mind wired a certain way, translate violence and commiting mayhem as the way to be applauded, admired, and seen as a success.
> 
> I am not claiming that is the motive.  But that makes more sense to me than anything anybody has come up with yet.
Click to expand...


It is a valid question, but I don't think video games are turning kids into monsters. I think kids who are already monsters on their own might gain some form of bravado by playing these type of games and then go act in real life though.

I might even suggest that in some cases letting a violet child act out his aggression in a video game might be a good thing.

Many is a night when I've had a rough day at work and I boot up CoD and take it out on the Russians LOL

But there again, that is where PARENTS should be parenting. 

Good , bad, or indifferent these games are NOT for children.


----------



## catzmeow

Foxfyre said:


> Then pray tell, Ravi.  Please give us the motive of the Columbine shooters.  The Aurora shooter.  The Sandy Hook shooter.   And explain why so many learned people with PhDs and psychiatric credentials have not arrived at a motive but rather are proposing possible reasons that go in all directions.
> 
> Catz, thank you for the links.  But you are right.  None address the question I have asked that you answer.



We don't know the motives in Aurora, because the case hasn't come to trial and the clinical psychiatrists/psychologists who've examined James Holmes haven't released any statements.  In Newtown, we will never know definitively because Adam Lanza arranged his own death and he destroyed his computer hard drive, which might have held information about his thoughts and motives.  He also killed the only person who knew him well (his mom).

But the FBI released a fairly detailed analysis of the likely motives in Columbine that was compiled by forensic psychologists/psychiatrists that profile murderers professionally, and Slate had a good overview of it:

At last we know why the Columbine killers did it. - Slate Magazine

If you really want to know the answers to the questions you're asking, you should read it.

For starters, Dylan Harris was almost certainly a psychopath who killed for grandiose reasons and because he felt contempt for his classmates and teachers.  He wanted to cause a bigger atrocity than the Oklahoma City bombings (which was an inspiration for him).  

What causes psychopathy?  It may be a brain condition, or it may be environmental.  http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/04/100427091723.htm


----------



## Koios

JustTheFacts said:


> Koios said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> The punctuation in the thread title would be strongly interpreted by most that this was not another gun thread.  It was to offer an alternative to the gun debate related to Sandy Hook et al. and focus on discussion of another issue that has been presented as a possible factor in such killings.   And the OP was intended to be very specific about what the topic of this thread is.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Gotcha.  So let's say I query: Coke, better than Pepsi?  That in your opinion means we should talk only about Coke?
> 
> Hmmmm?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No but if you started a thread asking which is better Coke or Pepsi and I said Dr Pepper, my answer would surely be irrelevant to YOUR question. LOL
Click to expand...


So "guns" = Dr. Pepper in the OP?  Who knew???

Astonishing.


----------



## catzmeow

JustTheFacts said:


> I think kids who are already monsters on their own might gain some form of bravado by playing these type of games and then go act in real life



I don't think there's any evidence, at all, that video games cause psychopathy or mass murder.

However, I can see that someone who already has those delusions and fantasies could act them out.

Bear in mind, however, that we are talking about a miniscule segment of the population. There are, on average, 20 acts of mass murder annually in the U.S. (and this statistic hasn't shifted much in the past 40-50 years).  That's 20 or slightly more individuals annually, out of 300 million.

We don't need to apply solutions to 300 million people.  In 100 years, we will need to apply a solution to 2,000 people.  That's like trying to identify a single grain of sand on miles of beach.

This is kind of a chilling statement, but it probably holds true for most mass murderers:



> [Dylan] Harris, they believe, was irretrievable. He was a brilliant killer without a conscience, searching for the most diabolical scheme imaginable. If he had lived to adulthood and developed his murderous skills for many more years, there is no telling what he could have done. His death at Columbine may have stopped him from doing something even worse.



http://www.slate.com/articles/news_...4/04/the_depressive_and_the_psychopath.3.html


----------



## PaulS1950

My thoughts on the topic come from my experiences and my perceptions of those experiences.
(just to provide background)
almost 60 years ago, when I was pre-teen we had "saturday morning cartoons" that were violent, had guns, and were funny and fun to watch. My parents limited TV and we were always outside. We had friends and played "cops and robbers" and "army" games. We had toy guns and even made our own toy guns.
Here is the point to all this lead-in:
We knew and understood the difference between play and real life. We knew that when we fired our guns nothing was actually going to hurt the other player. The few people (younger than I) that I know playing these very graphic games know and understand the difference between play and reality. I am aware that some small minority of people with mental problems or persecution complexes could be led to a point where the difference could be blurred to the point of actually living out the game in real life. Do we want to restrict the right of people to choose their own recreation because of a few that should not participate? There are clearly more people who drive their cars like they are racers who need to be ahead of everyone else then there are people shooting up theaters and schools - do we talk about removing the ability to drive cars from everyone? Do we limit the privilage of all because some minority kill people with their cars?
It is no more "correct" to ban violent video games that in is to ban driving or guns. It does not address the cause - mental illness. Get help for the mentally unstable -  get help for those who bully and their victims - prosecute those who break the law to the fullest extent of the law. These actions actually address the cause. 
In closing;
We will only be able to prevent crime if we do away with the right of individuals to make choices. We will have to strip society bare of any rights  and subject ourselves to programmed totalitarian rule to keep people from committing crimes and even that won't stop crime completely. We are humans and we sometimes make bad choices. We have to learn again to deal with that. If we don't relearn that we can't prevent crime and can only prosecute those who commit crimes then we are headed for a place that doesn't exist. Utopia can only exist with perfect people. As good as I am, I am far from perfect. I don't know anyone who is. We will never have a perfect society but we really don't need it as long as we can learn to let everyone make their own choices and take responsibility for those choices.


----------



## Foxfyre

JustTheFacts said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JustTheFacts said:
> 
> 
> 
> I disagree. I think there are in fact just evil people in the world who sometimes do this kinda shit, for NO reason.
> 
> I mean I guess you could define their motive as "evil" but that isn't really a motive in and of itself.
> 
> Obviously this doesn't apply to all of these guys.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But going back to those studies, the one concept I found most provocative was the suggestion that repetitive violent content/action in video games, reinforced by making heroes of the most violent characters in the movies and on television, etc., that might, to a mind wired a certain way, translate violence and commiting mayhem as the way to be applauded, admired, and seen as a success.
> 
> I am not claiming that is the motive.  But that makes more sense to me than anything anybody has come up with yet.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It is a valid question, but I don't think video games are turning kids into monsters. I think kids who are already monsters on their own might gain some form of bravado by playing these type of games and then go act in real life though.
> 
> I might even suggest that in some cases letting a violet child act out his aggression in a video game might be a good thing.
> 
> Many is a night when I've had a rough day at work and I boot up CoD and take it out on the Russians LOL
> 
> But there again, that is where PARENTS should be parenting.
> 
> Good , bad, or indifferent these games are NOT for children.
Click to expand...


I do the same.  Targeting marbles in Zuma or destroying gems in Bejeweled Blitz or blasting away at a city in Rise of Nations does help relieve frustration and tension after a stressful period.  Or sometimes just provides a pleasant diversion when I'm feeling unmotivated to do anything constructive.

But if you have a kid who isn't finding much point in life, doesn't feel like he is worth much, doesn't feel like he is important to anybody important, and has faulty wiring in the brain. . . .is it possible that with frequent exposure to violent content and repetitive acts of simulated violence to achieve goals, he is being programmed to see mass violence and mayhem as a way to be noticed, admired, feared, successful?


----------



## catzmeow

PaulS1950 said:


> We will only be able to prevent crime if we do away with the right of individuals to make choices. We will have to strip society bare of any rights  and subject ourselves to programmed totalitarian rule to keep people from committing crimes and even that won't stop crime completely. We are humans and we sometimes make bad choices. We have to learn again to deal with that. If we don't relearn that we can't prevent crime and can only prosecute those who commit crimes then we are headed for a place that doesn't exist. Utopia can only exist with perfect people. As good as I am, I am far from perfect. I don't know anyone who is. We will never have a perfect society but we really don't need it as long as we can learn to let everyone make their own choices and take responsibility for those choices.



This is a good post, and it highlights something I've observed happening often after each one of these high profile incidents.  We want to believe that this is something preventable.  We want to believe that there is a black/white cause that we can easily understand and control.  We blame guns, games, parents, parenting styles, medications, lack of security in schools, the corruption of this generation, marilyn manson's music, etc.

But the fact is that these sorts of incidents have been with us for generations.   People do these sorts of things for reasons that seem ridiculous or nonsensical or maddeningly evil to the rest of us.

The existence of these scenarios scares us, and we want to believe that we can identify an answer and control it.  If we just control guns, or video games, or other parents, *we (and our kids) will be safe*.

If I can just figure out who/what to blame, I can manage this issue emotionally and conquer the fear I feel when the unthinkable happens.

But these simplistic answers are rarely correct.

The fact is that in a free society, risk is always with us.  There is never any guarantee of safety, and there never was.   In the year that I was born (1966), a man stood in a clock tower at a major university and randomly shot dozens of college students.  That same year, another mass murderer killed 8 nursing students for no reason.  And, within a couple of weeks of those shootings, a third mass murderer killed 5 beauty school students.  *Those all happened in 1966*...before video games, before widespread proliferation of assault weapons, before the rising divorce rates, before most of the stuff that we seek to blame.  People in 1966 reacted in the same way, and ignored the fact that the same types of episodes had occurred just as frequently in the 1920s and 1930s.

The truth is that life is incredibly random.  These scenarios are rare.  Your child has a much greater chance of being struck by lightening than by shot at school.

The world isn't safe and it never was.

But, *it's safer now than it was 10 years ago.*

That's a happy thought to focus on in all of this gloom and doom.


----------



## catzmeow

Foxfyre said:


> he is being programmed to see mass violence and mayhem as a way to be noticed, admired, feared, successful?



If you have a kid who sees mass violence and mayhem as a way to be noticed, you have bigger problems than video games.  Erik Harris (Columbine) was inspired by the Oklahoma City bombings.  He didn't play violent video games.  He found enough inspiration in his day to day circumstances and by watching the news.

Should we outlaw the news so that we don't inspire future mass murderers?

Maybe we should get rid of high schools, too, since Columbine happened at a high school.


----------



## JustTheFacts

catzmeow said:


> JustTheFacts said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think kids who are already monsters on their own might gain some form of bravado by playing these type of games and then go act in real life
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't think there's any evidence, at all, that video games cause psychopathy or mass murder.
> 
> However, I can see that someone who already has those delusions and fantasies could act them out.
> 
> Bear in mind, however, that we are talking about a miniscule segment of the population. There are, on average, 20 acts of mass murder annually in the U.S. (and this statistic hasn't shifted much in the past 40-50 years).  That's 20 or slightly more individuals annually, out of 300 million.
> 
> We don't need to apply solutions to 300 million people.  In 100 years, we will need to apply a solution to 2,000 people.  That's like trying to identify a single grain of sand on miles of beach.
> 
> This is kind of a chilling statement, but it probably holds true for most mass murderers:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> [Dylan] Harris, they believe, was irretrievable. He was a brilliant killer without a conscience, searching for the most diabolical scheme imaginable. If he had lived to adulthood and developed his murderous skills for many more years, there is no telling what he could have done. His death at Columbine may have stopped him from doing something even worse.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> At last we know why the Columbine killers did it. - Slate Magazine
Click to expand...


Admittedly, and thankfully it IS a small percentage of people. And I think that lends some credence to both the argument that guns don't kill people and that video games don't incite real life violence.

_Call of Duty Black Ops II_ earned $1 BILLION in its first 16 days on the market. I say again ONE BILLION DOLLARS.

'Call of Duty' Sales Top Hollywood's Highest Grossers | InvestorPlace

Bear in mind this game retails for $59.95 (though there was a special edition that included a few extras that sold for $79.95)

It takes a LOT of purchases at $80 a pop to earn a billion dollars. One would think that most of those who bought that game were aware of its contents and predisposed to playing those types of games and thus played within the genre to begin with. Why weren't all those folks committing acts of violence in real life?

However, ALL of that ignores the children who play these games. We can all agree that the adolescent mind behaves differently than the adult mind and something that has no effect on your or I might have an effect on teens, especially if those teens have stunted mental growth from other causes.


----------



## Uncensored2008

JustTheFacts said:


> if we went around locking retards up, there would be very few free people left in this country. And NO politicians.
> 
> I'm for it.



It would end the democratic party, that's for sure.


----------



## catzmeow

JustTheFacts said:


> However, ALL of that ignores the children who play these games. We can all agree that the adolescent mind behaves differently than the adult mind and something that has no effect on your or I might have an effect on teens, especially if those teens have stunted mental growth from other causes.



Juvenile crime is also down.


----------



## catzmeow

Uncensored2008 said:


> JustTheFacts said:
> 
> 
> 
> if we went around locking retards up, there would be very few free people left in this country. And NO politicians.
> 
> I'm for it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It would end the democratic party, that's for sure.
Click to expand...


And we'd have a lot fewer posters here.


----------



## Foxfyre

catzmeow said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> Then pray tell, Ravi.  Please give us the motive of the Columbine shooters.  The Aurora shooter.  The Sandy Hook shooter.   And explain why so many learned people with PhDs and psychiatric credentials have not arrived at a motive but rather are proposing possible reasons that go in all directions.
> 
> Catz, thank you for the links.  But you are right.  None address the question I have asked that you answer.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We don't know the motives in Aurora, because the case hasn't come to trial and the clinical psychiatrists/psychologists who've examined James Holmes haven't released any statements.  In Newtown, we will never know definitively because Adam Lanza arranged his own death and he destroyed his computer hard drive, which might have held information about his thoughts and motives.  He also killed the only person who knew him well (his mom).
> 
> But the FBI released a fairly detailed analysis of the likely motives in Columbine that was compiled by forensic psychologists/psychiatrists that profile murderers professionally, and Slate had a good overview of it:
> 
> At last we know why the Columbine killers did it. - Slate Magazine
> 
> If you really want to know the answers to the questions you're asking, you should read it.
> 
> For starters, Dylan Harris was almost certainly a psychopath who killed for grandiose reasons and because he felt contempt for his classmates and teachers.  He wanted to cause a bigger atrocity than the Oklahoma City bombings (which was an inspiration for him).
> 
> What causes psychopathy?  It may be a brain condition, or it may be environmental.  An underlying cause for psychopathic behavior?
Click to expand...


Sorry.  Close but no cigar.  I had read that piece and also theories questioning some of the conclusions in it.  But rather than identifying a motive, it mostly described the sociopathic mindset and what allows somebody to do what happened at Columbine.  It is a given that most or all who commit such acts of violence are sociopathic at least at the time they did it.  At the same time, everybody who is essentially sociopathic, and that would include many afflicted with severe autism and other similar syndromes, do not commit acts of mass violence.

One of the basic concepts posed in the OP, however, looks at the effect repetitious violence in video games might have on the one who  isn't wired quite right.  Other commentary I've read suggests that the repetitious violence necessary to succeed,and that includes no remorse or consequence for the mayhem created, could actually develop sociopathic tendencies in the susceptible.

Again I am not claiming or adopting that as a conclusion.  I am only reporting it as a valid theoretical component of the discussion.


----------



## Foxfyre

PaulS1950 said:


> My thoughts on the topic come from my experiences and my perceptions of those experiences.
> (just to provide background)
> almost 60 years ago, when I was pre-teen we had "saturday morning cartoons" that were violent, had guns, and were funny and fun to watch. My parents limited TV and we were always outside. We had friends and played "cops and robbers" and "army" games. We had toy guns and even made our own toy guns.
> Here is the point to all this lead-in:
> We knew and understood the difference between play and real life. We knew that when we fired our guns nothing was actually going to hurt the other player. The few people (younger than I) that I know playing these very graphic games know and understand the difference between play and reality. I am aware that some small minority of people with mental problems or persecution complexes could be led to a point where the difference could be blurred to the point of actually living out the game in real life. Do we want to restrict the right of people to choose their own recreation because of a few that should not participate? There are clearly more people who drive their cars like they are racers who need to be ahead of everyone else then there are people shooting up theaters and schools - do we talk about removing the ability to drive cars from everyone? Do we limit the privilage of all because some minority kill people with their cars?
> It is no more "correct" to ban violent video games that in is to ban driving or guns. It does not address the cause - mental illness. Get help for the mentally unstable -  get help for those who bully and their victims - prosecute those who break the law to the fullest extent of the law. These actions actually address the cause.
> In closing;
> We will only be able to prevent crime if we do away with the right of individuals to make choices. We will have to strip society bare of any rights  and subject ourselves to programmed totalitarian rule to keep people from committing crimes and even that won't stop crime completely. We are humans and we sometimes make bad choices. We have to learn again to deal with that. If we don't relearn that we can't prevent crime and can only prosecute those who commit crimes then we are headed for a place that doesn't exist. Utopia can only exist with perfect people. As good as I am, I am far from perfect. I don't know anyone who is. We will never have a perfect society but we really don't need it as long as we can learn to let everyone make their own choices and take responsibility for those choices.



I thought I responded to this earlier, but apparently didn't hit the send button.

Anyhow I wanted to thank you for a well written and thoughtful post.  You do raise a point and valid point that belongs in the debate which I interpreted as we should not try to order society based on the behavior or action of a very few.  In other words, a free people cannot be 100% safe from those who would do evil and we may never find the reason for or any way to prevent people from committing mayhem.  That should be on that list of where we are that I posted awhile ago.

If I mischaracterized what you intended to say, I apologize and please correct me.


----------



## bodecea

Foxfyre said:


> NOTE:  Clean debate zone thread here. . . .
> 
> This morning I was listening to a concept put out by a military psychologist who suggests that it is not guns that are the problem in a 'violent America', but rather the changed American culture.  Violent concepts are prevalent in our television programs, movies, comic books, music, and most especially in video games that are available in large quantities to very young children.
> 
> His theory is that this is desensitizing young people to violence and even exalting and promoting it.
> 
> Are video games conditioning kids to accept violence as virtue?  As the way to get things accomplished?  To win?  To reach the pinnacle of success?  In many/most of video games out there, it is necessary to be ruthless in order to win the game.  Does this change the way people view their world in an unhealthy way?
> 
> If you do see this as a problem, how do you get around censorship as being somehow better than gun control?  Do you want the government to have power in that area?
> 
> Or is there a way for the public/radio/Hollywood  to self censor itself as it once did?  And should we push for that?
> 
> Or maybe you don't see it as a problem at all?



This has been harped upon since the 40s at least....the 40s....you know...the generation that we look back on now as being the good guys.


----------



## catzmeow

Foxfyre said:


> Sorry.  Close but no cigar.  I had read that piece and also theories questioning some of the conclusions in it.  But rather than identifying a motive, it mostly described the sociopathic mindset and what allows somebody to do what happened at Columbine.  It is a given that most or all who commit such acts of violence are sociopathic at least at the time they did it.  At the same time, everybody who is essentially sociopathic, and that would include many afflicted with severe autism and other similar syndromes, do not commit acts of mass violence.



The article didn't mention the term sociopathic or sociopath.  It used the term psychopath and psychopathic exclusively.  And, it included sections from Harris's journal entries and a description of his motives.

Perhaps you've confused it with another article you read a while ago.


----------



## JustTheFacts

bodecea said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> NOTE:  Clean debate zone thread here. . . .
> 
> This morning I was listening to a concept put out by a military psychologist who suggests that it is not guns that are the problem in a 'violent America', but rather the changed American culture.  Violent concepts are prevalent in our television programs, movies, comic books, music, and most especially in video games that are available in large quantities to very young children.
> 
> His theory is that this is desensitizing young people to violence and even exalting and promoting it.
> 
> Are video games conditioning kids to accept violence as virtue?  As the way to get things accomplished?  To win?  To reach the pinnacle of success?  In many/most of video games out there, it is necessary to be ruthless in order to win the game.  Does this change the way people view their world in an unhealthy way?
> 
> If you do see this as a problem, how do you get around censorship as being somehow better than gun control?  Do you want the government to have power in that area?
> 
> Or is there a way for the public/radio/Hollywood  to self censor itself as it once did?  And should we push for that?
> 
> Or maybe you don't see it as a problem at all?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This has been harped upon since the 40s at least....the 40s....you know...the generation that we look back on now as being the good guys.
Click to expand...


I believe you are alluding to the greatest generation, and they would have been adolescents in the 30s, not the 40'.


----------



## JustTheFacts

catzmeow said:


> JustTheFacts said:
> 
> 
> 
> However, ALL of that ignores the children who play these games. We can all agree that the adolescent mind behaves differently than the adult mind and something that has no effect on your or I might have an effect on teens, especially if those teens have stunted mental growth from other causes.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Juvenile crime is also down.
Click to expand...


True, which perhaps only proves that not all adolescents succumb to the evils of video game play.

Let's say this though Catz.

Videogames might not cause kids to go crazy and do shit like this, but NO ONE could dispute that freaks see shit like this whether in a movie or a videogame and think "oh boy that would be awesome to do in real life" then they go do it.

So perhaps a more honest opinion might be that video games INSPIRE violence, rather than actually cause violence.

And that is why such games should not be played by children. They are often not mature enough to control their baser instincts. Hell, often times adults aren't.


----------



## Uncensored2008

bodecea said:


> This has been harped upon since the 40s at least....the 40s....you know...the generation that we look back on now as being the good guys.



Well, they DID have a real problem with violent video games in the 1940's...

You sure are smart....


----------



## Foxfyre

catzmeow said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry.  Close but no cigar.  I had read that piece and also theories questioning some of the conclusions in it.  But rather than identifying a motive, it mostly described the sociopathic mindset and what allows somebody to do what happened at Columbine.  It is a given that most or all who commit such acts of violence are sociopathic at least at the time they did it.  At the same time, everybody who is essentially sociopathic, and that would include many afflicted with severe autism and other similar syndromes, do not commit acts of mass violence.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The article didn't mention the term sociopathic or sociopath.  It used the term psychopath and psychopathic exclusively.  And, it included sections from Harris's journal entries and a description of his motives.
> 
> Perhaps you've confused it with another article you read a while ago.
Click to expand...


No, it was this Slate piece that has been batted around and discussed at length on the internet for what, nine years now?  But you're right, that piece didn't use the specific term 'sociopath.'

When I want to know as much as I can learn about any current event, I read pretty much everything I can find on the subject and I am interested in all informed opinions. But I don't just swallow somebody else's opinion as the gospel truth of the way it is without doing at least some of my own research.  I may use a published opinion to illustrate whatever arguments are being made out there.

So. . . from the Slate Piece:

. . . ."The truly hard-core psychopath doesn't quite comprehend emotions like love or hate or fear, because he has never experienced them directly. . . .​
.. . .In popular usage, almost any crazy killer is a "psychopath." But in psychiatry, it's a very specific mental condition that rarely involves killing, or even psychosis. "Psychopaths are not disoriented or out of touch with reality, nor do they experience the delusions, hallucinations, or intense subjective distress that characterize most other mental disorders," writes Dr. Robert Hare, in Without Conscience, the seminal book on the condition. (Hare is also one of the psychologists consulted by the FBI about Columbine and by Slate for this story *.) "Unlike psychotic individuals, psychopaths are rational and aware of what they are doing and why. Their behavior is the result of choice, freely exercised." Diagnosing Harris as a psychopath represents neither a legal defense, nor a moral excuse. But it illuminates a great deal about the thought process that drove him to mass murder. . . .​
. . . .Psychopaths follow much stricter behavior patterns than the rest of us because they are unfettered by conscience, living solely for their own aggrandizement. (The difference is so striking that Fuselier trains hostage negotiators to identify psychopaths during a standoff, and immediately reverse tactics if they think they're facing one. It's like flipping a switch between two alternate brain-mechanisms.). . . .​
and validating my theory though they didn't use video games to get there:

. . . .It wasn't just "fame" they were after&#8212;Agent Fuselier bristles at that trivializing term&#8212;they were gunning for devastating infamy on the historical scale of an Attila the Hun. Their vision was to create a nightmare so devastating and apocalyptic that the entire world would shudder at their power. . . .​
And from my own research:

so&#8226;ci&#8226;o&#8226;path (Dictionary.com)
a person with a psychopathic personality whose behavior is antisocial, often criminal, and who lacks a sense of moral responsibility or social conscience.​
From a discussion describing psycopathy and sociopathy:

The differences between sociopathy & psychopathy are still debated, however they are primarily differentiated by the origin of the disorder. In general sociopath and psychopath are very often used to describe the same thing. In the mental health sphere the general opinion is that psychopathy is actually much more of an inborn phenomenon whilst sociopathy, which displays clinical presentation alike to psychopathy, is the consequence of environmental stressors. 

Read more Sociopath vs. Psychopath, Differences Between Psychopathic & Sociopathic Personality Disorders​
So if we go with this explanation/definition, were the Columbine shooters born the way they were?  Or did certain 'stressors' in their life/environment affect them that way?  Can you say for sure?  Did the Slate article?

And if we conclude they weren't 'born' that way, it brings us right back to the question of whether repetitive exposure to violence, especially that acted out in video games, could be a factor in promoting the kind of acting out that we saw at Columbine, et al. 

Disclaimer:  That is not suggesting that ALL such acting out results from video games even IF video games are judged to have that effect on some people.  And I still don't know whether they do or don't.


----------



## bodecea

Ravi said:


> This "debate" reminds me of other debates, namely the ones that claim a causation between gay marriage and the destruction of heterosexual marriage.



One of my favorites in that regard was the "debate" that the legalization of gay marriage in Northern Europe caused an increase in out of wedlock births.   This was asserted in all seriousness, believe it or not.


----------



## Foxfyre

Please keep the train on the track and address the OP.  Thank you very much.


----------



## bodecea

Uncensored2008 said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> This has been harped upon since the 40s at least....the 40s....you know...the generation that we look back on now as being the good guys.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well, they DID have a real problem with violent video games in the 1940's...
> 
> You sure are smart....
Click to expand...


I don't believe the  post I was replying to just talked about video games...but that seems to be the only thing you saw in all that.   Maybe YOU need to put down the Wii controller yourself.


----------



## Foxfyre

Violent video games and other forms of media violence and whatever effect they do or do not have on people is the topic of the thread though.


----------



## Uncensored2008

bodecea said:


> I don't believe the  post I was replying to just talked about video games...but that seems to be the only thing you saw in all that.   Maybe YOU need to put down the Wii controller yourself.



In fact the post you replied to, the OP, was specifically about video games.

I suspect that your motive was to derail the thread.


----------



## bodecea

JustTheFacts said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> NOTE:  Clean debate zone thread here. . . .
> 
> This morning I was listening to a concept put out by a military psychologist who suggests that it is not guns that are the problem in a 'violent America', but rather the changed American culture.  Violent concepts are prevalent in our television programs, movies, comic books, music, and most especially in video games that are available in large quantities to very young children.
> 
> His theory is that this is desensitizing young people to violence and even exalting and promoting it.
> 
> Are video games conditioning kids to accept violence as virtue?  As the way to get things accomplished?  To win?  To reach the pinnacle of success?  In many/most of video games out there, it is necessary to be ruthless in order to win the game.  Does this change the way people view their world in an unhealthy way?
> 
> If you do see this as a problem, how do you get around censorship as being somehow better than gun control?  Do you want the government to have power in that area?
> 
> Or is there a way for the public/radio/Hollywood  to self censor itself as it once did?  And should we push for that?
> 
> Or maybe you don't see it as a problem at all?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This has been harped upon since the 40s at least....the 40s....you know...the generation that we look back on now as being the good guys.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I believe you are alluding to the greatest generation, and they would have been adolescents in the 30s, not the 40'.
Click to expand...


But they would have been teens and young adults and the purveyors of culture (music, comic books, movies etc.) in the 40s.   Jitterbugging was frowned on.  Some of the movies of the 40s, the music itself was frowned on by the older, more staid generation.


----------



## bodecea

Uncensored2008 said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't believe the  post I was replying to just talked about video games...but that seems to be the only thing you saw in all that.   Maybe YOU need to put down the Wii controller yourself.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In fact the post you replied to, the OP, was specifically about video games.
> 
> I suspect that your motive was to derail the thread.
Click to expand...


The post I replied to stated this....and I quote:



> Violent concepts are prevalent in our television programs, movies, comic books, music, and most especially in video games that are available in large quantities to very young children.



My point being that the crying about violent video games is just a new melody to the old tune about violence and inappropriateness ruining the next generation.

And...as I read this thread over, apparently the OP is not validated by the facts.

But...if you feel that my post is an attempt to derail the thread, you should report it.


----------



## Foxfyre

But despite what was right or wrong in the 20's, 30's, 40's, 50's, 60's, 70's, we really didn't worry about somebody coming in and mowing down a classroom full of First Graders.  Now we do.  And more and more schools lock their doors after the kids arrive and have armed guards on premises.

One suggestion for why this is necessary is the extreme gratuitous violence in the movies, music, televison, and video games in our culture.

That is what this thread is about.   Not what caused violence in other eras.  Not how many violent acts there have been for whatever reason.

This thread is to explore whether our modern violent culture, especially video games, is a factor in the mass mayhem that occurs.


----------



## bodecea

Foxfyre said:


> But despite what was right or wrong in the 20's, 30's, 40's, 50's, 60's, 70's, *we really didn't worry about somebody coming in and mowing down a classroom full of First Graders.  Now we do. * And more and more schools lock their doors after the kids arrive and have armed guards on premises.
> 
> One suggestion for why this is necessary is the extreme gratuitous violence in the movies, music, televison, and video games in our culture.
> 
> That is what this thread is about.   Not what caused violence in other eras.  Not how many violent acts there have been for whatever reason.
> 
> This thread is to explore whether our modern violent culture, especially video games, is a factor in the mass mayhem that occurs.



And is that because of violent video games or because of more efficient weapons in the hands of crazies?


----------



## Katzndogz

Facebook has been responsible for more deaths than video games.


----------



## Foxfyre

The preponderance of opinions on this thread seems to lean toward almost any explanation other than video games.  I suspect that is because we LIKE video games and we don't want that to be a factor in the recent mass killings.  And indeed they very well may not be.  A few don't seem to want to address that concept at all and have tried to divert the discussion to almost anything else.

But nevertheless, with so many credentialed and learned people doing studies on the effects of media violence and video games--more than 3000 such studies now according to some sources--I still want to know for sure.


----------



## beagle9

catzmeow said:


> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> This nation is huge and hugely populated, and yes we have had many events over time that were tragic and murderous, however in percentages of, we have got to be breaking records these days in the amount that these events are taking place now more frequently
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Actual data on mass murders from the FBI says no.
> 
> In fact, the number of incidents in 2012 was 7% lower than the average for 2000-2010.
Click to expand...

Your only going out a few years here and a few years there in comparisons to, but what should be looked at is the long term patterns and data by looking back, and then in what has developed now, and this by using 20 year increment's to get a better understanding of it all.


----------



## catzmeow

JustTheFacts said:


> True, which perhaps only proves that not all adolescents succumb to the evils of video game play.



No.  That's not what it proves.  Violent video games evolved and began to be widely distributed during the 2000, and juvenile crime has fallen steadily since that point.  We can safely say there isn't a juvenile crime/video game connection.



> Videogames might not cause kids to go crazy and do shit like this, but NO ONE could dispute that freaks see shit like this whether in a movie or a videogame and think "oh boy that would be awesome to do in real life" then they go do it.
> 
> So perhaps a more honest opinion might be that video games INSPIRE violence, rather than actually cause violence.



The video games don't inspire the violence, the violence is already in the individual.


----------



## catzmeow

Foxfyre said:


> The preponderance of opinions on this thread seems to lean toward almost any explanation other than video games.  I suspect that is because we LIKE video games and we don't want that to be a factor in the recent mass killings.  And indeed they very well may not be.  A few don't seem to want to address that concept at all and have tried to divert the discussion to almost anything else.



The evidence doesn't support a correlation between use of video games and increased crime.

Which is the main problem with your paradigm.  You wish to ignore the evidence of lower crime rates in favor of maintaining your pet paradigm.  That isn't thoughtful debate.  It's mentally pleasuring yourself.


----------



## beagle9

Foxfyre said:


> The preponderance of opinions on this thread seems to lean toward almost any explanation other than video games.  I suspect that is because we LIKE video games and we don't want that to be a factor in the recent mass killings.  And indeed they very well may not be.  A few don't seem to want to address that concept at all and have tried to divert the discussion to almost anything else.
> 
> But nevertheless, with so many credentialed and learned people doing studies on the effects of media violence and video games--more than 3000 such studies now according to some sources--I still want to know for sure.


The content is the major problem, where as we are becoming a soulless nation void of God and a discipline to be good anymore, and so being very bad is winning the day, and that is a shame for all.


----------



## catzmeow

Yes, more prayer would reduce mass murders.  If only one of the Newtown victims had believed in God or prayed for help.


----------



## beagle9

catzmeow said:


> The video games don't inspire the violence, the violence is already in the individual.



No, but the video games are a tool that can be easily used in the process of needing to brush up on getting the feel of the real experience or coming close to it, so people are defending these games in any form that they are in, and that is disturbing. 

Content is the key to change of mindset, but if we are not ready to change what we take into our minds these days, then get ready for this stuff to keep getting worse and worse.


----------



## AmyNation

"Stuff" is not getting worse and worse. That is your personal perception and has been repeatedly shown to be faulty in this thread.


----------



## beagle9

catzmeow said:


> Yes, more prayer would reduce mass murders.  If only one of the Newtown victims had believed in God or prayed for help.


You know with statements like this, it's so wonder you get any respect in these forums at all.. I mean do you think that people are this dumb that you would actually take time to write such a thing as this ?


----------



## AmyNation

I'm sorry that the facts don't fit your argument


----------



## beagle9

AmyNation said:


> "Stuff" is not getting worse and worse. That is your personal perception and has been repeatedly shown to be faulty in this thread.


2 more shootings today, but everything is just hunky dory for you eh ?

Hey if you want to live with your head in the sand then so be it, but don't try and lead others to believe that this nation isn't worse now than it was during many peoples life times as they knew them in their past. This school shooting involving these young children was as heinous as it gets, but here we are poised to water it all down in respects to protecting certain cultures and their freedom to corrupt freely, and to kill freely in America. You want to be a part of that ?


----------



## Foxfyre

beagle9 said:


> catzmeow said:
> 
> 
> 
> The video games don't inspire the violence, the violence is already in the individual.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, but the video games are a tool that can be easily used in the process of needing to brush up on getting the feel of the real experience or coming close to it, so people are defending these games in any form that they are in, and that is disturbing.
> 
> Content is the key to change of mindset, but if we are not ready to change what we take into our minds these days, then get ready for this stuff to keep getting worse and worse.
Click to expand...


Many of those studies say that the content and concept can drill into the game player a  definition of power, prestige, importance based on success using violence, all concepts reinforced by Catz' Slate article if you look at it from that perspective.

In Mario Brothers, for instance, the object isn't to kill or destroy things, though that could sometimes be necessary, but the object is to solve the puzzle and get Mario from Point A to Point B.  It becomes progressively more difficult to do that, but the one who solves the puzzle does so through creativity and innovation and figuring out how to solve the problems presented.  In my opinion, that is a healthy game that reinforces positive concepts of problem solving and success.

Contrast that to a game in which almost the whole concept is to destroy things and people in order to succeed.   If you couple that with showing the most violent types on television and in the movies as heroes and the more violent, the more successful and admirable they are, I can see how that might translate thoughts into a young mind that wasn't quite stable.  And how he might see himself elevated to hero status, admired by the world through mass violence.


----------



## AmyNation

Nationally, when it comes to violence, things are the best they've been in 25 years. Murder is down, rape is down, larceny is down, auto theft is down, *mass murder is not on the rise*.

There are at least 2 dozen links in this thread that attest to this.


----------



## beagle9

Katzndogz said:


> Facebook has been responsible for more deaths than video games.


I just heard something about Facebook is trying to make it where one can find out more information on their friends.......HUH? What is this all about ? More loss of privacy for people, more stalking, more rapes, murders and etc. ? This nation has lost it's sanity is what it has done (imho).


----------



## Foxfyre

AmyNation said:


> Nationally, when it comes to violence, things are the best they've been in 25 years. Murder is down, rape is down, larceny is down, auto theft is down, *mass murder is not on the rise*.
> 
> There are at least 2 dozen links in this thread that attest to this.



And there are just as many references to expert opinions who say that the motiveless mass murders as we saw at Columbine, Aurora, Sandy Hook, as examples, are on the rise whether or not all other forms of crime are decreasing.

Do you have any objection of exploring such a concept for accuracy?  Or do you think others should not discuss or research it because your mind is already made up?


----------



## Big Black Dog

When I was a kid we played cops and robbers, cowboys and indians and things such as that.  We had our cap pistols, toy rifles and all sorts of garb like that.  We played Army and had fake plastic hand grenades and toy mines.  We had a great time playing those kind of things and just about every boy in the neighborhood played those kind of things.  I don't know of anybody that I used to play with growing up that turned out to be a mass murderer or that has even shot somebody outside of being a member of the military.  I think video games played by mentally healthy kids and young adults are ok.  I guess the point I am trying to make is this kind of activity, i.e., war games, cowboy and indians, cops and robbers and even violent video games to me doesn't seem like a problem.  I think the problem is two fold.  There are mentally unstable people in the world, that no matter what you do short of locking them up, will eventually hurt somebody or themselves.  There are also some very evil people in the world that have no problem except for being mean by nature and sometimes they hurt just to cause the pain.  I think our efforts should be geared more to mental health screenings, closely monitoring those with a diagnosis of mental illness, and prevention measures to ensure these types of people do not cause harm.  There are more than enough gun laws in the country to ensure that only those authorized to buy a gun can obtain one.  We also need to very heavily punish those that commit crimes using a gun.


----------



## AmyNation

There is a difference between facts, and opinions. Whether mass murder is on the rise or not, is either true, or false. There is no grey area in that. Every link I've seen that uses actual data, attests to the fact that it is not on the rise.

Suggesting it is "debatable" is dishonest of you, and shows a disregard for facts that don't fit the "discussion" you want to have.


----------



## beagle9

Foxfyre said:


> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> catzmeow said:
> 
> 
> 
> The video games don't inspire the violence, the violence is already in the individual.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, but the video games are a tool that can be easily used in the process of needing to brush up on getting the feel of the real experience or coming close to it, so people are defending these games in any form that they are in, and that is disturbing.
> 
> Content is the key to change of mindset, but if we are not ready to change what we take into our minds these days, then get ready for this stuff to keep getting worse and worse.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Many of those studies say that the content and concept can drill into the game player a  definition of power, prestige, importance based on success using violence, all concepts reinforced by Catz' Slate article if you look at it from that perspective.
> 
> In Mario Brothers, for instance, the object isn't to kill or destroy things, though that could sometimes be necessary, but the object is to solve the puzzle and get Mario from Point A to Point B.  It becomes progressively more difficult to do that, but the one who solves the puzzle does so through creativity and innovation and figuring out how to solve the problems presented.  In my opinion, that is a healthy game that reinforces positive concepts of problem solving and success.
> 
> Contrast that to a game in which almost the whole concept is to destroy things and people in order to succeed.   If you couple that with showing the most violent types on television and in the movies as heroes and the more violent, the more successful and admirable they are, I can see how that might translate thoughts into a young mind that wasn't quite stable.  And how he might see himself elevated to hero status, admired by the world through mass violence.
Click to expand...

Think about why MTV the network, along with the show 's "ridiculousness" and "jack-a-s-s" had to always put the disclaimer for the viewers, to not send any video's of themselves as viewers doing this stuff, or them even doing it themselves because of the viewing of these shows. Undoubtedly MTV and these shows must have figured that they were inspirational to the new mindset found in these young people, so they tried to persuade them not to emulate the show in any way shape or form.

Then we had the incidents with Beavis and Butt Head, where the young one viewing the show burned down the families house, because he saw them making pyro-maniac's or arson seem cool and hip when playing with matches on that show. That was the beginning I think for me becoming aware of the influence upon the youth that were coming up now or back then, in which they were coming up way different than we did back in the old days, and it has been escalating ever since into the wrong directions.


----------



## beagle9

Big Black Dog said:


> When I was a kid we played cops and robbers, cowboys and indians and things such as that.  We had our cap pistols, toy rifles and all sorts of garb like that.  We played Army and had fake plastic hand grenades and toy mines.  We had a great time playing those kind of things and just about every boy in the neighborhood played those kind of things.  I don't know of anybody that I used to play with growing up that turned out to be a mass murderer or that has even shot somebody outside of being a member of the military.  I think video games played by mentally healthy kids and young adults are ok.  I guess the point I am trying to make is this kind of activity, i.e., war games, cowboy and indians, cops and robbers and even violent video games to me doesn't seem like a problem.  I think the problem is two fold.  There are mentally unstable people in the world, that no matter what you do short of locking them up, will eventually hurt somebody or themselves.  There are also some very evil people in the world that have no problem except for being mean by nature and sometimes they hurt just to cause the pain.  I think our efforts should be geared more to mental health screenings, closely monitoring those with a diagnosis of mental illness, and prevention measures to ensure these types of people do not cause harm.  There are more than enough gun laws in the country to ensure that only those authorized to buy a gun can obtain one.  We also need to very heavily punish those that commit crimes using a gun.


If we ignore the mental disintegration brought about by the things in which we know of, and that is found more and more prevalent in this nation's society, then we are complete fools. These things in which are being geared towards those whom would not have had any of these problems to begin with, but yet all due to their exposures in which they are having access to now more and more in society, and far more easier, and at younger and younger ages, especially by what is being found within the content of these things that which are causing such problems, then we are doomed as a people, and as a nation, and so it is really that simple.


----------



## catzmeow

beagle9 said:


> catzmeow said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, more prayer would reduce mass murders.  If only one of the Newtown victims had believed in God or prayed for help.
> 
> 
> 
> You know with statements like this, it's so wonder you get any respect in these forums at all.. I mean do you think that people are this dumb that you would actually take time to write such a thing as this ?
Click to expand...


Sarcasm clearly isn't lost on you, Beagle.


----------



## catzmeow

Foxfyre said:


> And there are just as many references to expert opinions who say that the motiveless mass murders as we saw at Columbine, Aurora, Sandy Hook, as examples, are on the rise whether or not all other forms of crime are decreasing.



This discussion has been quite enlightening for me.  It shows exactly how invested some posters are in confirming their existing biases.  It's interesting that you would not even read the multiple sources of information I provided to you that confirm that mass murders are not increasing over time.  What is so scary about factual information?


----------



## catzmeow

beagle9 said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, but the video games are a tool that can be easily used in the process of needing to brush up on getting the feel of the real experience or coming close to it, so people are defending these games in any form that they are in, and that is disturbing.
> 
> Content is the key to change of mindset, but if we are not ready to change what we take into our minds these days, then get ready for this stuff to keep getting worse and worse.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Many of those studies say that the content and concept can drill into the game player a  definition of power, prestige, importance based on success using violence, all concepts reinforced by Catz' Slate article if you look at it from that perspective.
> 
> In Mario Brothers, for instance, the object isn't to kill or destroy things, though that could sometimes be necessary, but the object is to solve the puzzle and get Mario from Point A to Point B.  It becomes progressively more difficult to do that, but the one who solves the puzzle does so through creativity and innovation and figuring out how to solve the problems presented.  In my opinion, that is a healthy game that reinforces positive concepts of problem solving and success.
> 
> Contrast that to a game in which almost the whole concept is to destroy things and people in order to succeed.   If you couple that with showing the most violent types on television and in the movies as heroes and the more violent, the more successful and admirable they are, I can see how that might translate thoughts into a young mind that wasn't quite stable.  And how he might see himself elevated to hero status, admired by the world through mass violence.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Think about why MTV the network, along with the show 's "ridiculousness" and "jack-a-s-s" had to always put the disclaimer for the viewers, to not send any video's of themselves as viewers doing this stuff, or them even doing it themselves because of the viewing of these shows. Undoubtedly MTV and these shows must have figured that they were inspirational to the new mindset found in these young people, so they tried to persuade them not to emulate the show in any way shape or form.
> 
> Then we had the incidents with Beavis and Butt Head, where the young one viewing the show burned down the families house, because he saw them making pyro-maniac's or arson seem cool and hip when playing with matches on that show. That was the beginning I think for me becoming aware of the influence upon the youth that were coming up now or back then, in which they were coming up way different than we did back in the old days, and it has been escalating ever since into the wrong directions.
Click to expand...


And in spite of all of those atrocities, violent crime is still down by a significant margin in America.

It must suck when the sky doesn't fall in order to confirm your beliefs.


----------



## catzmeow

I think foxfyre has finally found the "debate" she was looking for.


----------



## Foxfyre

Big Black Dog said:


> When I was a kid we played cops and robbers, cowboys and indians and things such as that.  We had our cap pistols, toy rifles and all sorts of garb like that.  We played Army and had fake plastic hand grenades and toy mines.  We had a great time playing those kind of things and just about every boy in the neighborhood played those kind of things.  I don't know of anybody that I used to play with growing up that turned out to be a mass murderer or that has even shot somebody outside of being a member of the military.  I think video games played by mentally healthy kids and young adults are ok.  I guess the point I am trying to make is this kind of activity, i.e., war games, cowboy and indians, cops and robbers and even violent video games to me doesn't seem like a problem.  I think the problem is two fold.  There are mentally unstable people in the world, that no matter what you do short of locking them up, will eventually hurt somebody or themselves.  There are also some very evil people in the world that have no problem except for being mean by nature and sometimes they hurt just to cause the pain.  I think our efforts should be geared more to mental health screenings, closely monitoring those with a diagnosis of mental illness, and prevention measures to ensure these types of people do not cause harm.  There are more than enough gun laws in the country to ensure that only those authorized to buy a gun can obtain one.  We also need to very heavily punish those that commit crimes using a gun.



I agree that I also played all those games.  Some of us were designated the Cowboys and some of us were the robbers, etc.  and we didn't much care whether we got shot.   It was as much fun to get shot and perform a dramatic death scene as it was to be the Sheriff who shot the bad guys.  But there was no end goal in those games.  The joy was just in doing it and when we got tired or Mom called us in for supper, the game ended.  There was a very strong sense of who were the good guys and who were the bad guys in the movies and on television back  then.  The fun in the games was in playing the games and our success or winning was not determined over and over and over and over again by how many others we were able to kill until we were the last one standing.

I think for most people, probably even kids, it isn't much different playing the video games.  But if as some of those studies suggest, spending much time with the more violent games are altering the ways kids' brains work and/or changing their personalities and not in a good way, then parents really need to know that.


----------



## Foxfyre

Pssst.  Clue to Catz.  Foxfyre was not looking for any kind of debate here.


----------



## catzmeow

I think you should keep repeating the same post multiple times since that's clearly very satisfying for you, Foxy.


----------



## beagle9

Foxfyre said:


> AmyNation said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nationally, when it comes to violence, things are the best they've been in 25 years. Murder is down, rape is down, larceny is down, auto theft is down, *mass murder is not on the rise*.
> 
> There are at least 2 dozen links in this thread that attest to this.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And there are just as many references to expert opinions who say that the motiveless mass murders as we saw at Columbine, Aurora, Sandy Hook, as examples, are on the rise whether or not all other forms of crime are decreasing.
> 
> Do you have any objection of exploring such a concept for accuracy?  Or do you think others should not discuss or research it because your mind is already made up?
Click to expand...

It' simply a game of cover up the trail is all that we see in all of this stuff, and then to blame objects instead of people and their cultural ways in which they have created these days.


----------



## catzmeow

Foxfyre said:


> Pssst.  Clue to Catz.  Foxfyre was not looking for any kind of debate here.



Then why post in the clean debate zone?  I understand the coffee shop is nice if you're just looking for confirmation of your biases.

Also, interesting, in light of this post earlier in the thread:



Foxfyre said:


> Good advice.  However I am already spoiled having encountered on line friends who actually do have a clue, who can articulate an intelligent opinion, and *who enjoy actually exploring a subject and testing to see whether their point of view can hold up against those who argue against it*.  And I really appreciate them.   And sometimes get impatient with those who don't share my enthusiasm for that sort of thing.  Which is my bad, I know.



You really want no such thing, and you've demonstrated that quite clearly.  You want people to agree with you that these games are JUST TERRIBLE and THEY ARE RUINING OUR KIDS and ISN'T IT A SHAME THAT PARENTS DON'T PARENT LIKE THEY USED TO and surely SUCH DESPICABLE AND VIOLENT GAMES ARE THE REASON THAT THE KIDS THESE DAYS ARE SO DISTURBED AND DANGEROUS and isn't it JUST TERRIBLE THAT OUR COUNTRY IS GOING TO HELL IN A HANDBASKET.

It's funny that you say that you want testing to see if your point of view can hold up.  You want affirmation of your ingrained prejudices, nothing more.

But, thanks for demonstrating all of this so clearly in this thread.  It's been entertaining.  I've enjoyed it--immensely.


----------



## catzmeow

beagle9 said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AmyNation said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nationally, when it comes to violence, things are the best they've been in 25 years. Murder is down, rape is down, larceny is down, auto theft is down, *mass murder is not on the rise*.
> 
> There are at least 2 dozen links in this thread that attest to this.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And there are just as many references to expert opinions who say that the motiveless mass murders as we saw at Columbine, Aurora, Sandy Hook, as examples, are on the rise whether or not all other forms of crime are decreasing.
> 
> Do you have any objection of exploring such a concept for accuracy?  Or do you think others should not discuss or research it because your mind is already made up?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It' simply a game of cover up the trail is all that we see in all of this stuff, and then to blame objects instead of people and their cultural ways in which they have created these days.
Click to expand...


Yes, it's actually a secret plot to destroy and corrupt Christians.  In fact, Satan slipped me a few bucks for my posts here, but it's not necessary.  In fact, I enjoy posting facts for free, just to disrupt people's comfortable ignorance.


----------



## Foxfyre

Further note to Catz, this was not an appropriate topic for the Coffee Shop where I wouldn't go for confirmation of much of anything,  It is posted here so that hateful people might be discouraged from trying to prevent a grownup and thoughtful discussion of te topic.  I'm sure you understand.

And I have long petitioned the board administration to change the name of this forum to Civil Discussion Zone so we wouldn't have so many people making 'debate' mandatory though friendly, adult discussion often does include friendly debate on any given topic.

I honestly want to discuss the topic as suggested in the OP.  And I have appreciated those who have had the ability to understand what the topic is.   Obviously many of us aren't seeing it eye to eye.  But that too has been helpful.  Since I have no opinion on the subject related to the OP, and therefore there is no way to agree or disagree with my point of view, I certainly wasn't looking for anybody to confirm anything.,


----------



## beagle9

Foxfyre said:


> Big Black Dog said:
> 
> 
> 
> When I was a kid we played cops and robbers, cowboys and indians and things such as that.  We had our cap pistols, toy rifles and all sorts of garb like that.  We played Army and had fake plastic hand grenades and toy mines.  We had a great time playing those kind of things and just about every boy in the neighborhood played those kind of things.  I don't know of anybody that I used to play with growing up that turned out to be a mass murderer or that has even shot somebody outside of being a member of the military.  I think video games played by mentally healthy kids and young adults are ok.  I guess the point I am trying to make is this kind of activity, i.e., war games, cowboy and indians, cops and robbers and even violent video games to me doesn't seem like a problem.  I think the problem is two fold.  There are mentally unstable people in the world, that no matter what you do short of locking them up, will eventually hurt somebody or themselves.  There are also some very evil people in the world that have no problem except for being mean by nature and sometimes they hurt just to cause the pain.  I think our efforts should be geared more to mental health screenings, closely monitoring those with a diagnosis of mental illness, and prevention measures to ensure these types of people do not cause harm.  There are more than enough gun laws in the country to ensure that only those authorized to buy a gun can obtain one.  We also need to very heavily punish those that commit crimes using a gun.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I agree that I also played all those games.  Some of us were designated the Cowboys and some of us were the robbers, etc.  and we didn't much care whether we got shot.   It was as much fun to get shot and perform a dramatic death scene as it was to be the Sheriff who shot the bad guys.  But there was no end goal in those games.  The joy was just in doing it and when we got tired or Mom called us in for supper, the game ended.  There was a very strong sense of who were the good guys and who were the bad guys in the movies and on television back  then.  The fun in the games was in playing the games and our success or winning was not determined over and over and over and over again by how many others we were able to kill until we were the last one standing.
> 
> I think for most people, probably even kids, it isn't much different playing the video games.  But if as some of those studies suggest, spending much time with the more violent games are altering the ways kids' brains work and/or changing their personalities and not in a good way, then parents really need to know that.
Click to expand...


The difference between now and then, is that back then the kids couldn't wait to be switched out to be the good guy, and this once one finally got tired of being the good guy, and so the roles would then switch making the lucky candidate up next very happy . Now a days the kids seem more and more to gravitate towards being the bad guy, and to defeat the good guy in which they may have been taught or self taught to hate sadly enough. The killing emulated back then importantly enough, was always the good guy's killing the bad guy's, but these days those lines have been blurred badly, and we are seeing this more and more now.


----------



## catzmeow

Foxfyre said:


> Further note to Catz, this was not an appropriate topic for the Coffee Shop where I wouldn't go for confirmation of much of anything,  It is posted here so that hateful people might be discouraged from trying to prevent a grownup and thoughtful discussion of te topic.  I'm sure you understand.
> 
> And I have long petitioned the board administration to change the name of this forum to Civil Discussion Zone so we wouldn't have so many people making 'debate' mandatory though friendly, adult discussion often does include friendly debate on any given topic.
> 
> I honestly want to discuss the topic as suggested in the OP.  And I have appreciated those who have had the ability to understand what the topic is.   Obviously many of us aren't seeing it eye to eye.  But that too has been helpful.  Since I have no opinion on the subject related to the OP, and therefore there is no way to agree or disagree with my point of view, I certainly wasn't looking for anybody to confirm anything.,



Yes, there's nothing more thoughtful and grown up than reinforcing each other's existing biases.  Well, carry on.  Don't allow me to interrupt your self-admiration party with inconvenient facts about the inaccuracy of your assumptions about mass murder.


----------



## beagle9

catzmeow said:


> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> And there are just as many references to expert opinions who say that the motiveless mass murders as we saw at Columbine, Aurora, Sandy Hook, as examples, are on the rise whether or not all other forms of crime are decreasing.
> 
> Do you have any objection of exploring such a concept for accuracy?  Or do you think others should not discuss or research it because your mind is already made up?
> 
> 
> 
> It' simply a game of cover up the trail is all that we see in all of this stuff, and then to blame objects instead of people and their cultural ways in which they have created these days.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, it's actually a secret plot to destroy and corrupt Christians.  In fact, Satan slipped me a few bucks for my posts here, but it's not necessary.  In fact, I enjoy posting facts for free, just to disrupt people's comfortable ignorance.
Click to expand...

Your words are interesting, as they lead one to maybe see your position on Christians in America, and that is typical of you, because you definitely speak as a person who has these positions in life.


----------



## catzmeow

beagle9 said:


> catzmeow said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> It' simply a game of cover up the trail is all that we see in all of this stuff, and then to blame objects instead of people and their cultural ways in which they have created these days.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, it's actually a secret plot to destroy and corrupt Christians.  In fact, Satan slipped me a few bucks for my posts here, but it's not necessary.  In fact, I enjoy posting facts for free, just to disrupt people's comfortable ignorance.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Your words are interesting, as they lead one to maybe see your position on Christians in America, and that is typical of you, because you definitely speak as a person who has these positions in life.
Click to expand...


In the future, you can refer to me as Miss Catz, special agent of Satan.  It's more respectful.


----------



## beagle9

AmyNation said:


> There is a difference between facts, and opinions. Whether mass murder is on the rise or not, is either true, or false. There is no grey area in that. Every link I've seen that uses actual data, attests to the fact that it is not on the rise.
> 
> Suggesting it is "debatable" is dishonest of you, and shows a disregard for facts that don't fit the "discussion" you want to have.


Did you ever think that you may be looking at the data wrong, and interpreting these facts in a way that is also wrong ? Are we to believe that you are the guru of wisdom here, and that you interpret facts or data better than anyone else in life, especially for those who have lived it for a very long time now ?

If do not interpret properly the data looked at, and this by taking all factors into account and their circumstances, then the data can easily mislead and misconstrue the truth in these matters for all.


----------



## beagle9

catzmeow said:


> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> catzmeow said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, it's actually a secret plot to destroy and corrupt Christians.  In fact, Satan slipped me a few bucks for my posts here, but it's not necessary.  In fact, I enjoy posting facts for free, just to disrupt people's comfortable ignorance.
> 
> 
> 
> Your words are interesting, as they lead one to maybe see your position on Christians in America, and that is typical of you, because you definitely speak as a person who has these positions in life.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> In the future, you can refer to me as Miss Catz, special agent of Satan.  It's more respectful.
Click to expand...

Do you think some young folks just might be thinking this was a super cool statement by you, and that they wish they could be just like you when contending with adults in this way? Are you falling into your own traps now ?


----------



## catzmeow

beagle9 said:


> Did you ever think that you may be looking at the data wrong, and interpreting these facts in a way that is also wrong ?



So, 151 is not less than 163?  Mathematical equations don't work in your world?  Statistics change based upon the age of the person who performed the calculations?

That is one of the more ridiculous things I've ever read here.



> Are we to believe that you are the guru of wisdom here, and that you interpret facts or data better than anyone else in life, especially for those who have lived it for a very long time now ?



I've worked on violent crime policy for 22 years now (including creating threat assessments and interpreting statistical analyses of crime data).

How have you "lived it"?


----------



## catzmeow

beagle9 said:


> catzmeow said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your words are interesting, as they lead one to maybe see your position on Christians in America, and that is typical of you, because you definitely speak as a person who has these positions in life.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In the future, you can refer to me as Miss Catz, special agent of Satan.  It's more respectful.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Do you think some young folks just might be thinking this was a super cool statement by you, and that they wish they could be just like you when contending with adults in this way? Are you falling into your own traps now ?
Click to expand...


I am a 47 year old woman with two teenage children.  

But, you may be correct.  Some young folks may indeed think I'm super cool, but I suspect this cool factor would be primarily due to the fact that I'm able to research pertinent issues, identify objective sources, provide evidence of my positions, and logically support my claims.

That is super cool.  I agree.  Some other posters here should try it.


----------



## Koios

catzmeow said:


> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Did you ever think that you may be looking at the data wrong, and interpreting these facts in a way that is also wrong ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So, 151 is not less than 163?  Mathematical equations don't work in your world?  Statistics change based upon the age of the person who performed the calculations?
> 
> That is one of the more ridiculous things I've ever read here.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Are we to believe that you are the guru of wisdom here, and that you interpret facts or data better than anyone else in life, especially for those who have lived it for a very long time now ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I've worked on violent crime policy for 22 years now (including creating threat assessments and interpreting statistical analyses of crime data).
> 
> How have you "lived it"?
Click to expand...


Hate to jump in. But how I live is, well, for doing violent crime. Love it, every chance I get. 

Probably 50 or so times a year I punch smaller dudes and children, while drinking in bars.  So I'm a statistical menace compared to a more law-abiding citizen who only shoots 3 or 4 people to death each year.


----------



## catzmeow

Thanks for keeping me employed, bro.  Much obliged.


----------



## Koios

catzmeow said:


> Thanks for keeping me employed, bro.  Much obliged.



My pleasure. Best you stay in the public sector. 

Problem with we assholes in the private sector is shit heads like me. I bring in the marketing staff and query, "Okie doke gang; wha'd we learn from the marketing research?" 

Then my marketing director says, "4 out of 5 surveyed say they want to buy our product." 

Then I say, "Great; which one?" 

Next, crickets chirping.  Soon after, I look for better marketing folks. 

Moral of the story: what kind of violence is sorta important in comparing stats.


----------



## beagle9

catzmeow said:


> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Did you ever think that you may be looking at the data wrong, and interpreting these facts in a way that is also wrong ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So, 151 is not less than 163?  Mathematical equations don't work in your world?  Statistics change based upon the age of the person who performed the calculations?
> 
> That is one of the more ridiculous things I've ever read here.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Are we to believe that you are the guru of wisdom here, and that you interpret facts or data better than anyone else in life, especially for those who have lived it for a very long time now ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I've worked on violent crime policy for 22 years now (including creating threat assessments and interpreting statistical analyses of crime data).
> 
> How have you "lived it"?
Click to expand...

Numbers, numbers, numbers, but what do they mean exactly ?  What Fox is trying to get to or is talking about I see, is how do these numbers show or apply to the different types of characters involved today, and for what is creating these types of characters today in our society now, but you keep dancing around this question or questions when asked I see ?


----------



## beagle9

catzmeow said:


> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> catzmeow said:
> 
> 
> 
> In the future, you can refer to me as Miss Catz, special agent of Satan.  It's more respectful.
> 
> 
> 
> Do you think some young folks just might be thinking this was a super cool statement by you, and that they wish they could be just like you when contending with adults in this way? Are you falling into your own traps now ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I am a 47 year old woman with two teenage children.
> 
> But, you may be correct.  Some young folks may indeed think I'm super cool, but I suspect this cool factor would be primarily due to the fact that I'm able to research pertinent issues, identify objective sources, provide evidence of my positions, and logically support my claims.
> 
> That is super cool.  I agree.  Some other posters here should try it.
Click to expand...

So all this makes you a special agent of Satan and super cool all because of too ? wow...


----------



## catzmeow

beagle9 said:


> Numbers, numbers, numbers, but what do they mean exactly ?  What Fox is trying to get to or is talking about I see, is how do these numbers show or apply to the different types of characters involved today, and for what is creating these types of characters today in our society now, but you keep dancing around this question or questions when asked I see ?



What Foxy is presently doing with the numbers is creating imaginary distinctions between types of mass murders so that she can pretend that her paradigms are actually viable.  They aren't, and anyone who has experience with this type of data knows that her little dance is a pose.

Fox and Levin have examined mass murders utilizing FBI NiBRS data (the most complete repository of police incident reports) with greater depth than any other researchers.  There is no one in the field who knows more.  The demographics of offenders in mass murders haven't changed because of video games.  In fact, mass murders, contrary to Foxy's beliefs, haven't changed.  I linked Foxy to an overview of the characterizations of mass murderers based upon hundreds of incidents.  She ignored it in favor of her own views.

Listening to the inside of your head, when you are not an expert, is not being informed.  It isn't discussing, it isn't thoughtful, and it isn't grown-up.  It's just kind of sad and pathetic conduct for alleged adults.

I'm sorry that several posters in this thread apparently need the internet to validate their biases.  I'm sorry that intellectual ethics prohibit me from playing along.  I'm sorry that disappoints you and causes you discomfort.

But no, i'm not going to agree with you that valid and scholarly statistical analysis is less important than the opinions of uninformed posters on this thread who've repeatedly refused to expose themselves to evidence that contradicts their biases.  And no, I'm not going to agree with you that facts are open to interpretation.  And, no, I am not going to agree with you that being old makes your opinions more thoughtful or informed. 

None of those things are true.

If you want confirmation of your existing biases, go to church.  If you want to thoughtfully debate and discuss issues, using facts and evidence, post here.

But, don't mistake the two places.


----------



## catzmeow

As a public service announcement:

Inability to Detect Sarcasm May Herald Dementia | Fox News


----------



## Foxfyre

Well I am happy that Catz, Amy, et al are all quite secure with their conclusions on this subject.  I share no such confidence as I don't know what or who to believe yet.  I don't believe Catz and what she says her job is for a single minute though, because someone in the position she claims would not continually and repeatedly misstate and mischaracterize my position, intent, belief, bias, etc. etc. etc. as she has consistently done.  Or if she is in that kind of business, we're all in really big trouble.  

But I am no more eager to be contentious now than when I started.   And I trust that the more careful readers are reading my particular stance on this correctly.  I have really appreciated those who have given some careful thought to the subject and I have read and noted each of your opinions and contributions and believe they should all be part of the mix.  I have also noted a pretty wide diversity of opinion which I think is why there is no clear consensus anywhere on this yet.  God bless those who think they have it all figured out.

Out for the night.  Ya'll all have a good one.


----------



## catzmeow

Foxfyre said:


> the question of whether repetitive exposure to violence, especially that acted out in video games, could be a factor in promoting the kind of acting out that we saw at Columbine, et al.



There is an easy way to answer that question.  I've provided you with plenty of research on mass murderers.  *What percentage of mass murderers played violent video games?*


----------



## catzmeow

Foxfyre said:


> Well I am happy that Catz, Amy, et al are all quite secure with their conclusions on this subject.  I share no such confidence as I don't know what or who to believe yet.  I don't believe Catz and what she says her job is for a single minute though, because someone in the position she claims would not continually and repeatedly misstate and mischaracterize my position, intent, belief, bias, etc. etc. etc. as she has consistently done.  Or if she is in that kind of business, we're all in really big trouble.



Citation needed.  Please link me to the post where I mischaracterized your position, intent, and belief.  You clearly articulated, IN SEVERAL POSTS, that you believe there has been an increase in mass murders and that video games are tied to that increase.  I rebutted that claim, because it is false and unsupported by data on mass murders.

Whether you believe what I do for a living is completely moot.  I have seen you claim to be a Christian, but your post above contains false statements about me and the allegation that I'm a liar.

What did Jesus Christ say about bearing false witness and making false statements?

In light of your post above, "I don't for a minute believe that someone who follows Jesus Christ would continually and repeatedly make false statements in a meaningless internet debate.  Or, if she is a follower of Jesus Christ, Christianity is in really big trouble."



> But I am no more eager to be contentious now than when I started.



Yes, it's always preferable to veil one's personal attacks in passive aggressive verbosity.  

Your intimation that I'm lying about my profession in this thread (see paragraph 1 of your post above} is in fact a personal attack, and a rather nasty and underhanded one, to boot, regardless of how much syrup you attempt to drown it in.

It's nice that you're above that sort of behavior.


----------



## JustTheFacts

Foxfyre said:


> Well I am happy that Catz, Amy, et al are all quite secure with their conclusions on this subject.  I share no such confidence as I don't know what or who to believe yet.  I don't believe Catz and what she says her job is for a single minute though, because someone in the position she claims would not continually and repeatedly misstate and mischaracterize my position, intent, belief, bias, etc. etc. etc. as she has consistently done.  Or if she is in that kind of business, we're all in really big trouble.
> 
> But I am no more eager to be contentious now than when I started.   And I trust that the more careful readers are reading my particular stance on this correctly.  I have really appreciated those who have given some careful thought to the subject and I have read and noted each of your opinions and contributions and believe they should all be part of the mix.  I have also noted a pretty wide diversity of opinion which I think is why there is no clear consensus anywhere on this yet.  God bless those who think they have it all figured out.
> 
> Out for the night.  Ya'll all have a good one.





I guess im confused bc outside of if she was in the videogame industry I dont see how her profession would be germane to the subject.


----------



## auditor0007

Foxfyre said:


> NOTE:  Clean debate zone thread here. . . .
> 
> This morning I was listening to a concept put out by a military psychologist who suggests that it is not guns that are the problem in a 'violent America', but rather the changed American culture.  Violent concepts are prevalent in our television programs, movies, comic books, music, and most especially in video games that are available in large quantities to very young children.
> 
> His theory is that this is desensitizing young people to violence and even exalting and promoting it.
> 
> Are video games conditioning kids to accept violence as virtue?  As the way to get things accomplished?  To win?  To reach the pinnacle of success?  In many/most of video games out there, it is necessary to be ruthless in order to win the game.  Does this change the way people view their world in an unhealthy way?
> 
> If you do see this as a problem, how do you get around censorship as being somehow better than gun control?  Do you want the government to have power in that area?
> 
> Or is there a way for the public/radio/Hollywood  to self censor itself as it once did?  And should we push for that?
> 
> Or maybe you don't see it as a problem at all?



For most kids, and even adults, I don't see video games being a problem.  I did say most though.  Unfortunately, for some who may have mental issues to begin with, I can see where some of these games and all the violence seen on television could play a part in some of these people doing what they do.


----------



## catzmeow

auditor0007 said:


> For most kids, and even adults, I don't see video games being a problem.  I did say most though.  Unfortunately, for some who may have mental issues to begin with, I can see where some of these games and all the violence seen on television could play a part in some of these people doing what they do.



For someone who considers killing children a way to obtain fame and glory, there are many sources of inspiration.  The Oklahoma City bombers were influenced by books such as The Turner Diaries and The Anarchist's Cookbook.

The Turner Diaries - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

They were also influenced by media coverage of the ATF's Branch Davidian raid on April 19, 1993, and planned their attack to synchronize with the anniversary of Waco (April 19, 1995).

The Columbine killers were influenced by media coverage of the Oklahoma City bombing, and in fact planned their attack on the anniversary of the OKC bombing (April 19, 1999).

Should we ban books and news coverage?

Video games clearly don't cause people to become mass murderers.  If they did, with 97% of 12-17 year olds consuming video games, we'd have experienced a massive increase in mass murders, which we did not.  

If video games even inspired juveniles to commit crime in general, juvenile crime in America would have increased as video game consumption by 12-17 year olds began rapidly increasing during the period from 1995 (when the playstation gaming console was introduced with far higher resolution graphics than any prior gaming consoles) through 2012, when the population of juveniles was almost completely saturated with access to video gaming consoles.  

In contrast, juvenile arrests in the U.S. fell dramatically from 1995-2012:







The introduction of high resolution gaming systems corresponded to *the largest drop in juvenile arrest rates since we started tracking that figure nationally*.  According to the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention ((OJJDP), which tracks juvenile arrest and criminal data:



> The juvenile Violent Crime Index arrest rate *reached a historic low in 2009 *and is down 12% since 2006.



Source:  Juvenile Arrest Rate Trends

One interesting thing I've observed is high rates of violent game usage by gang-involved clients in recent years.  I was working in Denver during September and went out to visit clients with local program personnel.  I found it very interesting that not once, but in several instances,  gang-involved clients brought up the fact that they'd decided to "stay at home and shoot people on x-box" instead of going out into the community and hanging out with the gang.  This decision to stay at home and play video games had a corresponding effect on their individual rate of offending.  When these individuals aren't spending large amounts of time unsupervised in the community with other socially deviant peers, they commit fewer crimes.

Here is some information from research on both persistent offenders and current brain development studies on subjects that affect delinquency.

The starting line, and something that is well established over the last 20+ years is that low adrenaline excretion is characteristic of persistent offenders:  

Adolescent Problem Behaviors: Issues and Research - Robert D. Ketterlinus, Michael E. Lamb - Google Books

Exposure to childhood maltreatment, particularly as an infant, results in impaired limbic (adrenaline) function.  Current research on brain development shows a correlation between childhood trauma from abuse/neglect/violence exposure and disassociative disorders and PTSD, which impair adrenaline/limbic function.

Child Maltreatment and Brain Development
http://www.google.com/url?url=http:...opment&usg=AFQjCNGOra298EUetLgB9Xbw-c-H6G8KDg (this link downloads a PDF article)

Individuals with impaired limbic/adrenaline function require higher levels of stimulus to experience normal levels of adrenaline function, and their reactions to stress are vastly different from those of normal individuals.

I think it would be interesting for researchers to track arrest rates for gang members immediately following the release of high profile FPS video games to see if there is any effect on criminal involvement by this age group.  After my experience in Denver, I would actually be prepared to argue that people who experience a rush of adrenaline from involvement in criminal activity may well experience that same rush of adrenaline from playing one of these FPS games.  A lot of gang members (and cops, for that matter) are adrenaline addicts. 

Many gang members were exposed to violent/traumatic childhood experiences that was likely to have affected their brain development.  I would contend that they seek out high risk and adrenaline-creating situations to experience the rush of adrenaline.  If these individuals can get their "adrenaline fix" from an intense first-person shooter game, and that meets their need for adrenaline, it is entirely possible that the existence of these gaming consoles is correlated to drops in violent juvenile crime.

The same scenario is now being theorized to occur in conjunction with the availability of pornography.  

There is an inverse relationship between rape and pornography.  The higher the level of access to pornography, the lower the rate of rape.

ScienceDirect.com - Aggression and Violent Behavior - The pleasure is momentary?the expense damnable?: The influence of pornography on rape and sexual assault



> Victimization rates for rape in the United States demonstrate an inverse relationship between pornography consumption and rape rates. Data from other nations have suggested similar relationships. Although these data cannot be used to determine that pornography has a cathartic effect on rape behavior, combined with the weak evidence in support of negative causal hypotheses from the scientific literature, it is concluded that it is time to discard the hypothesis that pornography contributes to increased sexual assault behavior.



The theory that access to pornography ameliorates the need for some individuals to rape has not yet been substantiated, but current research makes it clear that access to and use of pornography is correlated to lower rates of rape.  For some individuals, it may be true that watching porn meets their need for stimulation that would other be achieved through comission of sex crimes.

*Access to violent video games has coincided with the single largest drop in violent crime in U.S. history.*

i'm starting to believe that a lot of the studies that have been so influential with some posters in this thread have the relationship backwards.

Perhaps, in some cases, as I observed with gang members in Denver, the access to the adrenaline rush provided by these intense video games ameliorates the need for some violent offenders to commit acts of violence.  In other words, violent video game use stimulates the same regions of the brain as are likely stimulated during the commission of a crime.

Having said all of this, there is a baseline, inaccurate belief in this thread, which is that "children are routinely sheltered and protected from violence."  In the case of persistent and/or violent offenders, that assumption does not hold true.  In fact, exposure to childhood violence is a risk factor for commission of violent acts as a juvenile.  That childhood exposure to real violence (abuse from parent, violence between parents, between neighbors, between mom and her abusive boyfriend) changes the process of brain development, creates impaired adrenaline function, and normalizes violent behavior for children and makes it seem acceptable.

These games, especially for children who grow up in these circumstances, are  a minor blip on their trauma meters in comparison to the reality they've experienced at firsthand.

Here is some data on the level of childhood exposure to real life violence in America:



> More than 60 percent of the children surveyed were exposed to violence within the past year, either directly or indirectly (i.e., as a witness to a violent act; by learning of a violent act against a family member, neighbor, or close friend; or from a threat against their home or school)
> 
> *Nearly one-half of the children and adolescents surveyed (46.3 percent) were assaulted at least once in the past year*, and more than 1 in 10 (10.2 percent) were injured in an assault; 1 in 4 (24.6 percent) were victims of robbery, vandalism, or theft; *1 in 10 (10.2 percent) suffered from child maltreatment (including physical and emotional abuse, neglect, or a family abduction)*; and *1 in 16 (6.1 percent) were victimized sexually*. *More than 1 in 4 (25.3 percent) witnessed a violent act* and *nearly 1 in 10 (9.8 percent) saw one family member assault another*. Multiple victimizations were common: *more than one-third (38.7 percent) experienced 2 or more direct victimizations *in the previous year, *more than 1 in 10 (10.9 percent) experienced 5 or more direct victimizations in the previous year*, and more than 1 in 75 (1.4 percent) experienced 10 or more direct victimizations in the previous year.



https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/ojjdp/227744.pdf

The posters here are interested in portrayals of violence on the television screen, but the sad reality is that MANY children in America grow up watching their family members and neighbors assault, stab, beat, and shoot each other.

The impact of a video game, when weighed against these real life experiences of violence is laughable.

In fact, those 1 in 16 children who were raped last year would probably find some of the posts in this thread just more evidence of how many adults in America "just don't understand" what their lives are really like. 

This is why programs like Scared Straight also don't work:  Scared Straight: Don?t Believe the Hype (Facts from CJJ) | Juvenile Justice Reform | Adolescent Substance Abuse Treatment | Reclaiming Futures.  

It is legally impossible to attain or exceed the "scare" factor for a child who has previously been beaten or raped by his/her parents.   Being yelled at by convicts does not accomplish the goal of creating enough emotional trauma to create an aversion to criminal acts.

On the flip side, young people who grew up in normal environments, with normal exposure to stress and supportive parenting are unlikely to be affected by these games, because their brains already have a fully functioning system with which to regulate and process stress and adrenaline, just as these young people are unlikely to become involved more than a single delinquent act.


----------



## JustTheFacts

I played Madden last night. I feel no great urge to go tryout for an NFL team today.

Theory that video games inspire real life action debunked.


----------



## Koios

JustTheFacts said:


> I played Madden last night. I feel no great urge to go tryout for an NFL team today.
> 
> Theory that video games inspire real life action debunked.



If you'd be picked up by an NFL team, you'd jump at the chance. (desire without opportunity = meaningless)


----------



## JustTheFacts

Koios said:


> JustTheFacts said:
> 
> 
> 
> I played Madden last night. I feel no great urge to go tryout for an NFL team today.
> 
> Theory that video games inspire real life action debunked.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If you'd be picked up by an NFL team, you'd jump at the chance. (desire without opportunity = meaningless)
Click to expand...


Nah, I really don't think I would. I'm pretty comfortable with where I am in life. 

But, are you trying to say I couldn't make the cut? Cuz I play a lot of Madden and that's good for reflexes you know.


----------



## Koios

JustTheFacts said:


> Koios said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JustTheFacts said:
> 
> 
> 
> I played Madden last night. I feel no great urge to go tryout for an NFL team today.
> 
> Theory that video games inspire real life action debunked.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If you'd be picked up by an NFL team, you'd jump at the chance. (desire without opportunity = meaningless)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nah, I really don't think I would. I'm pretty comfortable with where I am in life.
> 
> *But, are you trying to say I couldn't make the cut?* Cuz I play a lot of Madden and that's good for reflexes you know.
Click to expand...


Yes; I would have thought that was quite clear.  If it helps, neither can I, nor could I have at any point desite doing quite well in waterskiing competitions and bicycle (road) racing.

It's a pretty rare individual who has the physical attributes to play at that level.  So it's a percentage play in assuming you are not NFL material.


----------



## WorldWatcher

catzmeow said:


>




10-17 Year old Violent crimes @ 500/100,000 at it's peak and now around 275/100,000 since the introduction of gaming consoles.  That's a reduction of 225/100,000.

If we correlate that to a base population of around 350,000,000 that's 1,575,000 violent crimes not committed.  Out of that 1.5 million one can assume a significant number that would have results in deaths.

So gaming consoles saved lives.


>>>>


----------



## catzmeow

Video game play does enhance fine motor skills and reflexes, but it will not make you into a professional football thrower.

Strawman.


----------



## Uncensored2008

JustTheFacts said:


> I played Madden last night. I feel no great urge to go tryout for an NFL team today.
> 
> Theory that video games inspire real life action debunked.



More to the point;

I played Need 4 Speed and have no desire to get chased by the cops through the city at insane speeds.


----------



## catzmeow

WorldWatcher said:


> So gaming consoles saved lives.



I don't know that there is data to establish causality, but the possibility exists.


----------



## WorldWatcher

catzmeow said:


> Video game play does enhance fine motor skills and reflexes, but it will not make you into a professional football thrower.
> 
> Strawman.




Maybe not, but I seem to remember reading about some research that had to do with improved mental acuity in older people.  The active mental participation required stimulates the brain and can help ward off some of the effects of age.


>>>>


----------



## catzmeow

WorldWatcher said:


> Maybe not, but I seem to remember reading about some research that had to do with improved mental acuity in older people.  The active mental participation required stimulates the brain and can help ward off some of the effects of age.
> 
> 
> >>>>



Like many subjects, I think the negative effects of video games are overstated by people whose sensibilities are offended by them.  These are often the same people who overstate the negative effects of porn and other things that also offend their narrow set of values.


----------



## WorldWatcher

catzmeow said:


> WorldWatcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> Maybe not, but I seem to remember reading about some research that had to do with improved mental acuity in older people.  The active mental participation required stimulates the brain and can help ward off some of the effects of age.
> 
> 
> >>>>
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Like many subjects, I think the negative effects of video games are overstated by people whose sensibilities are offended by them.  These are often the same people who overstate the negative effects of porn and other things that also offend their narrow set of values.
Click to expand...



We didn't let our son have an X-box, the kids were more into Nintendo when they were younger.  He was working part-time in high school as an IT tech and came home one day with a console, 4 controllers, and about 35 games.  I said "What's up?".  One of his co-workers was getting married and needed the money so he sold my son the whole she-bang for $200.  He was 18, it was his money - go for it.

Since I've now been playing X-box for about 4 years now (  ) I find it quite interesting (although I'm not obsessed with it). [I swear, I can quit any time I want. ]   It's interesting to contrast our playing styles even when playing the same game.  He's more of a testosterone run-n-gun type while I tend to take my time, explore, and play a stealth/cover sort of approach.  He's called me in before when he's stuck solving a problem and needs alternate solutions, I've called him in when success relies purely on fast action and quick reflexes.  He does some group online playing, I do not.  I pretty much stick with campaign mode.

It works for us.


>>>>


----------



## JustTheFacts

catzmeow said:


> Video game play does enhance fine motor skills and reflexes, but it will not make you into a professional football thrower.
> 
> Strawman.



Correct, and likewise playing video games won't make you a better pitcher a better point guard a better pirate, a better golfer, a better shooter, or anything else.


----------



## JustTheFacts

WorldWatcher said:


> catzmeow said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WorldWatcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> Maybe not, but I seem to remember reading about some research that had to do with improved mental acuity in older people.  The active mental participation required stimulates the brain and can help ward off some of the effects of age.
> 
> 
> >>>>
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Like many subjects, I think the negative effects of video games are overstated by people whose sensibilities are offended by them.  These are often the same people who overstate the negative effects of porn and other things that also offend their narrow set of values.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> We didn't let our son have an X-box, the kids were more into Nintendo when they were younger.  He was working part-time in high school as an IT tech and came home one day with a console, 4 controllers, and about 35 games.  I said "What's up?".  One of his co-workers was getting married and needed the money so he sold my son the whole she-bang for $200.  He was 18, it was his money - go for it.
> 
> Since I've now been playing X-box for about 4 years now (  ) I find it quite interesting (although I'm not obsessed with it). [I swear, I can quit any time I want. ]   It's interesting to contrast our playing styles even when playing the same game.  He's more of a testosterone run-n-gun type while I tend to take my time, explore, and play a stealth/cover sort of approach.  He's called me in before when he's stuck solving a problem and needs alternate solutions, I've called him in when success relies purely on fast action and quick reflexes.  He does some group online playing, I do not.  I pretty much stick with campaign mode.
> 
> It works for us.
> 
> 
> >>>>
Click to expand...


You and your son are very similar in your different playing styles than me and my sons. I prefer sneaky to run n gun and I don't play much multiplayer. And that isn't just for shooters, I don't play in online football leagues and such either, just not my cup of tea. They on the other hand love it, they get online and play with the friends who they could go play games with face to face. Just seems odd to me.

We've had a gaming console in the house all my kid's lives, but very strict rules on playing times and which games they are allowed to play. My twenty year olds still live at home and are instructed to keep all mature games put up where children can't see them, or don't bring them into the house.


----------



## catzmeow

My son apparently prefers to find a shadowy corner he can stake out during the game's multiplayer variation of "capture the flag," and then troll other users by repeatedly killing their character.  I don't play FPS games, but am more inclined to play mmorpgs and go on raiding parties with friends where we stake out noobs, kill them, and take their stuff.

The apple, in our case, apparently does not fall far from the tree.

I kind of feel like, at this point (he's 15), the violence in these games is on par with R-rated movies.

You do learn a lot about social dynamics when you play these games or post on an internet bulletin board.

And, he's way more into NBA2012 and NCAA Football2013 than he is FPS games these days.


----------



## Uncensored2008

catzmeow said:


> My son apparently prefers to find a shadowy corner he can stake out during the game's multiplayer variation of "capture the flag," and then troll other users by repeatedly killing their character.



Yeah, that's called "camping" and is frowned upon in most online games.



> I don't play FPS games, but am more inclined to play mmorpgs and go on raiding parties with friends where we stake out noobs, kill them, and take their stuff.



Never was attracted to WOW.

Loved Diablo, but that was a different genre.



> The apple, in our case, apparently does not fall far from the tree.
> 
> I kind of feel like, at this point (he's 15), the violence in these games is on par with R-rated movies.



Yep.



> You do learn a lot about social dynamics when you play these games or post on an internet bulletin board.



Too many games are dominated by children.

My wife and I like Worms, (Worms Reloaded | Team17.com) and had some child go into a complete meltdown that the two of use were collaborating. It's amusing being accused of being a dog rapist by a 9 year old.


----------



## WillowTree

You guys should try Candy Crush Saga. It's brutal!


----------



## JustTheFacts

catzmeow said:


> My son apparently prefers to find a shadowy corner he can stake out during the game's multiplayer variation of "capture the flag," and then troll other users by repeatedly killing their character.  I don't play FPS games, but am more inclined to play mmorpgs and go on raiding parties with friends where we stake out noobs, kill them, and take their stuff.
> 
> The apple, in our case, apparently does not fall far from the tree.
> 
> I kind of feel like, at this point (he's 15), the violence in these games is on par with R-rated movies.
> 
> You do learn a lot about social dynamics when you play these games or post on an internet bulletin board.
> 
> And, he's way more into NBA2012 and NCAA Football2013 than he is FPS games these days.



LOL you're son is what is known as a camper and is no doubt real popular with other players.

Sits on a respawn spot and kills the newly risen before they even know what hit them LOL


----------



## catzmeow

He's actually really good at the game, but prone to screwing with people when he's bored.

I suffer from a similar affliction.


----------



## JustTheFacts

catzmeow said:


> He's actually really good at the game, but prone to screwing with people when he's bored.
> 
> I suffer from a similar affliction.



most campers actually are pretty good at the game. In fact I would argue that using an exploit that the game manufactures weren't smart enough to avoid is being REAL good at the game.

Most of them now have random respawn points to prevent that, they've figured it out. Took awhile and lots of complaints , but they got there lol


----------



## Lukas

Video games have both a negative and positive impact on violence around the world (see videogames.procon.org) but in general the negative out weighs the positive in almost every aspect. Although the number of juvenile murders have fallen since video games sales have quadrupled from 1998 - 2008, the number of "lesser" crimes, such as physical bullying, has increased among those who have played a violent games. The cause of such is a result of a dehumanizing of the masses. Video games aren't reality, violence is.

America is a capitalistic society, should we ban such games? No. It isn't the place of the government to do such, but rather of parents. In doing such, we move the power of authority to the person who knows the subject (child) the best. 

A recent example is that of the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting. The man, (according to my knowledge), lived with his parents, was a "loner" and most likely played violent video games. In my opinion, the guy was intent on hurting somebody regardless of how it was done. In this instance he used a gun, but couldn't he have equally used a knife? Or any other object. If we are going to ban guns what is next? Are we going to ban knives? What I can't figure out is how you are going to ban somebody from beating up people.

Banning guns is not the solution, it will only create a huge problem. When a child sees a no guns allowed sign, they often are appalled. What's going to keep a criminal from entering if he is intent on crime? If somebody in Sandy Hook would of had a gun (concealed carry license) the disaster could have easily been avoided- sparing 26 lives. My grievance goes out to that town and school.


----------



## beagle9

catzmeow said:


> WorldWatcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> Maybe not, but I seem to remember reading about some research that had to do with improved mental acuity in older people.  The active mental participation required stimulates the brain and can help ward off some of the effects of age.
> 
> 
> >>>>
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Like many subjects, I think the negative effects of video games are overstated by people whose sensibilities are offended by them.  These are often the same people who overstate the negative effects of porn and other things that also offend their narrow set of values.
Click to expand...

Narrow sets of values eh ? Yet here you are talking about porn and video games being of value, when we have study after study showing that these things are rotting young peoples minds big time these days, but not all video games are bad I agree, and this all depending on content, but porn and many other movies coming out of Hollywood are just plain bad, and these have no family value at all to them.  This is what we are talking about here, the welfare and the hope of the modern family in America, which is something in which you are confused badly on it seems.


----------



## beagle9

Lukas said:


> Video games have both a negative and positive impact on violence around the world (see videogames.procon.org) but in general the negative out weighs the positive in almost every aspect. Although the number of juvenile murders have fallen since video games sales have quadrupled from 1998 - 2008, the number of "lesser" crimes, such as physical bullying, has increased among those who have played a violent games. The cause of such is a result of a dehumanizing of the masses. Video games aren't reality, violence is.
> 
> America is a capatilistic society, should we ban such games? No. It isn't the place of the government to do such, but rather of parents. In doing such, we move the power of authority to the person who knows the subject (child) the best.
> 
> A recent example is that of the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting. The man, (according to my knowledge), lived with his parents, was a "loner" and most likely played violent video games. In my opinion, the guy was intent on hurting somebody regardless of how it was done. In this instance he used a gun, but couldn't he have equally used a knife? Or any other object. If we are going to ban guns what is next? Are we going to ban knives? What I can't figure out is how you are going to ban somebody from beating up people.
> 
> Banning guns is not the solution, it will only create a huge problem. When a child sees a no guns allowed sign, they often are appalled. What's going to keep a criminal from entering if he is intent on crime. If somebody in Sandy Hook would of had a gun (concelled carry liscense) the disaster could have easily been avoided- sparing 26 lives. My grievance goes out to that town and school.


Influencing Hollywood into changing the content of these games would be a great place to start, and then job creation for the young folks next, because they have been left behind big time these days, and they have been isolated in worlds in which breed these kinds of bad things, especially when idled out for way to long. We have a volatile cocktail is what we have in this nation being mixed into these young folks, and sometimes even into their parents, so when they act out like they do, we then know what happens in these situations, but the money has won the day each time, and it has won for way to long now in America. It's time to do right without money being the deciding factor in it all, and then we will get back to the light hopefully.


----------



## MaryL

That isn't exactly a new idea; however, it is a possibility. Kids use  to play some violent games when I was a kid, boys used to play with  wooden or plastic   guns and pretend to shoot each other, not on a video screen. It seems that something else has changed. Going back a generation or so, Thompson  Submachine guns were sold via the mail with no background checks. Different eras have totally different values, so where we are today; I am not sure what has changed. Life seems to have different a value now.


----------



## catzmeow

beagle9 said:


> Influencing Hollywood into changing the content of these games would be a great place to start, and then job creation for the young folks next, because they have been left behind big time these days, and they have been isolated in worlds in which breed these kinds of bad things, especially when idled out for way to long. We have a volatile cocktail is what we have in this nation being mixed into these young folks, and sometimes even into their parents, so when they act out like they do, we then know what happens in these situations, but the money has won the day each time, and it has won for way to long now in America. It's time to do right without money being the deciding factor in it all, and then we will get back to the light hopefully.



Which is why crime is down in the U.S.


----------



## beagle9

MaryL said:


> That isn't exactly a new idea; however, it is a possibility. Kids use  to play some violent games when I was a kid, boys used to play with  wooden or plastic   guns and pretend to shoot each other, not on a video screen. It seems that something else has changed. Going back a generation or so, Thompson  Submachine guns were sold via the mail with no background checks. Different eras have totally different values, so where we are today; I am not sure what has changed. Life seems to have different a value now.


It's so easy to see where we are today, and why we have gotten here, so I don't buy the excuse or ignorance that people are expressing by not knowing where we are today or how we got here today, and so again I don't buy this not for one second in this nation this excuse.


----------



## beagle9

catzmeow said:


> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Influencing Hollywood into changing the content of these games would be a great place to start, and then job creation for the young folks next, because they have been left behind big time these days, and they have been isolated in worlds in which breed these kinds of bad things, especially when idled out for way to long. We have a volatile cocktail is what we have in this nation being mixed into these young folks, and sometimes even into their parents, so when they act out like they do, we then know what happens in these situations, but the money has won the day each time, and it has won for way to long now in America. It's time to do right without money being the deciding factor in it all, and then we will get back to the light hopefully.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Which is why crime is down in the U.S.
Click to expand...

The corrupting of a mind is a crime, but it is not so easily seen or realized until it is to late, and then we have all the enablers, protectors and people who are just plain evil themselves blocking the path that leads directly to the culprits.


----------



## Foxfyre

beagle9 said:


> catzmeow said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Influencing Hollywood into changing the content of these games would be a great place to start, and then job creation for the young folks next, because they have been left behind big time these days, and they have been isolated in worlds in which breed these kinds of bad things, especially when idled out for way to long. We have a volatile cocktail is what we have in this nation being mixed into these young folks, and sometimes even into their parents, so when they act out like they do, we then know what happens in these situations, but the money has won the day each time, and it has won for way to long now in America. It's time to do right without money being the deciding factor in it all, and then we will get back to the light hopefully.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Which is why crime is down in the U.S.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The corrupting of a mind is a crime, but it is not so easily seen or realized until it is to late, and then we have all the enablers, protectors and people who are just plain evil themselves blocking the path that leads directly to the culprits.
Click to expand...


The jury is still out, but ideology seems to play a big part in the debate.  You have one camp saying that crime overall is down; therefore the video games are not a problem.  And I'm pretty sure if crime was on the increase, at least some in the same group would say there is no evidence that video games play any part in that.  

Again I love the video games and have been playing them for a very long time.  My kids and all their friends grew up with them and none have shown any criminal tendencies that I'm aware of.  Nevertheless,  the question remains whether the susceptible kid who spends long periods playing the violent games can be programmed to equate violence and mayhem with personal glory, respect, and success.  And could that provoke a mentally unbalanced person to act out on that in real life?

I think the experts need to continue to study the phenomenon.

I don't have a clue if that is the case.  But I continue to be interested.


----------



## beagle9

Foxfyre said:


> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> catzmeow said:
> 
> 
> 
> Which is why crime is down in the U.S.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The corrupting of a mind is a crime, but it is not so easily seen or realized until it is to late, and then we have all the enablers, protectors and people who are just plain evil themselves blocking the path that leads directly to the culprits.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The jury is still out, but ideology seems to play a big part in the debate.  You have one camp saying that crime overall is down; therefore the video games are not a problem.  And I'm pretty sure if crime was on the increase, at least some in the same group would say there is no evidence that video games play any part in that.
> 
> Again I love the video games and have been playing them for a very long time.  My kids and all their friends grew up with them and none have shown any criminal tendencies that I'm aware of.  Nevertheless,  the question remains whether the susceptible kid who spends long periods playing the violent games can be programmed to equate violence and mayhem with personal glory, respect, and success.  And could that provoke a mentally unbalanced person to act out on that in real life?
> 
> I think the experts need to continue to study the phenomenon.
> 
> I don't have a clue if that is the case.  But I continue to be interested.
Click to expand...


Check out the movie "Willie Wonka and the Chocolate Factory" starring Gene Wilder, and then check out the more current one with Johnny Depp. Tell me that their isn't a more strange and dark thing going on here between these two movies and their content that was being directed at children. My daughter watched the first version with Wilder, and then she tried to watch the one with Depp, but rebuked the one with Depp because she saw it as strange and dark without the same innocence found in the one with Gene Wilder. Now look at each movie and video game as it has progressed in content over the years now, then you tell me if something hasn't shifted and/or changed for the worst in our media content over the years, yet as each generation has come along, it's as if they are more susceptible to this stuff without resistance of anymore, but why ? Why have we become a nation of susceptible people, even protecting the devil himself many times when he is revealed in the details of this content? Are we becoming a more evil and heartless people as we progress now in this nation, and if so what are the reasons for this evil progression in our society? Hollywood is an influence, just as it has been said here over and over again about kids playing cowboy's and Indians, cops and robbers, and on and on it all goes.

Is Hollywood the seat of the devil himself in America (i.e. where his control panel is), and we are now in his video game in which he is controlling ?


----------



## Foxfyre

beagle9 said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The corrupting of a mind is a crime, but it is not so easily seen or realized until it is to late, and then we have all the enablers, protectors and people who are just plain evil themselves blocking the path that leads directly to the culprits.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The jury is still out, but ideology seems to play a big part in the debate.  You have one camp saying that crime overall is down; therefore the video games are not a problem.  And I'm pretty sure if crime was on the increase, at least some in the same group would say there is no evidence that video games play any part in that.
> 
> Again I love the video games and have been playing them for a very long time.  My kids and all their friends grew up with them and none have shown any criminal tendencies that I'm aware of.  Nevertheless,  the question remains whether the susceptible kid who spends long periods playing the violent games can be programmed to equate violence and mayhem with personal glory, respect, and success.  And could that provoke a mentally unbalanced person to act out on that in real life?
> 
> I think the experts need to continue to study the phenomenon.
> 
> I don't have a clue if that is the case.  But I continue to be interested.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Check out the movie "Willie Wonka and the Chocolate Factory" starring Gene Wilder, and then check out the more current one with Johnny Depp. Tell me that their isn't a more strange and dark thing going on here between these two movies and their content that was being directed at children. My daughter watched the first version with Wilder, and then she tried to watch the one with Depp, but rebuked the one with Depp because she saw it as strange and dark without the same innocence found in the one with Gene Wilder. Now look at each movie and video game as it has progressed in content over the years now, then you tell me if something hasn't shifted and/or changed for the worst in our media content over the years, yet as each generation has come along, it's as if they are more susceptible to this stuff without resistance of anymore, but why ? Why have we become a nation of susceptible people, even protecting the devil himself many times when he is revealed in the details of this content? Are we becoming a more evil and heartless people as we progress now in this nation, and if so what are the reasons for this evil progression in our society? Hollywood is an influence, just as it has been said here over and over again about kids playing cowboy's and Indians, cops and robbers, and on and on it all goes.
> 
> Is Hollywood the seat of the devil himself in America (i.e. where his control panel is), and we are now in his video game in which he is controlling ?
Click to expand...


There has been a breakdown in a unified American culture since the cultural revolution of the 60's.  And yes we,. as a society of people, have become progressively more tolerant of violence, of coarse, vulgar, and abusive language, a different moral center, alternate lifestyles, etc. etc. etc.   And that is bound to be reflected in video games as it is on television, in the movies, on the internet, and other media medium.

It was first driven home to me when we were watching an old movie with our kids when they were in college.  And they mentioned that the movie was okay but was pretty 'hokey' and the dialogue wasn't very realistic as people just don't talk that way.  They were referring to the lack of profanity and the more creative ways people used to demonstrate displeasure.  And we realized how different the two generations were.  In those 'olden' days, certain words were never used in polite society where they are commonplace now.  What horrified, disgusted, or offended people back then are shrugged off as routine now.

Of course those who never experienced the previous generation are usually more fixated on any negatives they perceive and they don't believe there were any positives or what positives are related never really existed.  And they think this current generation is just fine and far superior to any that preceded it.

And is that a factor in the rash of mass killings we have seen in recent years?  I don't know.  It feels like it.  But how we feel is rarely a reliable guide to how things really are.


----------



## beagle9

Foxfyre said:


> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> The jury is still out, but ideology seems to play a big part in the debate.  You have one camp saying that crime overall is down; therefore the video games are not a problem.  And I'm pretty sure if crime was on the increase, at least some in the same group would say there is no evidence that video games play any part in that.
> 
> Again I love the video games and have been playing them for a very long time.  My kids and all their friends grew up with them and none have shown any criminal tendencies that I'm aware of.  Nevertheless,  the question remains whether the susceptible kid who spends long periods playing the violent games can be programmed to equate violence and mayhem with personal glory, respect, and success.  And could that provoke a mentally unbalanced person to act out on that in real life?
> 
> I think the experts need to continue to study the phenomenon.
> 
> I don't have a clue if that is the case.  But I continue to be interested.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Check out the movie "Willie Wonka and the Chocolate Factory" starring Gene Wilder, and then check out the more current one with Johnny Depp. Tell me that their isn't a more strange and dark thing going on here between these two movies and their content that was being directed at children. My daughter watched the first version with Wilder, and then she tried to watch the one with Depp, but rebuked the one with Depp because she saw it as strange and dark without the same innocence found in the one with Gene Wilder. Now look at each movie and video game as it has progressed in content over the years now, then you tell me if something hasn't shifted and/or changed for the worst in our media content over the years, yet as each generation has come along, it's as if they are more susceptible to this stuff without resistance of anymore, but why ? Why have we become a nation of susceptible people, even protecting the devil himself many times when he is revealed in the details of this content? Are we becoming a more evil and heartless people as we progress now in this nation, and if so what are the reasons for this evil progression in our society? Hollywood is an influence, just as it has been said here over and over again about kids playing cowboy's and Indians, cops and robbers, and on and on it all goes.
> 
> Is Hollywood the seat of the devil himself in America (i.e. where his control panel is), and we are now in his video game in which he is controlling ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There has been a breakdown in a unified American culture since the cultural revolution of the 60's.  And yes we,. as a society of people, have become progressively more tolerant of violence, of coarse, vulgar, and abusive language, a different moral center, alternate lifestyles, etc. etc. etc.   And that is bound to be reflected in video games as it is on television, in the movies, on the internet, and other media medium.
> 
> It was first driven home to me when we were watching an old movie with our kids when they were in college.  And they mentioned that the movie was okay but was pretty 'hokey' and the dialogue wasn't very realistic as people just don't talk that way.  They were referring to the lack of profanity and the more creative ways people used to demonstrate displeasure.  And we realized how different the two generations were.  In those 'olden' days, certain words were never used in polite society where they are commonplace now.  What horrified, disgusted, or offended people back then are shrugged off as routine now.
> 
> Of course those who never experienced the previous generation are usually more fixated on any negatives they perceive and they don't believe there were any positives or what positives are related never really existed.  And they think this current generation is just fine and far superior to any that preceded it.
> 
> And is that a factor in the rash of mass killings we have seen in recent years?  I don't know.  It feels like it.  But how we feel is rarely a reliable guide to how things really are.
Click to expand...

It is linked yes, it has to be, and we know this, but convincing a more desensitized generation of this, well is almost impossible as these shootings are proving to be a testament to.


----------



## MaryL

When I was a kid, there weren't mass shootings up until the Texas mass shootings in 1966, and that was a result  a physical abnormality, a  tumor in the brain of the shooter that resulted in his  aggressiveness. Even the shooter himself, Charles Whitman KNEW he was ill. In this day and age, how are we going to know WHO is in their right minds to purchase a firearm to begin with?  We don&#8217;t and we can&#8217;t.


----------



## Foxfyre

MaryL said:


> When I was a kid, there weren't mass shootings up until the Texas mass shootings in 1966, and that was a result  a physical abnormality, a  tumor in the brain of the shooter that resulted in his  aggressiveness. Even the shooter himself, Charles Whitman KNEW he was ill. In this day and age, how are we going to know WHO is in their right minds to purchase a firearm to begin with?  We dont and we cant.



No we really can't in some of the cases.  In some we can.  But we CAN study whether the repetitious nature of the video games--doing the same violent routine over and over and over again--is programming some minds to equate violence and mayhem as the way to be noticed, to succeed, to be praised, to be admired.  And it is only common sense that this could be a dangerous thing in some cases of mental illness or mental unbalance.

Being aware of the potential dangers, if such exist, is NOT the same thing as blaming all murders or violence on video games or suggesting they should be banned for everybody.  But if we are agreed that guns should be kept out of the hands of people with mental dysfunction as much as possible, would it not follow that we should also be aware of what triggers some people to use those guns in destructive ways?


----------



## PaulS1950

You should stop and consider that you can't prevent crimes. Only then will you find a way to respond to a crime instead of reacting to it. We need to prosecute criminals to the fullest extent of the laws we have and to treat those who are mentally unstable when they commit a crime. We need to teach our children the difference between right and wrong and allow them to suffer the consequences of their actions from a very young age so they understand that there will always be consequences.
plea bargains show criminals that the consequences are flexible and may not apply to them. That kind of judicous system does both the criminal and the people a disservice.
Treatment for mental illnesses should be available to any who need it without consequence until they break the law. At that point there must be consequences as well as further treatment. 
You simply cannot treat everyone as a potential criminal in a free society so we have to wait until the law is broken and then respond with prosecution that validates our freedoms and shows the criminal that he will suffer if he breaks the law.
We need to remove the comforts that are available in prisons and go back to teaching the criminal that he is being punished for his crimes. If he wants rehabilitation then that should be available but only if it is requested.
You can't help someone who does not want it.


----------



## Foxfyre

PaulS1950 said:


> You should stop and consider that you can't prevent crimes. Only then will you find a way to respond to a crime instead of reacting to it. We need to prosecute criminals to the fullest extent of the laws we have and to treat those who are mentally unstable when they commit a crime. We need to teach our children the difference between right and wrong and allow them to suffer the consequences of their actions from a very young age so they understand that there will always be consequences.
> plea bargains show criminals that the consequences are flexible and may not apply to them. That kind of judicous system does both the criminal and the people a disservice.
> Treatment for mental illnesses should be available to any who need it without consequence until they break the law. At that point there must be consequences as well as further treatment.
> You simply cannot treat everyone as a potential criminal in a free society so we have to wait until the law is broken and then respond with prosecution that validates our freedoms and shows the criminal that he will suffer if he breaks the law.
> We need to remove the comforts that are available in prisons and go back to teaching the criminal that he is being punished for his crimes. If he wants rehabilitation then that should be available but only if it is requested.
> You can't help someone who does not want it.



That would be a valid argument on a thread dealing with crime in general.  But I don't see how it relates to identifying and intervening in a mass murder in which the shooter almost always has no prior criminal record at least of a violent nature and almost always results in the shooter taking his own life.

I don't think any amount of deterrant via consequences or punishment would have any affect on that type of crime.


----------



## Foxfyre

Anecdotal evidence for sure, and not 'proof' of anything, but another point to consider in the debate of whether the violent video games and other media influences are having a dangerous negative effect on kids.

Most of you know about the Albuquerque 15-year-old who murdered his family of five in cold blood this past week.  He first killed his mother, then his 9, 5, and 2 yr old siblings, and finally his father when he arrived home later.  This was a 'good' kid, with a pastor father, a member of and active in one of our largest, most prominent evangelical churches, and viewed as normal by most.  He played several different instruments in the church praise band, was not really a 'loner' as some have attempted to portray him, and was generally viewed as bright and extremely talented.

His intentions, as reported to police, were to go to a nearby Walmart and shoot as many people as he could before killing himself.  A pattern that has become chillingly familiar.  The only 'motive' offered so far is that he was peeved at his mother.

But the one thing that keeps cropping up in media report, after media report, is that, like Adam Lanza,  he loved violent video games.



> After his arrest, he told investigators he was &#8220;frustrated&#8221; with his mother, but only seemed to show emotion when he spoke about video games he loved, such as &#8220;Modern Warfare&#8221; and &#8220;Grand Theft Auto.&#8221;
> 
> &#8220;It was kind of what he was into and was quite excited as he got the opportunity to discuss that with investigators,&#8221; Bernalillo County Sheriff Dan Houston told reporters Tuesday.
> 
> Read more: New Mexico teen Nehemiah Griego was 'heavily involved' in violent video games; relatives say he was 'troubled young man' - NY Daily News



http://www.standard.net/stories/2013/01/22/teen-who-shot-killed-family-liked-violent-video-games

Nehemiah Griego, Teen Accused Of Killing Family, Had Homicidal And Suicidal Thoughts: Cops

New Mexico teen accused of family slaughter loved 'violent' video games, police say - U.S. News


----------



## 1Templar

Ban teenagers.


----------



## Circe

Foxfyre said:


> But the one thing that keeps cropping up in media report, after media report, is that, like Adam Lanza,  he loved violent video games.



It's training, that's the thing. These kids, who become schizophrenic in the natural course of things, TRAIN for hours a day some of them, to shoot, kill, shoot, kill their enemies on the screen. 

I know it's training because I play these Xbox 360 games myself, if not the most stripped-down combat camouflage shooter types, but all of them now are shooter/killer games and learning how to do it and how to get through the tests to a save point sometimes takes (me) days and the hands learn and the emotions learn and learn to do it better and better until it works.

These kids are training hours a day to kill, kill, kill. I can remember when they banned scary comics -- and my husband pointed out that no one would have even tried to sell games and movies like they have now. No one would have done it and if they had, they'd have been put in jail! 

But somehow violence and pornography got away from us and became mainstream. Kids practice and practice and then they do it live.


----------



## blackhawk

I just finished a game of Modern Warfare 3 got 10 kills feel no desire to kill in real life.


----------



## Uncensored2008

blackhawk said:


> I just finished a game of Modern Warfare 3 got 10 kills feel no desire to kill in real life.



If it drove a desire for anything, it seems like it would be a desire to join the Army.


----------



## Foxfyre

But are you kids who have been playing these games since you were pups?  Day in and day out?  A possible form of programming during the years your core values were formed?  Sure we all played Cowboys and Indians, Cops and Robbers, etc. when we were kids.  Sometimes we were the Cowboy; sometimes the robber.  But it was not hours of repetition in which success was measured in how successful we were in creating mayhem.

I love video games and play them a lot.  And my very favorite happens to be a game based on wiping out all the opposition.  I'm not about to judge anybody for enjoying something I too enjoy.

But isn't there room to at least consider what these super violent games could be doing to some kids?


----------



## PaulS1950

There is no evidence that violent games breed killers. The first amendment protects the rights of the producers and the right of people to purchase these games. 
No right should be discarded because of the acts of criminals.


----------



## Foxfyre

PaulS1950 said:


> There is no evidence that violent games breed killers. The first amendment protects the rights of the producers and the right of people to purchase these games.
> No right should be discarded because of the acts of criminals.



Which is why I have not proposed that people be denied the right to purchase the games.

I HAVE proposed that we as concerned citizens consider what these games may be doing to some kids.

Is it not possible for both concepts to co-exist side by side?


----------



## Underhill

I think we've gone the wrong direction with video games.

We've limited the amount of gore in games, very little blood.   It takes the realism out of the game.   

We saw a demonstration at Scout Camp once where the range officer put a pumpkin out in front of the target board and proceeded to shoot it with a 12 gauge.   He then explained to the boys that this is why we practice gun safety as that is exactly what a gun like that can do to a persons head.

I could see that it had the boys thinking.


----------



## Foxfyre

Underhill said:


> I think we've gone the wrong direction with video games.
> 
> We've limited the amount of gore in games, very little blood.   It takes the realism out of the game.
> 
> We saw a demonstration at Scout Camp once where the range officer put a pumpkin out in front of the target board and proceeded to shoot it with a 12 gauge.   He then explained to the boys that this is why we practice gun safety as that is exactly what a gun like that can do to a persons head.
> 
> I could see that it had the boys thinking.



Well that is an interesting concept.  Some earlier in this thread have suggested that it is because the games are so realistic that they are affecting kids/young adults in negative ways by conditioning them to become conditioned to and devoid of moral reluctance to commit gore, violence, mayhem.

And you are suggesting that they aren't realistic enough?

For me, I can't/won't watch any living creature be tortured.  But I suppose I could learn to do so--even enjoy it--if I watched enough slasher movies with gratuitous violence etc.   All it takes is the conscious concept that it isn't real.  It's just a movie.  Right?   But I wonder if it really doesn't desensitize us in ways that aren't good for us.  Aren't good for society?

And how much do the super violent video games desensitize kids to creating mayhem and even equating that with success?

I wonder how many of us are experiencing real grief when we hear about another shooting; somebody's life snuffed out in the prime of life?   Or has it become so matter of fact we just emotionally shrug it off?

I don't know the answers.  But I have been made sufficient curious about the social dynamics to explore the subject.


----------



## Uncensored2008

Foxfyre said:


> But are you kids who have been playing these games since you were pups?  Day in and day out?  A possible form of programming during the years your core values were formed?  Sure we all played Cowboys and Indians, Cops and Robbers, etc. when we were kids.  Sometimes we were the Cowboy; sometimes the robber.  But it was not hours of repetition in which success was measured in how successful we were in creating mayhem.
> 
> I love video games and play them a lot.  And my very favorite happens to be a game based on wiping out all the opposition.  I'm not about to judge anybody for enjoying something I too enjoy.
> 
> But isn't there room to at least consider what these super violent games could be doing to some kids?



We should consider everything. In most cases, video games will have no negative impact, but like all things in life, some will become obsessed. We've all heard about those who called off work for 3 days when the newest World of Warcraft expansion came out, or the crazy Korean who played Starcraft until his bladder burst and he fell over dead. Humans are a strange species. But these are the rare exceptions.

Should we try and develop ways to identify people like Adam Lanza and Jared Loughner? Of course. Maybe the first sign is the inability to distinguish fantasy from reality. I knew a guy in high school who took Batman comics WAY too seriously. If it were today, little doubt he would have been obsessed with video games. But it was the personality that made him obsessive, not the medium. 

A boy like Adam Lanza who doesn't have access to guns will just fill bottles with gasoline, the gun isn't the issue.  Likewise prohibiting video games will just drive him to obsess on comic books, or GI Joe dolls.


----------



## Foxfyre

Uncensored2008 said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> But are you kids who have been playing these games since you were pups?  Day in and day out?  A possible form of programming during the years your core values were formed?  Sure we all played Cowboys and Indians, Cops and Robbers, etc. when we were kids.  Sometimes we were the Cowboy; sometimes the robber.  But it was not hours of repetition in which success was measured in how successful we were in creating mayhem.
> 
> I love video games and play them a lot.  And my very favorite happens to be a game based on wiping out all the opposition.  I'm not about to judge anybody for enjoying something I too enjoy.
> 
> But isn't there room to at least consider what these super violent games could be doing to some kids?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We should consider everything. In most cases, video games will have no negative impact, but like all things in life, some will become obsessed. We've all heard about those who called off work for 3 days when the newest World of Warcraft expansion came out, or the crazy Korean who played Starcraft until his bladder burst and he fell over dead. Humans are a strange species. But these are the rare exceptions.
> 
> Should we try and develop ways to identify people like Adam Lanza and Jared Loughner? Of course. Maybe the first sign is the inability to distinguish fantasy from reality. I knew a guy in high school who took Batman comics WAY too seriously. If it were today, little doubt he would have been obsessed with video games. But it was the personality that made him obsessive, not the medium.
> 
> A boy like Adam Lanza who doesn't have access to guns will just fill bottles with gasoline, the gun isn't the issue.  Likewise prohibiting video games will just drive him to obsess on comic books, or GI Joe dolls.
Click to expand...


That is something new to consider.  However in comic books the plot is constantly changing so you don't become fixated on a single scenario.  And it requires using imagination and some creativity to have fun with a GI Joe so I see that as generally a healthy thing.  The video games though--it is the same repetitious violence over and over and over as the player tries to hone his skills and get more and more proficient.  I think the way that might affect the brain could be different.


----------



## beagle9

PaulS1950 said:


> There is no evidence that violent games breed killers. The first amendment protects the rights of the producers and the right of people to purchase these games.
> No right should be discarded because of the acts of criminals.



And so you are an advocate maybe, of corrupting minors in ways that come back to haunt them and us in the near future, and maybe it's because of this selfishness that you might have within yourself, that doesn't allow for you to see what is going on all around you these days, especially with the youth culture as of late in which we all see ?

All one has to do is watch TV or movies and play these games, and the themes or scripts are bombarding us and our children in ways that can't help but affect us sooner or later in our mindsets, then just add in the other volital mixes to the frey, and wah-lah we have a killer or killers now produced out of it all. What is wrong with trying to promote good by creating good scripts, good themes, good senario's, good messages for us and our youth ? What then, would it would be to "Barney" for you ? How far down the pipe do you think your sensitivities have gone ? Could you actually sit and watch a full episode of "Barney", Andy Griffith, Gilligans Isle, The Wizard of Oz, Lassie, Gun Smoke and etc. without going bonkers because it is so stupid looking to you or maybe not violent enough for you and etc. ??

Playing the devils advocate in reverse here, so don't get mad, just think about what I am saying for a second or two.. The Gennie is out of the bottle now, so there may be no going back for many in all of this we are dealing with, but if we could maybe look foward to try and create that good in our lives, and within programing once again, then maybe we can save America in the eyes of our Lord, and for our children's sake, and our sake as well. 

One may think now, that taking away the (film projector) of the producer and director, would be just like taking away an AR-15 or other guns from a killer intent on killing. The projector over time, may actually kill more premeditatedly, than any gun in history has or was then used spontaneously and/or randomly in an act of murder. The film industry, one could say could be a huge caytalyst that triggers the mind in some and/or in many instances yet all depending, then next "all depending", it falls back on the gun or other tools used, where as these are the weapons of choice in which were illustrated and learned of in these things in order to kill efficiently with, and this by watching or taking into the mind these things that are evil or written/produced in evil ways. Then next we have crazy people then literally picking up weapons afterwards, that's if one decides to take it to that side of the situation, and then using them in such henious ways. Now yes of course they may have had a long held problem that was born out of a bad experience or maybe having many bad experiences in their life, but we must consider all that are linked in ways that create the disasters that we are having in it all to some degree or another now. 

We don't need to be assisting these killers with to many ideas, nor do we need to feed them ideas, so we have alot to consider in all of this, and for many it's the children who comes to mind first in it all, because it seems that they are on the front lines lately. They need to be conditioned and raised up right in the world, and not raised up wrong instead.  This is why the Lord is straight foward about the children, where as we read that if a child is learned by one to do wrong or is taught to do wrong and/or evil in his or her life, then it is and/or will be better for a person or persons to take a talent and place it around their necks, and then to sink themselves to the bottom of the sea, more so than it would be to face the Lord afterwards.


----------



## Foxfyre

Well while I understand your point Beagle, I don't think Paul is in favor of corrupting minors any more than I think most who enjoy violence in their entertainment, including video games, is going to commit violent acts.

But you do raise one point.  There was a time in America when Andy Griffith and I Love Lucy and all the old long running sitcoms were great entertainment for the vast majority of Americans.  But as they lack gratuitous and graphic sex, violence, profanity etc., they are no longer intriguing or fun for the younger generation coming up.  Just as those who watch the super violent movies become immune to the pain, gore, blood, and mayhem and seek more of them; just as those who become fixated on pornography seek it out; it only stands to reason that young people will become accustomed to violent video games and prefer those to the Mario Brothers and other more innocent pastimes that a lot of us learned to play.

And maybe the genie is out of the bottle and we can't turn back the clock and recreate a society with different tastes and perferences.  But I doubt any kid was ever inspired to go out and kill people after watching Andy Griffith.


----------



## PaulS1950

Foxfyre said:


> PaulS1950 said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is no evidence that violent games breed killers. The first amendment protects the rights of the producers and the right of people to purchase these games.
> No right should be discarded because of the acts of criminals.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Which is why I have not proposed that people be denied the right to purchase the games.
> 
> I HAVE proposed that we as concerned citizens consider what these games may be doing to some kids.
> 
> Is it not possible for both concepts to co-exist side by side?
Click to expand...


Considering what the games do (not may do) to children would require double blind tests with full controls and detailed psych evaluations prior to the playing and then at intervals during the period of play. We can see the anecdotal evidence in the violence rate among the age groups that we are considering and the violence has gone down since the games were introduced. You must remember that our children don't always learn what we teach but they will learn something from what we teach depending on their interpretation of the consequencial value the information holds for them.


----------



## beagle9

Foxfyre said:


> Well while I understand your point Beagle, I don't think Paul is in favor of corrupting minors any more than I think most who enjoy violence in their entertainment, including video games, is going to commit violent acts.
> 
> But you do raise one point.  There was a time in America when Andy Griffith and I Love Lucy and all the old long running sitcoms were great entertainment for the vast majority of Americans.  But as they lack gratuitous and graphic sex, violence, profanity etc., they are no longer intriguing or fun for the younger generation coming up.  Just as those who watch the super violent movies become immune to the pain, gore, blood, and mayhem and seek more of them; just as those who become fixated on pornography seek it out; it only stands to reason that young people will become accustomed to violent video games and prefer those to the Mario Brothers and other more innocent pastimes that a lot of us learned to play.
> 
> And maybe the genie is out of the bottle and we can't turn back the clock and recreate a society with different tastes and perferences.  But I doubt any kid was ever inspired to go out and kill people after watching Andy Griffith.


Very good analysis my friend... It was the point that I was trying to make exactly.. Think about how insensitive or badly programed that many minds are now, towards that which was once good in our society anymore. Then think about how drawn to these other bad things ((just as you have also mentioned)), that we are drawn to anymore, in which as a nation we are now glorifying or lifting up these days? It has become an ugly and very bad problem in this society anymore.

It is a telling story isn't it ?


----------



## beagle9

PaulS1950 said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PaulS1950 said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is no evidence that violent games breed killers. The first amendment protects the rights of the producers and the right of people to purchase these games.
> No right should be discarded because of the acts of criminals.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Which is why I have not proposed that people be denied the right to purchase the games.
> 
> I HAVE proposed that we as concerned citizens consider what these games may be doing to some kids.
> 
> Is it not possible for both concepts to co-exist side by side?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Considering what the games do (not may do) to children would require double blind tests with full controls and detailed psych evaluations prior to the playing and then at intervals during the period of play. We can see the anecdotal evidence in the violence rate among the age groups that we are considering and the violence has gone down since the games were introduced. You must remember that our children don't always learn what we teach but they will learn something from what we teach depending on their interpretation of the consequencial value the information holds for them.
Click to expand...

Would require further test ? How about the reality test and their results that are already out there ?


----------



## Foxfyre

PaulS1950 said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PaulS1950 said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is no evidence that violent games breed killers. The first amendment protects the rights of the producers and the right of people to purchase these games.
> No right should be discarded because of the acts of criminals.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Which is why I have not proposed that people be denied the right to purchase the games.
> 
> I HAVE proposed that we as concerned citizens consider what these games may be doing to some kids.
> 
> Is it not possible for both concepts to co-exist side by side?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Considering what the games do (not may do) to children would require double blind tests with full controls and detailed psych evaluations prior to the playing and then at intervals during the period of play. We can see the anecdotal evidence in the violence rate among the age groups that we are considering and the violence has gone down since the games were introduced. You must remember that our children don't always learn what we teach but they will learn something from what we teach depending on their interpretation of the consequencial value the information holds for them.
Click to expand...


Then it is time to do those double blind tests.  It is true that violent crime has been steadily declining for the last 20 years or so though there was an 18% (I think) spike in the analysis year ending October 2012.  But most experts say you can't judge a trend on what could be an anomaly in any given year. 

But in that same 20 years we have seen a substantial increase in senseless crimes of mass mayhem targeting innocents and in which there is no conclusive motive.  And it is that driving the current debate.  Some focus only on the proliferation of guns and refuse to consider anything else while others, accurately or not, can point to those same guns as possibly the reason there has been less violent crime.    People determined to commit violence will most usually seek the path of least resistance to do it.  And in the UK, confiscation of guns has resulted in a great decrease in gun crime, but other violent crime has escalated many times over.  This would suggest that guns don't necessarily result in more violence.

You suggest that perhaps it is the video games that is reducing the violent crime?  Maybe they are.  But it is also noteworthy that many, if not most of those doing those mass killings lately have also had access to and have loved playing the violent video games.

I just think it is something we need to look at really closely before we rule anything out.


----------



## Zoom-boing

Kids are not walking into stores purchasing video games rated Mature, the store won't sell them to minors.  It starts with the parents.  They are the ones buying this stuff.  Maybe they buy it for themselves then let their kids play it as well?  I don't know.  But I do know that many, many parents today seem to think absolutely nothing of letting their kid have a cell phone at age 7, an iphone or android with internet access at age 12, tv in the kid's room, computer with internet access in kid's room, Playstations and Xboxes in kid's room.  Really? That's like opening your front door and saying 'come on in world and have at it'.  I simply don't understand giving a child that much freedom at such a young age.  

If the demand for these games/shows goes down and demand for better, less violent/graphic goes up that's when the makers will change what they produce.  Unfortunately I don't see that happening anytime soon.  The genie may indeed be permanently out of the bottle.


----------



## Foxfyre

Zoom-boing said:


> Kids are not walking into stores purchasing video games rated Mature, the store won't sell them to minors.  It starts with the parents.  They are the ones buying this stuff.  Maybe they buy it for themselves then let their kids play it as well?  I don't know.  But I do know that many, many parents today seem to think absolutely nothing of letting their kid have a cell phone at age 7, an iphone or android with internet access at age 12, tv in the kid's room, computer with internet access in kid's room, Playstations and Xboxes in kid's room.  Really? That's like opening your front door and saying 'come on in world and have at it'.  I simply don't understand giving a child that much freedom at such a young age.
> 
> If the demand for these games/shows goes down and demand for better, less violent/graphic goes up that's when the makers will change what they produce.  Unfortunately I don't see that happening anytime soon.  The genie may indeed be permanently out of the bottle.



No quarrel with any of that.  But cultural pressures can change the culture.  When I was a young adult, all the cool people smoked cigarettes.  Ash trays were as common in almost every home as coasters on the end tables.  It took awhile but gradually places where people could smoke became less and less.  In the airport, it was almost funny the poor smokers huddled around the one ash can in the one designated smoking area, or the smokers were assigned a distant area of the restaurant.  And then even those designated areas disappeared.  It was no longer 'cool' to smoke and it was especially unacceptable to do it around children.   Advertisements for tobacco products disappeared from television and in magazines. The remaining smokers, all good people mostly, are all mostly trying to or contemplating quitting.   That's what social/cultural pressure can do.

We didn't become a society tolerant of gratuitous sex, violence, and profanity overnight either.  It happened drip by drip, pushing the envelope a little until people got accustomed to it, and then a little more, and then a little more until now almost anything goes.  That's what social/cultural pressure can do too.

And when enough of us get enough of it, I don't see why we can't start pushing back the other way.


----------



## blackhawk

Foxfyre said:


> But are you kids who have been playing these games since you were pups?  Day in and day out?  A possible form of programming during the years your core values were formed?  Sure we all played Cowboys and Indians, Cops and Robbers, etc. when we were kids.  Sometimes we were the Cowboy; sometimes the robber.  But it was not hours of repetition in which success was measured in how successful we were in creating mayhem.
> 
> I love video games and play them a lot.  And my very favorite happens to be a game based on wiping out all the opposition.  I'm not about to judge anybody for enjoying something I too enjoy.
> 
> But isn't there room to at least consider what these super violent games could be doing to some kids?



Is it possible yes it's also possible violent movies, TV shows, lyrics in music, and graphic novels formerly known as comic books do as well I'm not sure what can be done about any of that it all falls under parents responsibility.


----------



## PaulS1950

First - Mass murders of innocents has remained virtually and statistically constant for the last 50 years. It is no more prevelent today than it was 50 years ago but the media has changed. There are more editorials (slanted news) about the tragities that do happen. The coverage lasts longer and it is presented in a way that sells better.

Next - violence among our youth 10 - 18 (disregarding the gang violence which is an entirely different group) has dropped steadily since the introduction of these violent video games.
We are considering the facts related to the kids and these video games - at least the facts presented by the number and frequency of crimes committed by people in the affected age group and it shows that the games do nothing or may lower the number of crimes that are committed by these kids.

Any perception that these games that are so graphic and violent MUST be affecting our children is totally unsupported by the facts as represented in the crime statistics released by the FBI.
I don't particularly care for the games - I find them senseless - but I see no evidence that they are corrupting our children anymore than "rock-n-roll" corrupted my generation or that RAP corrupted my children's generation. You cannot "consider" anything when you enter into the act with an opinion unless you allow that opinion to be changed with an open mind.

All the evidence shows that these games have either no effect or they make kids LESS violent. That is the evidence that we have.


----------



## Zoom-boing

Foxfyre said:


> Zoom-boing said:
> 
> 
> 
> Kids are not walking into stores purchasing video games rated Mature, the store won't sell them to minors.  It starts with the parents.  They are the ones buying this stuff.  Maybe they buy it for themselves then let their kids play it as well?  I don't know.  But I do know that many, many parents today seem to think absolutely nothing of letting their kid have a cell phone at age 7, an iphone or android with internet access at age 12, tv in the kid's room, computer with internet access in kid's room, Playstations and Xboxes in kid's room.  Really? That's like opening your front door and saying 'come on in world and have at it'.  I simply don't understand giving a child that much freedom at such a young age.
> 
> If the demand for these games/shows goes down and demand for better, less violent/graphic goes up that's when the makers will change what they produce.  Unfortunately I don't see that happening anytime soon.  The genie may indeed be permanently out of the bottle.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No quarrel with any of that.  But cultural pressures can change the culture.  When I was a young adult, all the cool people smoked cigarettes.  Ash trays were as common in almost every home as coasters on the end tables.  It took awhile but gradually places where people could smoke became less and less.  In the airport, it was almost funny the poor smokers huddled around the one ash can in the one designated smoking area, or the smokers were assigned a distant area of the restaurant.  And then even those designated areas disappeared.  It was no longer 'cool' to smoke and it was especially unacceptable to do it around children.   Advertisements for tobacco products disappeared from television and in magazines. The remaining smokers, all good people mostly, are all mostly trying to or contemplating quitting.   That's what social/cultural pressure can do.
> 
> We didn't become a society tolerant of gratuitous sex, violence, and profanity overnight either.  It happened drip by drip, pushing the envelope a little until people got accustomed to it, and then a little more, and then a little more until now almost anything goes.  That's what social/cultural pressure can do too.
> 
> And when enough of us get enough of it, I don't see why we can't start pushing back the other way.
Click to expand...


Cultural pressure didn't change the views on smoking, government did.  Government decided that since smoking is bad but too many people smoked they must come to the rescue! so they pushed for getting rid of smoking.  Government said no more smoke ads, government said no more smoking here then there and nearly everywhere.  As it disappeared from places due to being banned _then_ it lost its appeal. Movies also stopped including it so massively, although not completely, which also influenced people.  I don't want government butting in with video games and movies because they think it's 'not good' for us; that's not uncle's job.  We as individuals and as a society have to make the choices ourselves to reject these types of things or not.   

I quite enjoy Dexter and Shameless and choose to watch them; I also choose to take advantage of the parental controls offered by our cable provider and keep those types of shows (and others) out of reach of my two youngest.  We can push back but it has to start at home, imo.  I don't know that most parents want to be bothered or go to the trouble of pushing back.  Very sad.


----------



## Foxfyre

Zoom-boing said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Zoom-boing said:
> 
> 
> 
> Kids are not walking into stores purchasing video games rated Mature, the store won't sell them to minors.  It starts with the parents.  They are the ones buying this stuff.  Maybe they buy it for themselves then let their kids play it as well?  I don't know.  But I do know that many, many parents today seem to think absolutely nothing of letting their kid have a cell phone at age 7, an iphone or android with internet access at age 12, tv in the kid's room, computer with internet access in kid's room, Playstations and Xboxes in kid's room.  Really? That's like opening your front door and saying 'come on in world and have at it'.  I simply don't understand giving a child that much freedom at such a young age.
> 
> If the demand for these games/shows goes down and demand for better, less violent/graphic goes up that's when the makers will change what they produce.  Unfortunately I don't see that happening anytime soon.  The genie may indeed be permanently out of the bottle.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No quarrel with any of that.  But cultural pressures can change the culture.  When I was a young adult, all the cool people smoked cigarettes.  Ash trays were as common in almost every home as coasters on the end tables.  It took awhile but gradually places where people could smoke became less and less.  In the airport, it was almost funny the poor smokers huddled around the one ash can in the one designated smoking area, or the smokers were assigned a distant area of the restaurant.  And then even those designated areas disappeared.  It was no longer 'cool' to smoke and it was especially unacceptable to do it around children.   Advertisements for tobacco products disappeared from television and in magazines. The remaining smokers, all good people mostly, are all mostly trying to or contemplating quitting.   That's what social/cultural pressure can do.
> 
> We didn't become a society tolerant of gratuitous sex, violence, and profanity overnight either.  It happened drip by drip, pushing the envelope a little until people got accustomed to it, and then a little more, and then a little more until now almost anything goes.  That's what social/cultural pressure can do too.
> 
> And when enough of us get enough of it, I don't see why we can't start pushing back the other way.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Cultural pressure didn't change the views on smoking, government did.  Government decided that since smoking is bad but too many people smoked they must come to the rescue! so they pushed for getting rid of smoking.  Government said no more smoke ads, government said no more smoking here then there and nearly everywhere.  As it disappeared from places due to being banned _then_ it lost its appeal. Movies also stopped including it so massively, although not completely, which also influenced people.  I don't want government butting in with video games and movies because they think it's 'not good' for us; that's not uncle's job.  We as individuals and as a society have to make the choices ourselves to reject these types of things or not.
> 
> I quite enjoy Dexter and Shameless and choose to watch them; I also choose to take advantage of the parental controls offered by our cable provider and keep those types of shows (and others) out of reach of my two youngest.  We can push back but it has to start at home, imo.  I don't know that most parents want to be bothered or go to the trouble of pushing back.  Very sad.
Click to expand...


Government didn't deal with smoking in a vacuum.  Had there been a large hue and cry against regulations on smoking, government would have been backed off.    In our system of government, government can only do to the people what the people allow it to do.  Whining, griping, and letters to the editor aren't sufficient.  When we continue to re-elect people who do whatever to us via laws and regulation, they actually do take that as license to keep doing it to us.   And if people do not comply with the law, government doesn't enforce the law.

I point to illegal immigration as a case in point.  With so many law breakers, government feels powerless to do anything about it so looks for ways to allow it.

I point to prohibiition as another case in point.  The people wanting alcohol triggered so much violence in the 20's and 30's and government was so helpless to control it, much less stop it, that the government threw in the towel and repealed the law.

Therefore banning the video games or violent content in the media, movies, etc. is also not the answer.  Changing the will of the public is.    If the public doesn't want something different enough to make it happen, it won't happen.   And if it isn't having a substantial negative effect on the public at large, there is no reason to even try to make it happen.

Paul, I know you believe that there is no difference in events like Sandy Hook, Columbine, etc. than has ever existed in our history.  I will agree to disagree with you on that point.  I am not focused on violent crime in general, but on a specific syndrome.   I think the events in the last thirty years are quite different.  But right now I'm trying to focus on first, the reason for it, and second, what can be done about it.


----------



## PaulS1950

The reason for it?
There is no reason to the disturbed mind that we can understand.
You MIGHT prevent some of these travasties with better health care but even the psychiatrist treating some of these people had no idea that they were capable of the savagery that they inflicted, so you won't be able to prevent the minds of these individuals from snapping. You can lessen the number of dead and wounded by keeping armed guards in the schools and allowing trained and licensed individuals to carry arms in "gun free zones" but the only way to prevent crime is to erase any kind of freedom at all.


----------



## Circe

Foxfyre said:


> I love video games and play them a lot.  And my very favorite happens to be a game based on wiping out all the opposition.  I'm not about to judge anybody for enjoying something I too enjoy.
> 
> But isn't there room to at least consider what these super violent games could be doing to some kids?



One of the things the schizo kids have in common is heavy use of violent video games. They know that; the investigators always look for it. Like torturing animals being a marker for the childhood of a serial killer, the young rampage shooters nearly always play these games for hours and hours.

I just started rereading the Willian Landay novel "Defending Jacob" in which a District Attorney doesn't believe his son killed someone at school, and goes on not believing it for years. The reader begins to wonder pretty soon, though, and I noticed that the kid plays a lot of violent video games for long periods. The author knew how to worry us ---


----------



## Circe

Foxfyre said:


> Government didn't deal with smoking in a vacuum.  Had there been a large hue and cry against regulations on smoking, government would have been backed off.    In our system of government, government can only do to the people what the people allow it to do.  Whining, griping, and letters to the editor aren't sufficient.  When we continue to re-elect people who do whatever to us via laws and regulation, they actually do take that as license to keep doing it to us.   And if people do not comply with the law, government doesn't enforce the law.
> 
> I point to illegal immigration as a case in point.  With so many law breakers, government feels powerless to do anything about it so looks for ways to allow it.
> 
> I point to prohibiition as another case in point.  The people wanting alcohol triggered so much violence in the 20's and 30's and government was so helpless to control it, much less stop it, that the government threw in the towel and repealed the law.
> 
> Therefore banning the video games or violent content in the media, movies, etc. is also not the answer.  Changing the will of the public is.    If the public doesn't want something different enough to make it happen, it won't happen.   And if it isn't having a substantial negative effect on the public at large, there is no reason to even try to make it happen.



I find this a very interesting post, because I also have been thinking this way, that there is only so much a government can do, for fear of being overthrown or simply ignored.

Suppose this government tried confiscation of every assault rifle: I would love this, in theory, but I believe it would result in revolution and the split up of the country. We are on the edge anyway. I think we are on the edge of collapse as a nation periodically, and one time, of course, it happened. I hadn't thought of Prohibition crime as one of those times, but now I think it was. The Vietnam War protests were very dangerous, I realize now -- that's why they bribed young people to go sit down and shut up by ending the draft.

I have long known people who can't stop something, but they want to seem to be in control, so they "permit" it!  Wow. You are saying this is happening with illegal immigration -- the government has to find a way to say it's okay for Mexico to move north, because they simply cannot stop it. The same with these assault rifles, I suppose. I know the government may be powerless to stop all these rampage killings, and little by little we may well move into a culture like Mexico -- where everyone ignores a powerless government and constantly beheads and machine guns everyone else. After all, there are more countries like that than there are civilized countries, certainly in this hemisphere. 
We are the outliers: it's the extremely violent and murderous societies that are the norm.


----------



## MDiver

I've been playing violent video games for years and still have no desire to run amok and attack malls, theaters, schools, restaurants or other public places.  It's just fictional entertainment.
Any individuals actually triggered to do such because of a software game, would have likely done so without the help of any game and they are in an extreme minority.
We need to stop considering penalizing the normal because of the acts of the very few abnormal.


----------



## Circe

MDiver said:


> Any individuals actually triggered to do such because of a software game, would have likely done so without the help of any game and they are in an extreme minority.
> We need to stop considering penalizing the normal because of the acts of the very few abnormal.



They are in an extreme minority, so far, but rampage shooting is a syndrome with certain typical features, and one of them is indeed heavy violent video game playing. 

What young people train to do, they may well go on doing. I remember parents long ago who gave their little daughter ballet lessons for nine years. Then she decided to move to New York and join the New York Ballet. They were horrified --- they had wanted her to be a doctor or lawyer. 

Silly them, right? She had a major trained skill, and she intended to use it.

I think that can happen with hate-filled kids who want to get back at people: they've trained much of their lives with these video game assault rifle-type weapons, and so --- that's how they decide to do it! They know how, they've trained.

But I agree with you that there is no reason to suppose most of us, me included, will use our game training this way.........................

Though it would probably come in handy if there were a home intruder. Hey, couldn't hurt, right?


----------



## PaulS1950

Circe said:


> They are in an extreme minority, so far, but rampage shooting is a syndrome with certain typical features, and one of them is indeed heavy violent video game playing.
> 
> What young people train to do, they may well go on doing. I remember parents long ago who gave their little daughter ballet lessons for nine years. Then she decided to move to New York and join the New York Ballet. They were horrified --- they had wanted her to be a doctor or lawyer.
> 
> Silly them, right? She had a major trained skill, and she intended to use it.
> 
> I think that can happen with hate-filled kids who want to get back at people: they've trained much of their lives with these video game assault rifle-type weapons, and so --- that's how they decide to do it! They know how, they've trained.
> 
> But I agree with you that there is no reason to suppose most of us, me included, will use our game training this way.........................
> 
> Though it would probably come in handy if there were a home intruder. Hey, couldn't hurt, right?




The facts don't bear out your perception of what is happening.
For the last 50 years (more actually) the number of mass murders have not increased. as a matter of fact 2012 was a low year statistically speaking with fewer than normal dead due to mass murders.
Since the introduction of violent video games the incidence of violent crime amoung the 10 - 18 year olds has dropped steadily. 

There is simply no evidence that people learn anything violent from these games. On the contrary, if the statistics tell us anything it is that these video games are lowering the violent crime rate of the players. No, I don't subscribe to that belief but the facts point to that if we don't know what other factors are involved (and we don't). Even if the games did trigger some kids to criminally act out you have no power to suspend the first amendment to enact a ban on them. You can't punish people without a trial and a conviction. This is the USA and those are the rights we have and hold most dear.


----------



## beagle9

PaulS1950 said:


> Circe said:
> 
> 
> 
> They are in an extreme minority, so far, but rampage shooting is a syndrome with certain typical features, and one of them is indeed heavy violent video game playing.
> 
> What young people train to do, they may well go on doing. I remember parents long ago who gave their little daughter ballet lessons for nine years. Then she decided to move to New York and join the New York Ballet. They were horrified --- they had wanted her to be a doctor or lawyer.
> 
> Silly them, right? She had a major trained skill, and she intended to use it.
> 
> I think that can happen with hate-filled kids who want to get back at people: they've trained much of their lives with these video game assault rifle-type weapons, and so --- that's how they decide to do it! They know how, they've trained.
> 
> But I agree with you that there is no reason to suppose most of us, me included, will use our game training this way.........................
> 
> Though it would probably come in handy if there were a home intruder. Hey, couldn't hurt, right?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The facts don't bear out your perception of what is happening.
> For the last 50 years (more actually) the number of mass murders have not increased. as a matter of fact 2012 was a low year statistically speaking with fewer than normal dead due to mass murders.
> Since the introduction of violent video games the incidence of violent crime amoung the 10 - 18 year olds has dropped steadily.
> 
> There is simply no evidence that people learn anything violent from these games. On the contrary, if the statistics tell us anything it is that these video games are lowering the violent crime rate of the players. No, I don't subscribe to that belief but the facts point to that if we don't know what other factors are involved (and we don't). Even if the games did trigger some kids to criminally act out you have no power to suspend the first amendment to enact a ban on them. You can't punish people without a trial and a conviction. This is the USA and those are the rights we have and hold most dear.
Click to expand...

So stick our heads in the sand and forget about it eh ? NOT!!!!!! The signature on the crimes has changed, and so have the players involved, where as we have an up take in a certain heinous acts being committed in America lately, where as it involves specifics and also analytical evidence in which gives us a trail back to the sources involved. Sad thing is, is that the source or multiple sources have a way of throwing everyone off their trail, and this for many reasons and excuses that are used and/or is given by these indirect players who are involved. This is why I quickly came out against these players or possible culprits early on, and warned that the trails will become cold quickly in confusion there of afterwards, because this is the signature of the crimes, where as it is quickly grouped in with everything that it isn't or has nothing to do with, just so the act, and those who are some of the indirect culprits as pertaining to these acts, can then somehow live on for another day of action, while we are still sitting here in confusion, and therefore scratching our heads within the word "Duh", and living in disbelief afterwards.

No one wants to ban anything, but rather change the extreme violent messaging that is going on within these things, and maybe get back to a time when the messaging was more peaceful in the promotion of, while still remaining challenging, fun and exciting all at the same time.

Lets look at comedy as another area that has disintegrated over time now, and how the comedians of today don't think that they can be funny, unless they are as disgusting (i.e. Bill Mare and others), as they happily can be, and cursing all the time etc. but then think back a ways about a Bob Hope, Jerry Lewis, Jerry Clower, and many others who did not curse or become disgusting in their message or messaging, and how they made people laugh until they cried. Now why can't these comedians of today do the same? 

To Barney for them maybe? The desensitizing of todays America has shown to be a very dangerous ordeal for many, but the trails quickly run cold when trying to get at the culprits or their messaging. Why is it that they are getting away with it like they are now ? Are their none who can stand and back it all up to a better time and/or change it into something better for America, or are we through in America finally ?


----------



## beagle9

Circe said:


> MDiver said:
> 
> 
> 
> Any individuals actually triggered to do such because of a software game, would have likely done so without the help of any game and they are in an extreme minority.
> We need to stop considering penalizing the normal because of the acts of the very few abnormal.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They are in an extreme minority, so far, but rampage shooting is a syndrome with certain typical features, and one of them is indeed heavy violent video game playing.
> 
> What young people train to do, they may well go on doing. I remember parents long ago who gave their little daughter ballet lessons for nine years. Then she decided to move to New York and join the New York Ballet. They were horrified --- they had wanted her to be a doctor or lawyer.
> 
> Silly them, right? She had a major trained skill, and she intended to use it.
> 
> I think that can happen with hate-filled kids who want to get back at people: they've trained much of their lives with these video game assault rifle-type weapons, and so --- that's how they decide to do it! They know how, they've trained.
> 
> But I agree with you that there is no reason to suppose most of us, me included, will use our game training this way.........................
> 
> Though it would probably come in handy if there were a home intruder. Hey, couldn't hurt, right?
Click to expand...

A bad economy with messages of little to no hope for the young and/or their parents, is yet another piece of this multi-layered cake that is also causing some damage in society these days as well.


----------



## beagle9

MDiver said:


> I've been playing violent video games for years and still have no desire to run amok and attack malls, theaters, schools, restaurants or other public places.  It's just fictional entertainment.
> Any individuals actually triggered to do such because of a software game, would have likely done so without the help of any game and they are in an extreme minority.
> We need to stop considering penalizing the normal because of the acts of the very few abnormal.


Problem is, is that "abnormal" these days is on the rise, while "normal" is on the decline in society, and yes this is caused by multiple reasons being involved, but some reasons are right there in front of us, and  they cannot be denied no matter how it is spun to suggest otherwise.


----------



## Foxfyre

MDiver said:


> I've been playing violent video games for years and still have no desire to run amok and attack malls, theaters, schools, restaurants or other public places.  It's just fictional entertainment.
> Any individuals actually triggered to do such because of a software game, would have likely done so without the help of any game and they are in an extreme minority.
> We need to stop considering penalizing the normal because of the acts of the very few abnormal.



Note to Paul:  You have made an eloquent argument for your point of view and though I still disagree with you, I do respect that.  I have read and thought about your posts.

To MDive:  But the mentally unstable may be more susceptible to suggestion than the average person.  Those exposed to religion may become religious fanatics.  Those exposed to basket weaving may become compulsive basket weavers.  But the theory is that those exposed to extreme repetitious violence in video games are being programmed to see mayhem as the way to achieve, to win, to be admired, to claim your moment of fame.  And at some point they act it out.


----------



## beagle9

Foxfyre said:


> MDiver said:
> 
> 
> 
> I've been playing violent video games for years and still have no desire to run amok and attack malls, theaters, schools, restaurants or other public places.  It's just fictional entertainment.
> Any individuals actually triggered to do such because of a software game, would have likely done so without the help of any game and they are in an extreme minority.
> We need to stop considering penalizing the normal because of the acts of the very few abnormal.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Note to Paul:  You have made an eloquent argument for your point of view and though I still disagree with you, I do respect that.  I have read and thought about your posts.
> 
> To MDive:  But the mentally unstable may be more susceptible to suggestion than the average person.  Those exposed to religion may become religious fanatics.  Those exposed to basket weaving may become compulsive basket weavers.  But the theory is that those exposed to extreme repetitious violence in video games are being programmed to see mayhem as the way to achieve, to win, to be admired, to claim your moment of fame.  And at some point they act it out.
Click to expand...

Even if they don't act it out or upon it, what kind of citizens are they becoming as fathers or mothers, brothers or sisters, daughters and sons, bread winners who are of decent character or not in America ? What are their values or virtues, their parenting ideals, visions or concepts down the line, and what will be their temporments after such bombardments of the cultural things we are finding exceptable more and more in today's societies ? What I am seeing all around us anymore, is not a very good thing at all, and these acts are confirming my suspicions as is being found in it all.

How does it feel to be living in a world that has changed so rapidly around you, that you as a person have become a mere stranger found within it now ? That's how I feel more and more these days, but the good thing is, is that I havn't that much farther to go in life, so it will be left to the newbies to somehow take heed, and then to get to where they need to be in their life, and this before it consumes them and their families totally.


----------



## Foxfyre

beagle9 said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MDiver said:
> 
> 
> 
> I've been playing violent video games for years and still have no desire to run amok and attack malls, theaters, schools, restaurants or other public places.  It's just fictional entertainment.
> Any individuals actually triggered to do such because of a software game, would have likely done so without the help of any game and they are in an extreme minority.
> We need to stop considering penalizing the normal because of the acts of the very few abnormal.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Note to Paul:  You have made an eloquent argument for your point of view and though I still disagree with you, I do respect that.  I have read and thought about your posts.
> 
> To MDive:  But the mentally unstable may be more susceptible to suggestion than the average person.  Those exposed to religion may become religious fanatics.  Those exposed to basket weaving may become compulsive basket weavers.  But the theory is that those exposed to extreme repetitious violence in video games are being programmed to see mayhem as the way to achieve, to win, to be admired, to claim your moment of fame.  And at some point they act it out.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Even if they don't act it out or upon it, what kind of citizens are they becoming as fathers or mothers, brothers or sisters, daughters and sons, bread winners who are of decent character or not in America ? What are their values or virtues, their parenting ideals, visions or concepts down the line, and what will be their temporments after such bombardments of the cultural things we are finding exceptable more and more in today's societies ? What I am seeing all around us anymore, is not a very good thing at all, and these acts are confirming my suspicions as is being found in it all.
> 
> How does it feel to be living in a world that has changed so rapidly around you, that you as a person have become a mere stranger found within it now ? That's how I feel more and more these days, but the good thing is, is that I havn't that much farther to go in life, so it will be left to the newbies to somehow take heed, and then to get to where they need to be in their life, and this before it consumes them and their families totally.
Click to expand...


This speaks to my sub theme here about what sort of society we have become and whether that is preferable to the society we were.  It certainly hasn't happened overnight.  It happens by this one or that one pushing the envelope just a little, waiting for the gasps to subside, then pushing it a little more.  As a result what would have been culturally offensive gratuitous sex, violence, vulgar language, etc. in a previous generation is accepted as the norm in this one.

Those who feel that it is normal tend to denigrate that earlier culture.  And those who prefer that earlier culture tend to push back on the current one.

But all things considered, I think I can list more negatives as a result of our current culture than what I can find in the previous one.  But I'm sure there are others who would disagree.


----------



## beagle9

Foxfyre said:


> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> Note to Paul:  You have made an eloquent argument for your point of view and though I still disagree with you, I do respect that.  I have read and thought about your posts.
> 
> To MDive:  But the mentally unstable may be more susceptible to suggestion than the average person.  Those exposed to religion may become religious fanatics.  Those exposed to basket weaving may become compulsive basket weavers.  But the theory is that those exposed to extreme repetitious violence in video games are being programmed to see mayhem as the way to achieve, to win, to be admired, to claim your moment of fame.  And at some point they act it out.
> 
> 
> 
> Even if they don't act it out or upon it, what kind of citizens are they becoming as fathers or mothers, brothers or sisters, daughters and sons, bread winners who are of decent character or not in America ? What are their values or virtues, their parenting ideals, visions or concepts down the line, and what will be their temporments after such bombardments of the cultural things we are finding exceptable more and more in today's societies ? What I am seeing all around us anymore, is not a very good thing at all, and these acts are confirming my suspicions as is being found in it all.
> 
> How does it feel to be living in a world that has changed so rapidly around you, that you as a person have become a mere stranger found within it now ? That's how I feel more and more these days, but the good thing is, is that I havn't that much farther to go in life, so it will be left to the newbies to somehow take heed, and then to get to where they need to be in their life, and this before it consumes them and their families totally.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This speaks to my sub theme here about what sort of society we have become and whether that is preferable to the society we were.  It certainly hasn't happened overnight.  It happens by this one or that one pushing the envelope just a little, waiting for the gasps to subside, then pushing it a little more.  As a result what would have been culturally offensive gratuitous sex, violence, vulgar language, etc. in a previous generation is accepted as the norm in this one.
> 
> Those who feel that it is normal tend to denigrate that earlier culture.  And those who prefer that earlier culture tend to push back on the current one.
> 
> But all things considered, I think I can list more negatives as a result of our current culture than what I can find in the previous one.  But I'm sure there are others who would disagree.
Click to expand...

We are on the same page in this all the way...It all comes down to who is getting over us all, and then over on us all....I used to respect my elders/company owners and the boss big time everywhere I worked, as I was taught this way in my life, and I held them to a high standard when dealing with them, but more and more I began to see a side of them that I couldnot or didnot associate myself with anylonger, nor could I associate them to my values and expectations held of them in my life anylonger, so in this they had become strangers on to me & me on to them, but this is what they wanted anyways now that I see, and the same for the politicians as we have the same problems with them also..... Thanks


----------



## Circe

PaulS1950 said:


> The facts don't bear out your perception of what is happening.
> For the last 50 years (more actually) the number of mass murders have not increased. as a matter of fact 2012 was a low year statistically speaking with fewer than normal dead due to mass murders.
> Since the introduction of violent video games the incidence of violent crime amoung the 10 - 18 year olds has dropped steadily.



I notice you assert this repeatedly but never cite statistics to back it up. I have seen a number of people who simply deny that any of this is happening, and that's your argument. I don't think you will find many people to agree with you.  2012 was a disaster year in rampage shootings and 2013 is continuing the copycat killings.

One thing I'd like to clear up is what is included in this terrible public problem: it's not just "mass" murders, however that is defined. (How many dead first-graders before it qualifies as a mass?) Not all of these stranger-killers succeed in making a high kill rate -- they may kill one or two or three. 

The real differentiating characteristic is that it isn't personal --- they just want to kill people, any people. So if a high school student is bullied and goes after the bully with a 38, that isn't really a spree killing --- it's murder. 

But the guy in Alabama holding the autistic kid in the bunker is a spree killer, even though he only killed the bus driver so far, as of this writing. He didn't care who he killed, he wanted two very young boys, any very young boys, as hostages (for some reason that isn't obvious). The second one he grabbed managed to get away. 

The important thing in these killings is that the killers don't care who they kill, they just want to kill, kill, kill -- anyone would consider the Oregon mall killer a rampage killer, but he only actually killed two. But anytime someone comes into a mall and starts shooting shoppers with an AR-15, that's pretty scary. I don't think any of us would want it in a mall near us.

Probably spree or rampage shooting is the better descriptor than mass. They all WANT to make a large kill count, but only some of them succeed. And they are going after strangers: that's key.


----------



## beagle9

Circe said:


> PaulS1950 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The facts don't bear out your perception of what is happening.
> For the last 50 years (more actually) the number of mass murders have not increased. as a matter of fact 2012 was a low year statistically speaking with fewer than normal dead due to mass murders.
> Since the introduction of violent video games the incidence of violent crime amoung the 10 - 18 year olds has dropped steadily.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I notice you assert this repeatedly but never cite statistics to back it up. I have seen a number of people who simply deny that any of this is happening, and that's your argument. I don't think you will find many people to agree with you.  2012 was a disaster year in rampage shootings and 2013 is continuing the copycat killings.
> 
> One thing I'd like to clear up is what is included in this terrible public problem: it's not just "mass" murders, however that is defined. (How many dead first-graders before it qualifies as a mass?) Not all of these stranger-killers succeed in making a high kill rate -- they may kill one or two or three.
> 
> The real differentiating characteristic is that it isn't personal --- they just want to kill people, any people. So if a high school student is bullied and goes after the bully with a 38, that isn't really a spree killing --- it's murder.
> 
> But the guy in Alabama holding the autistic kid in the bunker is a spree killer, even though he only killed the bus driver so far, as of this writing. He didn't care who he killed, he wanted two very young boys, any very young boys, as hostages (for some reason that isn't obvious). The second one he grabbed managed to get away.
> 
> The important thing in these killings is that the killers don't care who they kill, they just want to kill, kill, kill -- anyone would consider the Oregon mall killer a rampage killer, but he only actually killed two. But anytime someone comes into a mall and starts shooting shoppers with an AR-15, that's pretty scary. I don't think any of us would want it in a mall near us.
> 
> Probably spree or rampage shooting is the better descriptor than mass. They all WANT to make a large kill count, but only some of them succeed. And they are going after strangers: that's key.
Click to expand...

Yes there is this fear by some who post here, that if they don't downplay it all somehow and in someway, then it will lead to a direct assault on the second amendment by a portion of the government as controlled by the left who is in charge for this term in which was re-elected, but I say if they would just be real and speak to the problem in an honest and open manor, the same results for them in which they desire will come, because the government is open to all suggestions when it comes to citizens (especially children) dying in these situations.

The main thing, is to be honest about it, and smart about it in an honest way in order to by pass the idiots who think they have to attack the second amendment or legal gun owners (who are no threat to no one but bad people) if they are placed in defense mode, where as all the feel good lefties whom knee jerk and act dumb about it all want to do, is to make their point somehow, and in someway in order to apear the smartest, and to stay ahead of the frey. This they do for fear of being left behind on the situation or accused as enablers in the situation if they are enablers, especially when the ax to these sorts of things finally falls in any direction it may fall in, or once an understanding is learned within the real deal of what is going on or has been allowed to go on all because of _______________________________________ ?


----------



## Uncensored2008

Foxfyre said:


> That is something new to consider.  However in comic books the plot is constantly changing so you don't become fixated on a single scenario.  And it requires using imagination and some creativity to have fun with a GI Joe so I see that as generally a healthy thing.  The video games though--it is the same repetitious violence over and over and over as the player tries to hone his skills and get more and more proficient.  I think the way that might affect the brain could be different.



That would true IF they play only a single game. I looked through my Steam library and was shocked to see 168 games (don't tell my wife!) These range from hardcore flight simulators like Flight Sim 2010  and KA-50, to racing sims like NFS and Dirt (1,2,3), to RTS games like command and conquer, Rise of Nations, Empire Earth, to the Total War games, to Hack & Slash like Torchlight, Diablo, Dungeon Siege, to real RPG like Skyrim and the Witcher, and of course the FPS games as well.

The point is, that most gamers have a WIDE variety of games, and I don't even get into the sports games, which add another whole realm.


----------



## Skull Pilot

AmyNation said:


> Ban guns
> Ban Hollywood violence
> Ban antidepressants
> 
> 
> It's all the same blame game.



If everyone is to blame then no one is at fault.

It's the age old dodge.


----------



## PaulS1950

Society evolves with each new generation. It is as we reach out teen years that we begin to question what we have been taught. We test it all and what still works we hang on to and what doesn't goes by the wayside. Clothes, music, moral standards, foods and everything in our lives is openly examined. It has been going on since the first teenager walked upright. It is a natural progession in most mamilian species but especially in primates. The young always seem to challenge the status quo.


----------



## Foxfyre

PaulS1950 said:


> Society evolves with each new generation. It is as we reach out teen years that we begin to question what we have been taught. We test it all and what still works we hang on to and what doesn't goes by the wayside. Clothes, music, moral standards, foods and everything in our lives is openly examined. It has been going on since the first teenager walked upright. It is a natural progession in most mamilian species but especially in primates. The young always seem to challenge the status quo.



The young have always pushed the envelope and tested the 'system', yes, and most of the changes that resulted have been positive.  It is how we have evolved and improved ourselves as a culture and society.   But the cultural revolution of the 1960's was the first time ever that so many of the young totally and completely rejected most of the traditional values of their parents/the older generation.   And a lot of that has not produced improvements but has rather created a more vulgar, more coarse, more selfishly permissive, and more dangerous society.

I don't know if we can ever unring that bell, but I am hoping that the young of this day can be educated in constructive ways so that they will push the envelope back the other way and thereby again improve us as a people.

I have to believe that the whole problem of social violence cannot be blamed on a proliferation of guns as former, much more peaceful societies, were even more armed than is the current generation.  And certainly violent video games is not the whole problem either.   But I think we're going to have to set aside the partisan blame game and sanctimonious finger pointing and look deeper to find solutions.


----------



## PaulS1950

Most of the "revolutionaries of the 60s are part of corporate America now.... That was one of the changes that didn't work. I just hope the present generation finds out the socialistic ideas they are living with now don't work before it is too late.
we have tried socialism before on this continent and it nearly killed the entire population. When the leaders of that colony made the decision that "if you didn't work, you didn't eat" the colony actually began to prosper.


----------



## Foxfyre

PaulS1950 said:


> Most of the "revolutionaries of the 60s are part of corporate America now.... That was one of the changes that didn't work. I just hope the present generation finds out the socialistic ideas they are living with now don't work before it is too late.
> we have tried socialism before on this continent and it nearly killed the entire population. When the leaders of that colony made the decision that "if you didn't work, you didn't eat" the colony actually began to prosper.



And that is the most difficult obstacle we have to get past.  One component of society really believes that promotion of victimization and justification for helplessness, etc. is the compassionate route.  Others, like you just suggested, are just as convinced that the tough love concept is the most compassionate because it produces far fewer unintended negative consequences.

Our current society that has been programmed to see itself as victims, to see the successful as the oppressive enemy and unworthy to have what they have, and to expect somebody else to raise them up out of whatever situation they find themselves in.   I wonder how much that conditioning plays into the mindset of the one who goes off the deep end and tries to exalt himself through mass murder?


----------



## Underhill

Foxfyre said:


> PaulS1950 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Most of the "revolutionaries of the 60s are part of corporate America now.... That was one of the changes that didn't work. I just hope the present generation finds out the socialistic ideas they are living with now don't work before it is too late.
> we have tried socialism before on this continent and it nearly killed the entire population. When the leaders of that colony made the decision that "if you didn't work, you didn't eat" the colony actually began to prosper.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And that is the most difficult obstacle we have to get past.  One component of society really believes that promotion of victimization and justification for helplessness, etc. is the compassionate route.  Others, like you just suggested, are just as convinced that the tough love concept is the most compassionate because it produces far fewer unintended negative consequences.
> 
> Our current society that has been programmed to see itself as victims, to see the successful as the oppressive enemy and unworthy to have what they have, and to expect somebody else to raise them up out of whatever situation they find themselves in.   I wonder how much that conditioning plays into the mindset of the one who goes off the deep end and tries to exalt himself through mass murder?
Click to expand...


I think you guys are exaggerating the problem. 

Almost nobody in this country are actual socialist.    All but the most liberal believe in capitalism to one degree or another and those extremist are few and far between.    Strong safety nets are not socialism.   

As our president said a few weeks ago.  (paraphrased)  

"safety nets allow people to take more economic risk in the hopes of prosperity"

 I think there is a lot of truth to that.


----------



## Foxfyre

Underhill said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PaulS1950 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Most of the "revolutionaries of the 60s are part of corporate America now.... That was one of the changes that didn't work. I just hope the present generation finds out the socialistic ideas they are living with now don't work before it is too late.
> we have tried socialism before on this continent and it nearly killed the entire population. When the leaders of that colony made the decision that "if you didn't work, you didn't eat" the colony actually began to prosper.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And that is the most difficult obstacle we have to get past.  One component of society really believes that promotion of victimization and justification for helplessness, etc. is the compassionate route.  Others, like you just suggested, are just as convinced that the tough love concept is the most compassionate because it produces far fewer unintended negative consequences.
> 
> Our current society that has been programmed to see itself as victims, to see the successful as the oppressive enemy and unworthy to have what they have, and to expect somebody else to raise them up out of whatever situation they find themselves in.   I wonder how much that conditioning plays into the mindset of the one who goes off the deep end and tries to exalt himself through mass murder?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I think you guys are exaggerating the problem.
> 
> Almost nobody in this country are actual socialist.    All but the most liberal believe in capitalism to one degree or another and those extremist are few and far between.    Strong safety nets are not socialism.
> 
> As our president said a few weeks ago.  (paraphrased)
> 
> "safety nets allow people to take more economic risk in the hopes of prosperity"
> 
> I think there is a lot of truth to that.
Click to expand...


Opinion noted and worthy of consideration and discussion for sure, but perhaps not on this thread unless it can be tied to the OP.

What is your theory for the motivation of the typical person bent on mass assassination of random innocents?


----------



## PaulS1950

Foxfyre, you are trying to find a reason for an unreasonable act. Crazy people (tired of the PC thing) don't have reason - they are crazy. Their motive might be anything but it won't be reasonable to us. It wouldn't even sound like a motive to us. If someone sneaks up behind you and screams - you jump. You don't have a logical reason, you are reacting to a stimulus that is autonomic. Crazy people react to imaginary stimulii and wild swings in emotional and behavioral patterns that even they don't recognize.
BTW if someone sneaks up behind me and screams they are likely to pick themselves up off the ground because I don't jump - I turn around swinging. Lessons learned while going to high school in the 60s.


----------



## rorynettles

The murder movie
The murder investigation movie
The murderer chase sceen movie
The murder trial  movie 
The prison movie  featuring the murderer
The cowboy and indians killing each other movie
The war movie where we get to see lots of different way to kill other humans

America needs to ban all  these polititions who do not have the balls to ban Hollywood

A couple of poems to open your eyes America

"GENTLE HANDS"

I gently place these words in your hands,

My message to America put in a rhyme,
If there was ever a time to take action, now is the time,

You are free to publish with or without my name 
Send it around the world it's all the same

It's not fame or fortune that I am seeking,
I just want all our babies for safe keeping,

I humbly place this poem in your hands,
It is time for Americans to take their  stands,

It is time for America to open an eye,
Before anymore babies have to die, 

I know some of you parents won't like these words,
Let's ban violence on TV, this country has enough nerds,

The whole country is hurting because of what has been done,
It is the violence on TV teaching our youth how to kill with a gun,

We bring it into our homes and our kids watch it every day,
It would all be banned if I had anything to say,

Each violent movie they watch has a lasting imprint on their brain,
If you don't think this is true than you must be insane,

Our  youths hero's are killers, it's sick and it's sad but it's true,
It's not Arnolds or Sylvesters fault , the blame lies with me and you.

We have created whole generation of youth that entertains themselves by watching one man kill and the other one die,
If this country does not ban violence on TV and the Big Screen, many more tears will fill many more eye,

I hope my language is not too strong.
It is time to stop teaching our youth how easy it is to do wrong,


By, R M Nettles



A collective poem to the Parents and  leaders in the United States of America and its citizens, from the souls of the 20 innocent children who lost their lives on your watch in Connecticut one December Day in 2012.  This may be the place to start, if you are going to stop the violence.

                   We the 20


Dont cry for us America, we chose to leave before our souls were corrupted too,
We were called home by God so that other souls would be taught the right things to do,
You see there is this  thing you call the TV which we watched all the times,
It was beginning to have a horrible negative impact on our souls and our minds,
Our heros had become these violent killing machines they call super stars, and we all wanted to be like them,
 Some of their names where, Arnold, Bruce, Sylvester, Tom and Will,
And our parents paid them well to show us all the ways there are to kill.
Every day,  Americas families pay  to invite them into their homes to teach our innocent children its ok to kill and do wrong,
The favorite weapon of choice,
Is the firearm of course
So, is it any wonder why after hundreds and thousands of lessons on how to kill,
Some of our youth do it so well
It is against the law for the TV to show us how to make love or even how to breast  feed our young,
But it is ok to teach us how to use a gun to kill a man and even watch him die as he is hung,
Every day  parents pay to teach our young minds how to watch people die,
We do it so well now, we dont even cry,
We have named a  few names of the rich and famous who have helped warp our brain,
It is America, as a collective group of parents and leaders who are to blame ,
It has little to do with the possessing of or the type of  the gun,
It is the multimedia we watch, entertaining us, with all the  wrong ways to use it to have fun,

By,   R M Nettles


----------



## Uncensored2008

rorynettles said:


> The murder movie
> The murder investigation movie
> The murderer chase sceen movie
> The murder trial  movie
> The prison movie  featuring the murderer
> The cowboy and indians killing each other movie
> The war movie where we get to see lots of different way to kill other humans
> 
> America needs to ban all  these polititions who do not have the balls to ban Hollywood
> 
> A couple of poems to open your eyes America
> 
> "GENTLE HANDS"
> 
> I gently place these words in your hands,
> 
> My message to America put in a rhyme,
> If there was ever a time to take action, now is the time,
> 
> You are free to publish with or without my name
> Send it around the world it's all the same
> 
> It's not fame or fortune that I am seeking,
> I just want all our babies for safe keeping,
> 
> I humbly place this poem in your hands,
> It is time for Americans to take their  stands,
> 
> It is time for America to open an eye,
> Before anymore babies have to die,
> 
> I know some of you parents won't like these words,
> Let's ban violence on TV, this country has enough nerds,
> 
> The whole country is hurting because of what has been done,
> It is the violence on TV teaching our youth how to kill with a gun,
> 
> We bring it into our homes and our kids watch it every day,
> It would all be banned if I had anything to say,
> 
> Each violent movie they watch has a lasting imprint on their brain,
> If you don't think this is true than you must be insane,
> 
> Our  youths hero's are killers, it's sick and it's sad but it's true,
> It's not Arnolds or Sylvesters fault , the blame lies with me and you.
> 
> We have created whole generation of youth that entertains themselves by watching one man kill and the other one die,
> If this country does not ban violence on TV and the Big Screen, many more tears will fill many more eye,
> 
> I hope my language is not too strong.
> It is time to stop teaching our youth how easy it is to do wrong,
> 
> 
> By, R M Nettles
> 
> 
> 
> A collective poem to the Parents and  leaders in the United States of America and its citizens, from the souls of the 20 innocent children who lost their lives on your watch in Connecticut one December Day in 2012.  This may be the place to start, if you are going to stop the violence.
> 
> We the 20
> 
> 
> Dont cry for us America, we chose to leave before our souls were corrupted too,
> We were called home by God so that other souls would be taught the right things to do,
> You see there is this  thing you call the TV which we watched all the times,
> It was beginning to have a horrible negative impact on our souls and our minds,
> Our heros had become these violent killing machines they call super stars, and we all wanted to be like them,
> Some of their names where, Arnold, Bruce, Sylvester, Tom and Will,
> And our parents paid them well to show us all the ways there are to kill.
> Every day,  Americas families pay  to invite them into their homes to teach our innocent children its ok to kill and do wrong,
> The favorite weapon of choice,
> Is the firearm of course
> So, is it any wonder why after hundreds and thousands of lessons on how to kill,
> Some of our youth do it so well
> It is against the law for the TV to show us how to make love or even how to breast  feed our young,
> But it is ok to teach us how to use a gun to kill a man and even watch him die as he is hung,
> Every day  parents pay to teach our young minds how to watch people die,
> We do it so well now, we dont even cry,
> We have named a  few names of the rich and famous who have helped warp our brain,
> It is America, as a collective group of parents and leaders who are to blame ,
> It has little to do with the possessing of or the type of  the gun,
> It is the multimedia we watch, entertaining us, with all the  wrong ways to use it to have fun,
> 
> By,   R M Nettles



Is that Vogon poetry?


----------



## Foxfyre

At least one congressperson has called for legislation upgrading warnings on violent video games, etc.  (I read that somewhere awhile back and am too lazy to hunt it up again right now, but will try to do so if anybody really cares.)

But after a local discussion on this topic, somebody sent me this article for consideration.  Without any comment on its authority or competence, it is interesting:



> *The Effect of Television and Video Game Violence on Children*
> 
> As seen in the experiment with the Bobo doll, young children often imitate viewed aggression because they associate people on television with being role models for adulthood. Children believe the action is justified because a &#8220;grownup&#8221; did it, and therefore understand it to be a part of &#8220;growing up&#8221; in today's society. Television violence's effect on children results in aggressive behavior for a number of other reasons, including the following:
> &#8226;
> Elevated levels of arousal &#8212; D. K. Osborn and R. C. Endsley's study published in the journal Child Development (1971) shows how children are more apt to become emotionally aroused while viewing violent programs by measuring the increase in their galvanic skin responses. The increase is notably higher when viewing violent behavior.
> 
> &#8226;
> Excessive exposure leads to desensitizing people to violence &#8212; The shock of violent behavior subsides after repeated incidents of violence are experienced, thus stunting our ability to react appropriately and effectively to real-life situations and provide help when needed.
> 
> &#8226;
> Mixed messages on settling conflicts &#8212; Children don't often recognize whether a situation is fictional or based in reality, so when they see the timeless struggle of good versus evil played out on television by their favorite cartoon characters, they also develop a positive image of how good triumphs over evil through violent means.
> 
> The potential impact of video game violence has become a hot topic among psychologists, educators and, parents. In one study by Craig Anderson and Karen Dill (2000), researchers found that participants who played a violent video game scored higher on a measurement of aggression than those who had played a nonviolent video game.
> 
> Some psychologists suggest that the influence of violent video games may even be more pronounced than television and movies since children are actually taking on the role of the aggressor during game play. In a 2005 report, the American Psychological Association concluded that, based upon their research, exposure to violent video games increases aggressive feelings, thoughts, and behaviors.
> Aggressive Behavior - Psychology


----------



## Circe

Foxfyre said:


> *The Effect of Television and Video Game Violence on Children*
> 
> Some psychologists suggest that the influence of violent video games may even be more pronounced than television and movies since children are actually taking on the role of the aggressor during game play. In a 2005 report, the American Psychological Association concluded that, based upon their research, exposure to violent video games increases aggressive feelings, thoughts, and behaviors.
Click to expand...


I'm sure of it. There was a reason they didn't allow violent comics, movies, much of anything in the '50s --- this is what they were afraid of, what we have going on now. 

I was thinking today about how everything runs downhill, absolutely everything including discussion forums, movies, schools, novels, movies, games, airplane travel --- everything runs downhill to the lowest common denominator as it all becomes democratized. And then coarsened and made violent and crude.

There is a terrible cost to the out-of-control democratization of society to a very low common denominator indeed. We see it in the news: anything based on how many people click something will inevitably focus on two-headed babies, atrocities to children, and the sex acts of singing stars, because that's what the lowest common denominator most like, and there are more of them than anyone else. Same deal with games. MOST people are turned on by violence, and in a world where everyone (American) is rich, most games will be very violent to appeal to most people and soak up their money.


----------



## Uncensored2008

Circe said:


> I'm sure of it. There was a reason they didn't allow violent comics, movies, much of anything in the '50s --- this is what they were afraid of, what we have going on now.
> 
> I was thinking today about how everything runs downhill, absolutely everything including discussion forums, movies, schools, novels, movies, games, airplane travel --- everything runs downhill to the lowest common denominator as it all becomes democratized. And then coarsened and made violent and crude.
> 
> There is a terrible cost to the out-of-control democratization of society to a very low common denominator indeed. We see it in the news: anything based on how many people click something will inevitably focus on two-headed babies, atrocities to children, and the sex acts of singing stars, because that's what the lowest common denominator most like, and there are more of them than anyone else. Same deal with games. MOST people are turned on by violence, and in a world where everyone (American) is rich, most games will be very violent to appeal to most people and soak up their money.



So is your solution to silence the voice of the people and place our society into the hands of rulers who are not accountable to those who are ruled?


----------



## Foxfyre

Uncensored2008 said:


> Circe said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm sure of it. There was a reason they didn't allow violent comics, movies, much of anything in the '50s --- this is what they were afraid of, what we have going on now.
> 
> I was thinking today about how everything runs downhill, absolutely everything including discussion forums, movies, schools, novels, movies, games, airplane travel --- everything runs downhill to the lowest common denominator as it all becomes democratized. And then coarsened and made violent and crude.
> 
> There is a terrible cost to the out-of-control democratization of society to a very low common denominator indeed. We see it in the news: anything based on how many people click something will inevitably focus on two-headed babies, atrocities to children, and the sex acts of singing stars, because that's what the lowest common denominator most like, and there are more of them than anyone else. Same deal with games. MOST people are turned on by violence, and in a world where everyone (American) is rich, most games will be very violent to appeal to most people and soak up their money.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So is your solution to silence the voice of the people and place our society into the hands of rulers who are not accountable to those who are ruled?
Click to expand...


I don't think that is what Circe is saying though Uncensored.  I haven't been seeing Circe's posts long enough to say that for sure, but I don't get the sense that he (she?) is a big government type.   But I will let him/her define 'democratization' and ask for that definition before we make a misjudgment here/

I took it though that we did a lot better job of self regulation in that earlier generation.  The movie industry pretty well regulated itself and municipalities did the rest by prohibiting/banning what they considered unacceptable or obscene content.  It wasn't until the Warren Court that the federal government started getting involved and, in my opinion, that was a violation of the Founders' vision that we would be a people who govern ourselves.

So, depending on the definition he gives us, if he is kind enough to do so, I don't think it was democratization so much as still another case of big government interference that has obliterated Mayberry in favor of ever pushing the envelope for more gratuitious violence, sex, saliciousness, profanity, and all those things that do not improve us as a people.  And I say that not as a prude who has anything against First Amendment rights in any shape or form.   I just think the 'anything goes' attitudes of our modern society might not be good in every way for the kids.


----------



## peach174

Uncensored2008 said:


> Circe said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm sure of it. There was a reason they didn't allow violent comics, movies, much of anything in the '50s --- this is what they were afraid of, what we have going on now.
> 
> I was thinking today about how everything runs downhill, absolutely everything including discussion forums, movies, schools, novels, movies, games, airplane travel --- everything runs downhill to the lowest common denominator as it all becomes democratized. And then coarsened and made violent and crude.
> 
> There is a terrible cost to the out-of-control democratization of society to a very low common denominator indeed. We see it in the news: anything based on how many people click something will inevitably focus on two-headed babies, atrocities to children, and the sex acts of singing stars, because that's what the lowest common denominator most like, and there are more of them than anyone else. Same deal with games. MOST people are turned on by violence, and in a world where everyone (American) is rich, most games will be very violent to appeal to most people and soak up their money.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So is your solution to silence the voice of the people and place our society into the hands of rulers who are not accountable to those who are ruled?
Click to expand...



Circe is talking about ethics and morals.
Not exposing our children to violence and sex is ethics and it does not silence anyone.
The individual morals of this nation is going down the tubes.
It is not freedom to do what ever you want, say whatever you want,whenever you want to. Our society is breaking down because of these types of attitudes.
Ethics and morals structure the Society into being good and kind to each other. Respect for parents and teachers and other children. Respect for all life.
Sensationalizing our news, movies, video games,music and political legislation is taking us down the wrong path.
Doing what ever feels good, is not good at all and it is this freedom to do and say anything you wish, attitude that is turning us into a horrible society.
No Respect, no common sense and no individual accountability is ruining us.


----------



## Uncensored2008

Foxfyre said:


> I don't think that is what Circe is saying though Uncensored.  I haven't been seeing Circe's posts long enough to say that for sure, but I don't get the sense that he (she?) is a big government type.   But I will let him/her define 'democratization' and ask for that definition before we make a misjudgment here/
> 
> I took it though that we did a lot better job of self regulation in that earlier generation.  The movie industry pretty well regulated itself and municipalities did the rest by prohibiting/banning what they considered unacceptable or obscene content.  It wasn't until the Warren Court that the federal government started getting involved and, in my opinion, that was a violation of the Founders' vision that we would be a people who govern ourselves.
> 
> So, depending on the definition he gives us, if he is kind enough to do so, I don't think it was democratization so much as still another case of big government interference that has obliterated Mayberry in favor of ever pushing the envelope for more gratuitious violence, sex, saliciousness, profanity, and all those things that do not improve us as a people.  And I say that not as a prude who has anything against First Amendment rights in any shape or form.   I just think the 'anything goes' attitudes of our modern society might not be good in every way for the kids.



I don't know.

She went on quite the rant against democracy. Given the climate in Obama's America of the desire for and push toward dictatorship by the left, it warrants clarification.

Honestly, I don't think Mayberry ever existed. I remember the 60's as a more violent time, not less. I remember fights and murders as more common, though less hyped by the press.


----------



## Uncensored2008

peach174 said:


> Circe is talking about ethics and morals.
> Not exposing our children to violence and sex is ethics and it does not silence anyone.



Doesn't the call to ban violent media silence expression by it's very nature?



> The individual morals of this nation is going down the tubes.



Very true, and by design due to a concerted effort by the "counter-culture" to destroy any semblance of ethics or values in America.



> It is not freedom to do what ever you want, say whatever you want,whenever you want to. Our society is breaking down because of these types of attitudes.



I don't agree.

The breakdown is because the consequence of exercising freedom have been removed. Because our laws are designed to stymy the natural consequence of anti-social behavior. 



> Ethics and morals structure the Society into being good and kind to each other. Respect for parents and teachers and other children. Respect for all life.



Yes, but I don't think it is video games that change this. Our contempt for human life revolves around the celebration of abortion and the promotion of "gangsta culture" as desirable.



> Sensationalizing our news, movies, video games,music and political legislation is taking us down the wrong path.



I view it as a symptom, not the cause of the disintegration of society. 



> Doing what ever feels good, is not good at all and it is this freedom to do and say anything you wish, attitude that is turning us into a horrible society.
> No Respect, no common sense and no individual accountability is ruining us.



I'm not disagreeing, but there is far more to this than TV and video games. What is it that has parents take their 7 year old to get a "thug life" tattoo?  Why do we dress 6 year old girls up as prostitots?


----------



## Foxfyre

Uncensored2008 said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't think that is what Circe is saying though Uncensored.  I haven't been seeing Circe's posts long enough to say that for sure, but I don't get the sense that he (she?) is a big government type.   But I will let him/her define 'democratization' and ask for that definition before we make a misjudgment here/
> 
> I took it though that we did a lot better job of self regulation in that earlier generation.  The movie industry pretty well regulated itself and municipalities did the rest by prohibiting/banning what they considered unacceptable or obscene content.  It wasn't until the Warren Court that the federal government started getting involved and, in my opinion, that was a violation of the Founders' vision that we would be a people who govern ourselves.
> 
> So, depending on the definition he gives us, if he is kind enough to do so, I don't think it was democratization so much as still another case of big government interference that has obliterated Mayberry in favor of ever pushing the envelope for more gratuitious violence, sex, saliciousness, profanity, and all those things that do not improve us as a people.  And I say that not as a prude who has anything against First Amendment rights in any shape or form.   I just think the 'anything goes' attitudes of our modern society might not be good in every way for the kids.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't know.
> 
> She went on quite the rant against democracy. Given the climate in Obama's America of the desire for and push toward dictatorship by the left, it warrants clarification.
> 
> Honestly, I don't think Mayberry ever existed. I remember the 60's as a more violent time, not less. I remember fights and murders as more common, though less hyped by the press.
Click to expand...


Mayberry did exist for me.  I grew up in a town just like that.  Our parents didn't worry about us being snatched by some pervert.  We still shopped at the hobby shop run by the local pedophile and we knew to keep moving so he couldn't get close--the kids giggled about that a lot.  We had the run of the neighborhood because everybody's parents parented everybody and the only rules for where we could go was that we had to be within earshot of Mom's voice after sundown.

We saluted the flag with 'under God' and all, sang Christian carols in the school Christmas program--plus a coupld of Hannukah ones for the Jewish kids--and political correctness never occurred to any of us because we were taught to treat all people, especially our elders, with respect.   And Rhett Butler saying ""Frankly, my dear, I don't give a damn" to Scarlett O'Hara was quite ground breaking.

By my junior and senior years of highschool, we had moved to Santa Fe that was a really tough little town in those days.  I was exposed to the 'gang' group warfare concept for the first time and you did have to become street smart and watch your back more and realize that some situations were dangerous.    But the basic values weren't that much different than my former home town.  And we still were perfectly safe at school with no extra security.

Nobody worried about some nut gunniing down anybody, much less a classroom full of school kids.


----------



## Missourian

PaulS1950 said:


> Foxfyre, you are trying to find a reason for an unreasonable act. Crazy people (tired of the PC thing) don't have reason - they are crazy. Their motive might be anything but it won't be reasonable to us. It wouldn't even sound like a motive to us. If someone sneaks up behind you and screams - you jump. You don't have a logical reason, you are reacting to a stimulus that is autonomic. Crazy people react to imaginary stimulii and wild swings in emotional and behavioral patterns that even they don't recognize.
> BTW if someone sneaks up behind me and screams they are likely to pick themselves up off the ground because I don't jump - I turn around swinging. Lessons learned while going to high school in the 60s.



Excellent post Paul,  I must spread some reputation around...

It's also human nature to strive to find order in chaos...to find logic in the actions of others so we can 'Oh,  here it is,  a motivation'  and we can put it in a box and study it,  analyze it, formulate a solution, solve the problem,  construct a defense.

It allows us to feel a measure of control...whether real or illusionary.

When the answer is impossible to divine,  it shatters that sense the universe is ordered,  and that all it's variables can be cataloged,  examined and managed.


----------



## Missourian

Uncensored2008 said:


> rorynettles said:
> 
> 
> 
> The murder movie
> The murder investigation movie
> The murderer chase sceen movie
> The murder trial  movie
> The prison movie  featuring the murderer
> The cowboy and indians killing each other movie
> The war movie where we get to see lots of different way to kill other humans
> 
> America needs to ban all  these polititions who do not have the balls to ban Hollywood
> 
> A couple of poems to open your eyes America
> 
> "GENTLE HANDS"
> 
> I gently place these words in your hands,
> 
> My message to America put in a rhyme,
> If there was ever a time to take action, now is the time,
> 
> You are free to publish with or without my name
> Send it around the world it's all the same
> 
> It's not fame or fortune that I am seeking,
> I just want all our babies for safe keeping,
> 
> I humbly place this poem in your hands,
> It is time for Americans to take their  stands,
> 
> It is time for America to open an eye,
> Before anymore babies have to die,
> 
> I know some of you parents won't like these words,
> Let's ban violence on TV, this country has enough nerds,
> 
> The whole country is hurting because of what has been done,
> It is the violence on TV teaching our youth how to kill with a gun,
> 
> We bring it into our homes and our kids watch it every day,
> It would all be banned if I had anything to say,
> 
> Each violent movie they watch has a lasting imprint on their brain,
> If you don't think this is true than you must be insane,
> 
> Our  youths hero's are killers, it's sick and it's sad but it's true,
> It's not Arnolds or Sylvesters fault , the blame lies with me and you.
> 
> We have created whole generation of youth that entertains themselves by watching one man kill and the other one die,
> If this country does not ban violence on TV and the Big Screen, many more tears will fill many more eye,
> 
> I hope my language is not too strong.
> It is time to stop teaching our youth how easy it is to do wrong,
> 
> 
> By, R M Nettles
> 
> 
> 
> A collective poem to the Parents and  leaders in the United States of America and its citizens, from the souls of the 20 innocent children who lost their lives on your watch in Connecticut one December Day in 2012.  This may be the place to start, if you are going to stop the violence.
> 
> We the 20
> 
> 
> Dont cry for us America, we chose to leave before our souls were corrupted too,
> We were called home by God so that other souls would be taught the right things to do,
> You see there is this  thing you call the TV which we watched all the times,
> It was beginning to have a horrible negative impact on our souls and our minds,
> Our heros had become these violent killing machines they call super stars, and we all wanted to be like them,
> Some of their names where, Arnold, Bruce, Sylvester, Tom and Will,
> And our parents paid them well to show us all the ways there are to kill.
> Every day,  Americas families pay  to invite them into their homes to teach our innocent children its ok to kill and do wrong,
> The favorite weapon of choice,
> Is the firearm of course
> So, is it any wonder why after hundreds and thousands of lessons on how to kill,
> Some of our youth do it so well
> It is against the law for the TV to show us how to make love or even how to breast  feed our young,
> But it is ok to teach us how to use a gun to kill a man and even watch him die as he is hung,
> Every day  parents pay to teach our young minds how to watch people die,
> We do it so well now, we dont even cry,
> We have named a  few names of the rich and famous who have helped warp our brain,
> It is America, as a collective group of parents and leaders who are to blame ,
> It has little to do with the possessing of or the type of  the gun,
> It is the multimedia we watch, entertaining us, with all the  wrong ways to use it to have fun,
> 
> By,   R M Nettles
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Is that Vogon poetry?
Click to expand...


  +1 for a Hitchhiker allusion.


----------



## Foxfyre

Missourian said:


> PaulS1950 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre, you are trying to find a reason for an unreasonable act. Crazy people (tired of the PC thing) don't have reason - they are crazy. Their motive might be anything but it won't be reasonable to us. It wouldn't even sound like a motive to us. If someone sneaks up behind you and screams - you jump. You don't have a logical reason, you are reacting to a stimulus that is autonomic. Crazy people react to imaginary stimulii and wild swings in emotional and behavioral patterns that even they don't recognize.
> BTW if someone sneaks up behind me and screams they are likely to pick themselves up off the ground because I don't jump - I turn around swinging. Lessons learned while going to high school in the 60s.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Excellent post Paul,  I must spread some reputation around...
> 
> It's also human nature to strive to find order in chaos...to find logic in the actions of others so we can 'Oh,  here it is,  a motivation'  and we can put it in a box and study it,  analyze it, formulate a solution, solve the problem,  construct a defense.
> 
> It allows us to feel a measure of control...whether real or illusionary.
> 
> When the answer is impossible to devine,  it shatters that sense the universe is ordered,  and that all it's variables can be cataloged,  examined and managed.
Click to expand...


However, should we not take notice of changing patterns?  Of destructive trends?  Or do we allow the slow drip, drip, drip of a negative thing become common place and shrugged off as the way it is; the way it has always been?

Nobody drugged ADD kids when I was a kid.  I probably had the syndrome as sitting quietly with my hands folded and paying attention in class was not my best thing.  But whatever that was, I learned quite well, made reasonably good grades, and got a pretty decent education.   So why is there so much more ADD and similar syndromes in kids now?

I had never heard of autism until the movie "Rainman" came out.  I did know there were mentally challenged folks but certainly the number of kids diagnosed with Asperger's and Autism was extremely rare in the previous generation and seems to be so common now.  Why is that?

You went to the Principal's office or detention for using certain words and behavior back then.  No biggie.  We could have a pen knife on a key chain or a jackknife in our pocket or a shotgun in the rack in our pickup trucks and nobody thought anything about it.  Such could result in immediate expulsion or put a school into lockdown now.  So what has changed?

Shouldn't we at least pay some attention to this?


----------



## peach174

Uncensored2008 said:


> peach174 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Circe is talking about ethics and morals.
> Not exposing our children to violence and sex is ethics and it does not silence anyone.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Doesn't the call to ban violent media silence expression by it's very nature?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The individual morals of this nation is going down the tubes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Very true, and by design due to a concerted effort by the "counter-culture" to destroy any semblance of ethics or values in America.
> 
> 
> 
> I don't agree.
> 
> The breakdown is because the consequence of exercising freedom have been removed. Because our laws are designed to stymy the natural consequence of anti-social behavior.
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, but I don't think it is video games that change this. Our contempt for human life revolves around the celebration of abortion and the promotion of "gangsta culture" as desirable.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sensationalizing our news, movies, video games,music and political legislation is taking us down the wrong path.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I view it as a symptom, not the cause of the disintegration of society.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Doing what ever feels good, is not good at all and it is this freedom to do and say anything you wish, attitude that is turning us into a horrible society.
> No Respect, no common sense and no individual accountability is ruining us.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm not disagreeing, but there is far more to this than TV and video games. What is it that has parents take their 7 year old to get a "thug life" tattoo?  Why do we dress 6 year old girls up as prostitots?
Click to expand...


I was not talking just about TV and video games.
I am talking about the whole of society.
This is  some of what I am talking about - Feel good.
It makes the parents feel good to have the tattoos,
It's Moms living out their fantasy of wanting to be a beauty queen or what ever they themselves could not do. Not thinking about the consequences of what they are doing to their children.
Banning violent videos games to children, until they become responsible adults is not silence.
Having TV shows in prime time that teach our children from right and wrong like they had in the 50's.
It helped to teach our children who did not have good parents back then.
We had enough Dad's and Moms back then who were drunkards and drug addicts. But the shows taught the children of dysfunctional homes how things should be.


----------



## Foxfyre

peach174 said:


> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> peach174 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Circe is talking about ethics and morals.
> Not exposing our children to violence and sex is ethics and it does not silence anyone.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Doesn't the call to ban violent media silence expression by it's very nature?
> 
> 
> 
> Very true, and by design due to a concerted effort by the "counter-culture" to destroy any semblance of ethics or values in America.
> 
> 
> 
> I don't agree.
> 
> The breakdown is because the consequence of exercising freedom have been removed. Because our laws are designed to stymy the natural consequence of anti-social behavior.
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, but I don't think it is video games that change this. Our contempt for human life revolves around the celebration of abortion and the promotion of "gangsta culture" as desirable.
> 
> 
> 
> I view it as a symptom, not the cause of the disintegration of society.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Doing what ever feels good, is not good at all and it is this freedom to do and say anything you wish, attitude that is turning us into a horrible society.
> No Respect, no common sense and no individual accountability is ruining us.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm not disagreeing, but there is far more to this than TV and video games. What is it that has parents take their 7 year old to get a "thug life" tattoo?  Why do we dress 6 year old girls up as prostitots?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I was not talking just about TV and video games.
> I am talking about the whole of society.
> This is  some of what I am talking about - Feel good.
> It makes the parents feel good to have the tattoos,
> It's Moms living out their fantasy of wanting to be a beauty queen or what ever they themselves could not do. Not thinking about the consequences of what they are doing to their children.
> Banning violent videos games to children, until they become responsible adults is not silence.
> Having TV shows in prime time that teach our children from right and wrong like they had in the 50's.
> It helped to teach our children who did not have good parents back then.
> We had enough Dad's and Moms back then who were drunkards and drug addicts. But the shows taught the children of dysfunctional homes how things should be.
Click to expand...


I honestly had not looked at it from that perspective, Peach, but you may be onto something.  I was physically, emotionally, and verbally abused by my father and my mother, dealing with chronic alcoholism, was incapable of dealing with it and allowed it to happen.  I should be the most dysfunctional, screwed up adult on the planet.  (Okay, some think I am but that's a topic for another thread.)

But it was the social influences of my childhood that molded me and helped me reject the terrible role models of my parents.  And that made me determined that my own kids would have it a lot better.  All around me I saw normal people living normal lives and I emulated that rather than my parents.   Today's children living with self absorbed, drugged out, workaholic, or sex obssessed parents don't have too many positive role models on television or in the movies or in their video games to emulate.


----------



## peach174

It doesn't help either when our Government becomes our parent.
Taking care of us from cradle to grave does not help us at all to become responsible adults.

I had a friend from my church say that she was not raised to believe in God.
She was exposed to God in our public schools.
Later as she became an adult and could think about philosophical things like life and death and the meaning of life she decided to turn to God and believe.
She said she would have never done it if she had never been exposed to it. at school/
Being exposed to what is good while we are children, is what helps them to become good adults.

Parents back then who raised their children not to believe in God, had no problem with them being exposed to it in our public schools.


----------



## Missourian

Foxfyre said:


> Missourian said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PaulS1950 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre, you are trying to find a reason for an unreasonable act. Crazy people (tired of the PC thing) don't have reason - they are crazy. Their motive might be anything but it won't be reasonable to us. It wouldn't even sound like a motive to us. If someone sneaks up behind you and screams - you jump. You don't have a logical reason, you are reacting to a stimulus that is autonomic. Crazy people react to imaginary stimulii and wild swings in emotional and behavioral patterns that even they don't recognize.
> BTW if someone sneaks up behind me and screams they are likely to pick themselves up off the ground because I don't jump - I turn around swinging. Lessons learned while going to high school in the 60s.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Excellent post Paul,  I must spread some reputation around...
> 
> It's also human nature to strive to find order in chaos...to find logic in the actions of others so we can 'Oh,  here it is,  a motivation'  and we can put it in a box and study it,  analyze it, formulate a solution, solve the problem,  construct a defense.
> 
> It allows us to feel a measure of control...whether real or illusionary.
> 
> When the answer is impossible to devine,  it shatters that sense the universe is ordered,  and that all it's variables can be cataloged,  examined and managed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> However, should we not take notice of changing patterns?  Of destructive trends?  Or do we allow the slow drip, drip, drip of a negative thing become common place and shrugged off as the way it is; the way it has always been?
> 
> Nobody drugged ADD kids when I was a kid.  I probably had the syndrome as sitting quietly with my hands folded and paying attention in class was not my best thing.  But whatever that was, I learned quite well, made reasonably good grades, and got a pretty decent education.   So why is there so much more ADD and similar syndromes in kids now?
> 
> I had never heard of autism until the movie "Rainman" came out.  I did know there were mentally challenged folks but certainly the number of kids diagnosed with Asperger's and Autism was extremely rare in the previous generation and seems to be so common now.  Why is that?
> 
> You went to the Principal's office or detention for using certain words and behavior back then.  No biggie.  We could have a pen knife on a key chain or a jackknife in our pocket or a shotgun in the rack in our pickup trucks and nobody thought anything about it.  Such could result in immediate expulsion or put a school into lockdown now.  So what has changed?
> 
> Shouldn't we at least pay some attention to this?
Click to expand...


My remark was specifically targeted,  while yours is more generalized.

Of course I agree,  question everything.

But I wrestle with the question specifically...what motivates a young man to go to an elementary school and shoot defenseless children...and IMO,  it cannot be divined...it is impossible for a logical,  rational person to ascertain using only logic and reason.

And how do you solve a problem without knowing it's cause.

We can speculate...maybe it's drugs,  or contaminated water,  or high fructose corn syrup or GMO vegetables or antibiotics in meat,  or violent movies ,  or cosmic rays from outer space...the number of variables are enormous and the unknowns ubiquitous,  without solid proof,  or at a minimum accurate raw data,  we are guessing at best.

For all we know,  violent movies and video games are a healthy outlet for pent up aggression and removing them would have a deleterious effect on our society.

IOW,  sometimes,  in the absence of proven unbiased data,  we simply have to admit...we don't know what we don't know.


----------



## Foxfyre

Missourian said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Missourian said:
> 
> 
> 
> Excellent post Paul,  I must spread some reputation around...
> 
> It's also human nature to strive to find order in chaos...to find logic in the actions of others so we can 'Oh,  here it is,  a motivation'  and we can put it in a box and study it,  analyze it, formulate a solution, solve the problem,  construct a defense.
> 
> It allows us to feel a measure of control...whether real or illusionary.
> 
> When the answer is impossible to devine,  it shatters that sense the universe is ordered,  and that all it's variables can be cataloged,  examined and managed.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> However, should we not take notice of changing patterns?  Of destructive trends?  Or do we allow the slow drip, drip, drip of a negative thing become common place and shrugged off as the way it is; the way it has always been?
> 
> Nobody drugged ADD kids when I was a kid.  I probably had the syndrome as sitting quietly with my hands folded and paying attention in class was not my best thing.  But whatever that was, I learned quite well, made reasonably good grades, and got a pretty decent education.   So why is there so much more ADD and similar syndromes in kids now?
> 
> I had never heard of autism until the movie "Rainman" came out.  I did know there were mentally challenged folks but certainly the number of kids diagnosed with Asperger's and Autism was extremely rare in the previous generation and seems to be so common now.  Why is that?
> 
> You went to the Principal's office or detention for using certain words and behavior back then.  No biggie.  We could have a pen knife on a key chain or a jackknife in our pocket or a shotgun in the rack in our pickup trucks and nobody thought anything about it.  Such could result in immediate expulsion or put a school into lockdown now.  So what has changed?
> 
> Shouldn't we at least pay some attention to this?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> My remark was specifically targeted,  while yours is more generalized.
> 
> Of course I agree,  question everything.
> 
> But I wrestle with the question specifically...what motivates a young man to go to an elementary school and shoot defenseless children...and IMO,  it cannot be divined...it is impossible for a logical,  rational person to ascertain using only logic and reason.
> 
> And how do you solve a problem without knowing it's cause.
> 
> We can speculate...maybe it's drugs,  or contaminated water,  or high fructose corn syrup or GMO vegetables or antibiotics in meat,  or violent movies ,  or cosmic rays from outer space...the number of variables are enormous and the unknowns ubiquitous,  without solid proof,  or at a minimum accurate raw data,  we are guessing at best.
> 
> For all we know,  violent movies and video games are a healthy outlet for pent up aggression and removing them would have a deleterious effect on our society.
> 
> IOW,  sometimes,  in the absence of proven unbiased data,  we simply have to admit...we don't know what we don't know.
Click to expand...


And I can't argue with that.  We live in a society in which bad people do bad things.   The primary difference is that in the past we blamed the person who did the bad things even if we deemed him insane or demon possessed or whatever.  But we looked no further than the person for the motive for the killing.

And now--and I have absolutely been guilty in some of my posts on this thread--we aren't content to blame the person who does the bad act.  We look for something or somebody to blame.  Religious fanaticism.  Political extremist views.  Diet.   Environment.  Drugs.  Bad parenting.  Or media and video games.   Whatever is the politically correct target of the day.

Perhaps it is a shift to a collective mentality that simply will not hold the individual accountable for his/her acxtions and let it go at that? 

But at the same time, it does raise other questions of how we became this sort of society.   So I suppose the thread topic can easily point to both things.


----------



## Circe

Circe said:


> I was thinking today about how everything runs downhill, absolutely everything including discussion forums, movies, schools, novels, movies, games, airplane travel --- everything runs downhill to the lowest common denominator as it all becomes democratized. And then coarsened and made violent and crude.
> 
> There is a terrible cost to the out-of-control democratization of society to a very low common denominator indeed. We see it in the news: anything based on how many people click something will inevitably focus on two-headed babies, atrocities to children, and the sex acts of singing stars, because that's what the lowest common denominator most like, and there are more of them than anyone else. Same deal with games. MOST people are turned on by violence, and in a world where everyone (American) is rich, most games will be very violent to appeal to most people and soak up their money.




Some people want me to expand on what I said above, okay, though I'm not sure why.  

In this richest of all rich countries, even the poor can pay out lots of money to commercial interests, and for that reason, everything in the culture panders to the lowest common denominator because there are always more stupid people than smart people. In the 50s only the smartest and richest went to college and so colleges were elite: now they are makeup classes for learning basic reading that was never learned in grade school or high school. The lowest common denominator is the largest part of society -- and they like lurid violence because it's easy and exciting, so we get lurid, violent games and movies and hip-hop "music" with heavy drumbeats, not real music at all. Air travel used to be a luxury for an elite and everyone wore suits and dresses and women wore high heels --- now people dress in sweats at best and disgusting obscenity clothes at worst. Voting since the first Greek democracy until quite lately used to be only by full citizens with property and something to lose: but now voting is supposed to follow this terrible pattern of everything going to the lowest common denominator, so felons and retarded persons and homeless men and drunks and people on welfare are encouraged to vote, vote, vote. 

I don't think most of this excessive democratization is about or by the government: I think it's mostly commerce, trying to sell to the biggest bloc of buyers, the lowest common denominator. The government and commerce teamed up to promote homeowning to people with No Income, No Jobs and crashed the world economy for _years_. 

Our culture has gone down into the gutter and the violent movies and games and huge collections of guns people have, even people of quite modest incomes, reflect the trashing of the values we used to have. The least educated, the least smart, the least employed, the least able people are the ones who have the biggest numbers, and because of the new, excessive democratization of this society, they now set the standards for everything: for clothes, for TV, for discussion forums, for elected officials, for games, for movies, for gun-owning and stocking up, and given how Mexico has gone ahead of us, I see us going the same way right behind them: more and more violence in a more and more degraded culture.


----------



## Foxfyre

Circe said:


> Circe said:
> 
> 
> 
> I was thinking today about how everything runs downhill, absolutely everything including discussion forums, movies, schools, novels, movies, games, airplane travel --- everything runs downhill to the lowest common denominator as it all becomes democratized. And then coarsened and made violent and crude.
> 
> There is a terrible cost to the out-of-control democratization of society to a very low common denominator indeed. We see it in the news: anything based on how many people click something will inevitably focus on two-headed babies, atrocities to children, and the sex acts of singing stars, because that's what the lowest common denominator most like, and there are more of them than anyone else. Same deal with games. MOST people are turned on by violence, and in a world where everyone (American) is rich, most games will be very violent to appeal to most people and soak up their money.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Some people want me to expand on what I said above, okay, though I'm not sure why.
> 
> In this richest of all rich countries, even the poor can pay out lots of money to commercial interests, and for that reason, everything in the culture panders to the lowest common denominator because there are always more stupid people than smart people. In the 50s only the smartest and richest went to college and so colleges were elite: now they are makeup classes for learning basic reading that was never learned in grade school or high school. The lowest common denominator is the largest part of society -- and they like lurid violence because it's easy and exciting, so we get lurid, violent games and movies and hip-hop "music" with heavy drumbeats, not real music at all. Air travel used to be a luxury for an elite and everyone wore suits and dresses and women wore high heels --- now people dress in sweats at best and disgusting obscenity clothes at worst. Voting since the first Greek democracy until quite lately used to be only by full citizens with property and something to lose: but now voting is supposed to follow this terrible pattern of everything going to the lowest common denominator, so felons and retarded persons and homeless men and drunks and people on welfare are encouraged to vote, vote, vote.
> 
> I don't think most of this excessive democratization is about or by the government: I think it's mostly commerce, trying to sell to the biggest bloc of buyers, the lowest common denominator. The government and commerce teamed up to promote homeowning to people with No Income, No Jobs and crashed the world economy for _years_.
> 
> Our culture has gone down into the gutter and the violent movies and games and huge collections of guns people have, even people of quite modest incomes, reflect the trashing of the values we used to have. The least educated, the least smart, the least employed, the least able people are the ones who have the biggest numbers, and because of the new, excessive democratization of this society, they now set the standards for everything: for clothes, for TV, for discussion forums, for elected officials, for games, for movies, for gun-owning and stocking up, and given how Mexico has gone ahead of us, I see us going the same way right behind them: more and more violence in a more and more degraded culture.
Click to expand...


Thanks for the clarification Circe.  I think that is where I instinctively suspected you were coming from.   Had your mini essay been written by somebody with a well known name, it would be probably copied, posted, and linked all over the internet by now.  Very well stated.

I would just suggest that you choose a word other than 'democratization' for the phenomenon you express here.  Maybe 'equalization' would be a better word so that you don't appear to be condemning Democracy or such.  

Other than that, I have absolutely no quarrel with your point of view on this.  Well done.


----------



## peach174

Missourian said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Missourian said:
> 
> 
> 
> Excellent post Paul,  I must spread some reputation around...
> 
> It's also human nature to strive to find order in chaos...to find logic in the actions of others so we can 'Oh,  here it is,  a motivation'  and we can put it in a box and study it,  analyze it, formulate a solution, solve the problem,  construct a defense.
> 
> It allows us to feel a measure of control...whether real or illusionary.
> 
> When the answer is impossible to devine,  it shatters that sense the universe is ordered,  and that all it's variables can be cataloged,  examined and managed.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> However, should we not take notice of changing patterns?  Of destructive trends?  Or do we allow the slow drip, drip, drip of a negative thing become common place and shrugged off as the way it is; the way it has always been?
> 
> Nobody drugged ADD kids when I was a kid.  I probably had the syndrome as sitting quietly with my hands folded and paying attention in class was not my best thing.  But whatever that was, I learned quite well, made reasonably good grades, and got a pretty decent education.   So why is there so much more ADD and similar syndromes in kids now?
> 
> I had never heard of autism until the movie "Rainman" came out.  I did know there were mentally challenged folks but certainly the number of kids diagnosed with Asperger's and Autism was extremely rare in the previous generation and seems to be so common now.  Why is that?
> 
> You went to the Principal's office or detention for using certain words and behavior back then.  No biggie.  We could have a pen knife on a key chain or a jackknife in our pocket or a shotgun in the rack in our pickup trucks and nobody thought anything about it.  Such could result in immediate expulsion or put a school into lockdown now.  So what has changed?
> 
> Shouldn't we at least pay some attention to this?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> My remark was specifically targeted,  while yours is more generalized.
> 
> Of course I agree,  question everything.
> 
> But I wrestle with the question specifically...what motivates a young man to go to an elementary school and shoot defenseless children...and IMO,  it cannot be divined...it is impossible for a logical,  rational person to ascertain using only logic and reason.
> 
> And how do you solve a problem without knowing it's cause.
> 
> We can speculate...maybe it's drugs,  or contaminated water,  or high fructose corn syrup or GMO vegetables or antibiotics in meat,  or violent movies ,  or cosmic rays from outer space...the number of variables are enormous and the unknowns ubiquitous,  without solid proof,  or at a minimum accurate raw data,  we are guessing at best.
> 
> For all we know,  violent movies and video games are a healthy outlet for pent up aggression and removing them would have a deleterious effect on our society.
> 
> IOW,  sometimes,  in the absence of proven unbiased data,  we simply have to admit...we don't know what we don't know.
Click to expand...



What seemed to motivate the kid at Sandy Hook was when he found out that his Mom was going to put him in a mental facility.
What kind of rage did he have in him that wanted to kill his Mom and all those kids and teacher's.
A note that they found said that he just wanted to feel. To feel something, anything.
How many other of our children feel that way. That they can not feel anything.
Perhaps it is a combination of all of it.
Our food with all the junk added to it. 
All of the vaccinations we start giving them from sometimes birth to 6 months and then each and every year. They are way to many that are being given.
The genetically altered foods.
None of this can be very good for any of us , but especially our kids.


----------



## Foxfyre

peach174 said:


> Missourian said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> However, should we not take notice of changing patterns?  Of destructive trends?  Or do we allow the slow drip, drip, drip of a negative thing become common place and shrugged off as the way it is; the way it has always been?
> 
> Nobody drugged ADD kids when I was a kid.  I probably had the syndrome as sitting quietly with my hands folded and paying attention in class was not my best thing.  But whatever that was, I learned quite well, made reasonably good grades, and got a pretty decent education.   So why is there so much more ADD and similar syndromes in kids now?
> 
> I had never heard of autism until the movie "Rainman" came out.  I did know there were mentally challenged folks but certainly the number of kids diagnosed with Asperger's and Autism was extremely rare in the previous generation and seems to be so common now.  Why is that?
> 
> You went to the Principal's office or detention for using certain words and behavior back then.  No biggie.  We could have a pen knife on a key chain or a jackknife in our pocket or a shotgun in the rack in our pickup trucks and nobody thought anything about it.  Such could result in immediate expulsion or put a school into lockdown now.  So what has changed?
> 
> Shouldn't we at least pay some attention to this?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> My remark was specifically targeted,  while yours is more generalized.
> 
> Of course I agree,  question everything.
> 
> But I wrestle with the question specifically...what motivates a young man to go to an elementary school and shoot defenseless children...and IMO,  it cannot be divined...it is impossible for a logical,  rational person to ascertain using only logic and reason.
> 
> And how do you solve a problem without knowing it's cause.
> 
> We can speculate...maybe it's drugs,  or contaminated water,  or high fructose corn syrup or GMO vegetables or antibiotics in meat,  or violent movies ,  or cosmic rays from outer space...the number of variables are enormous and the unknowns ubiquitous,  without solid proof,  or at a minimum accurate raw data,  we are guessing at best.
> 
> For all we know,  violent movies and video games are a healthy outlet for pent up aggression and removing them would have a deleterious effect on our society.
> 
> IOW,  sometimes,  in the absence of proven unbiased data,  we simply have to admit...we don't know what we don't know.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> What seemed to motivate the kid at Sandy Hook was when he found out that his Mom was going to put him in a mental facility.
> What kind of rage did he have in him that wanted to kill his Mom and all those kids and teacher's.
> A note that they found said that he just wanted to feel. To feel something, anything.
> How many other of our children feel that way. That they can not feel anything.
> Perhaps it is a combination of all of it.
> Our food with all the junk added to it.
> All of the vaccinations we start giving them from sometimes birth to 6 months and then each and every year. They are way to many that are being given.
> The genetically altered foods.
> None of this can be very good for any of us , but especially our kids.
Click to expand...


I agree with all of this too.  I think all of it should be looked at and we should consider what we are doing to our health, our mental state, etc. based on what we put into our bodies or the environment in which we live.   But also, we need to be careful not to use that to excuse bad choices or bad behavior.

Somehow, we need to return to a culture with mostly shared values of right and wrong, good and bad, hero and villain, etc. etc.  I think as Circe suggested, we look to the lowest common denominator instead of the best that we have as the target to shoot for.


----------



## Missourian

Foxfyre said:


> Missourian said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> However, should we not take notice of changing patterns?  Of destructive trends?  Or do we allow the slow drip, drip, drip of a negative thing become common place and shrugged off as the way it is; the way it has always been?
> 
> Nobody drugged ADD kids when I was a kid.  I probably had the syndrome as sitting quietly with my hands folded and paying attention in class was not my best thing.  But whatever that was, I learned quite well, made reasonably good grades, and got a pretty decent education.   So why is there so much more ADD and similar syndromes in kids now?
> 
> I had never heard of autism until the movie "Rainman" came out.  I did know there were mentally challenged folks but certainly the number of kids diagnosed with Asperger's and Autism was extremely rare in the previous generation and seems to be so common now.  Why is that?
> 
> You went to the Principal's office or detention for using certain words and behavior back then.  No biggie.  We could have a pen knife on a key chain or a jackknife in our pocket or a shotgun in the rack in our pickup trucks and nobody thought anything about it.  Such could result in immediate expulsion or put a school into lockdown now.  So what has changed?
> 
> Shouldn't we at least pay some attention to this?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> My remark was specifically targeted,  while yours is more generalized.
> 
> Of course I agree,  question everything.
> 
> But I wrestle with the question specifically...what motivates a young man to go to an elementary school and shoot defenseless children...and IMO,  it cannot be divined...it is impossible for a logical,  rational person to ascertain using only logic and reason.
> 
> And how do you solve a problem without knowing it's cause.
> 
> We can speculate...maybe it's drugs,  or contaminated water,  or high fructose corn syrup or GMO vegetables or antibiotics in meat,  or violent movies ,  or cosmic rays from outer space...the number of variables are enormous and the unknowns ubiquitous,  without solid proof,  or at a minimum accurate raw data,  we are guessing at best.
> 
> For all we know,  violent movies and video games are a healthy outlet for pent up aggression and removing them would have a deleterious effect on our society.
> 
> IOW,  sometimes,  in the absence of proven unbiased data,  we simply have to admit...we don't know what we don't know.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And I can't argue with that.  We live in a society in which bad people do bad things.   The primary difference is that in the past we blamed the person who did the bad things even if we deemed him insane or demon possessed or whatever.  But we looked no further than the person for the motive for the killing.
> 
> And now--and I have absolutely been guilty in some of my posts on this thread--we aren't content to blame the person who does the bad act.  We look for something or somebody to blame.  Religious fanaticism.  Political extremist views.  Diet.   Environment.  Drugs.  Bad parenting.  Or media and video games.   Whatever is the politically correct target of the day.
> 
> Perhaps it is a shift to a collective mentality that simply will not hold the individual accountable for his/her acxtions and let it go at that?
> 
> But at the same time, it does raise other questions of how we became this sort of society.   So I suppose the thread topic can easily point to both things.
Click to expand...


My answer could only be my own speculation.

We are an enlightened society,  and  even at an individual level,  we are all on a quest to understand the world around us.

When we are presented with an anomaly,  we want to quantify it,  polish the edges and force it to fit our view of reality.

And when the unexplained anomaly is a behavior that is so unconscionable that it is impossible to understand,  it leaves a vacuum that we feel must be filled...that the equation must be balanced.  So we theorize,  using our own opinions of what is wrong with society as a substitution solution.

Likeminded people advance similar theories,  a consensus evolves...and that conclusion supplants the truism that individuals are responsible for their own actions.

Again,  this is just my observation,  polishing an anomaly to fit my view of reality.


----------



## Uncensored2008

Foxfyre said:


> I agree with all of this too.  I think all of it should be looked at and we should consider what we are doing to our health, our mental state, etc. based on what we put into our bodies or the environment in which we live.   But also, we need to be careful not to use that to excuse bad choices or bad behavior.
> 
> Somehow, we need to return to a culture with mostly shared values of right and wrong, good and bad, hero and villain, etc. etc.  I think as Circe suggested, we look to the lowest common denominator instead of the best that we have as the target to shoot for.



What's hard, and I think we are all parents here, so most know what I mean; what's hard is that we are not really objective about our children.  I strongly suspect that even though Nancy Lanza was ready to have Adam committed, that notion that he would hurt her never gelled in her mind. I lock my guns up, but because they are a huge investment and I fear being robbed, not because I ever thought my kids would use them against me or someone else. My son, the only child still at home, knows the combination to the gun safe.

It's easy to cast aspersions, but the reality of my own life suggests that a psychotic break is all it would take in a child. As parents, we _trust_ our children, even at times when we shouldn't.


----------



## Circe

Foxfyre said:


> [I would just suggest that you choose a word other than 'democratization' for the phenomenon you express here.  Maybe 'equalization' would be a better word so that you don't appear to be condemning Democracy or such.



The Lollards used to use the word "leveling." Everyone was supposed to be "level." That was in the 15th century, but it might still work ----


----------



## Foxfyre

Uncensored2008 said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> I agree with all of this too.  I think all of it should be looked at and we should consider what we are doing to our health, our mental state, etc. based on what we put into our bodies or the environment in which we live.   But also, we need to be careful not to use that to excuse bad choices or bad behavior.
> 
> Somehow, we need to return to a culture with mostly shared values of right and wrong, good and bad, hero and villain, etc. etc.  I think as Circe suggested, we look to the lowest common denominator instead of the best that we have as the target to shoot for.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What's hard, and I think we are all parents here, so most know what I mean; what's hard is that we are not really objective about our children.  I strongly suspect that even though Nancy Lanza was ready to have Adam committed, that notion that he would hurt her never gelled in her mind. I lock my guns up, but because they are a huge investment and I fear being robbed, not because I ever thought my kids would use them against me or someone else. My son, the only child still at home, knows the combination to the gun safe.
> 
> It's easy to cast aspersions, but the reality of my own life suggests that a psychotic break is all it would take in a child. As parents, we _trust_ our children, even at times when we shouldn't.
Click to expand...


We have a family member who has just been paroled for the third time.  Each time he has gone to prison, it has been his parents who blew the whistle and reported him.  Hooked on bad drugs, a thief, and occasionally violent, he had robbed his parents blind.  And yet they kept taking him back after each imprisonment.  They DID believe he was capable of hurting them and they slept with a chair jammed under their bedroom door knob.   And evenso, his mom inexplicably wanted him to come home when he got out this last time because she didn't think he could make it on his own.   (The rest of the family made sure that didn't happen.)

This nephew has siblings who are salt of the Earth, never got in trouble with the law, and have been exemplary people, as are the parents.  But a mother's love can be a force more powerful than any amount of fear and violence and it often is not objective or even rational.

Nevertheless, when you have so much evidence of so much anti social behavior from so many of the young, and an increase in the volence produced from that, there must be some underlying reasons for that.   This does not excuse the person who makes a wrong choice, most especially a destructive violent one that hurts people in the worst ways.   But I can't see how an awareness of how our modern culture contributes is a bad thing.


----------



## Uncensored2008

Foxfyre said:


> We have a family member who has just been paroled for the third time.  Each time he has gone to prison, it has been his parents who blew the whistle and reported him.  Hooked on bad drugs, a thief, and occasionally violent, he had robbed his parents blind.  And yet they kept taking him back after each imprisonment.  They DID believe he was capable of hurting them and they slept with a chair jammed under their bedroom door knob.   And evenso, his mom inexplicably wanted him to come home when he got out this last time because she didn't think he could make it on his own.   (The rest of the family made sure that didn't happen.)
> 
> This nephew has siblings who are salt of the Earth, never got in trouble with the law, and have been exemplary people, as are the parents.  But a mother's love can be a force more powerful than any amount of fear and violence and it often is not objective or even rational.
> 
> Nevertheless, when you have so much evidence of so much anti social behavior from so many of the young, and an increase in the volence produced from that, there must be some underlying reasons for that.   This does not excuse the person who makes a wrong choice, most especially a destructive violent one that hurts people in the worst ways.   But I can't see how an awareness of how our modern culture contributes is a bad thing.



I just call it "bad wiring." No one knows what goes wrong, but something just doesn't complete the circuit in some people.

And I agree about our culture, I believe that it is designed to destroy our society.


----------



## PaulS1950

There are those individuals who are "wired wrongly" from birth but they are rare. Most criminal behavior can be attributed to poor choices from a young age. Choices that are most often supported through poor parenting skills or peer involvement. It is only "the culture" because so many parents don't realize that children need to have restrictions put on them to be secure. They have to know what is right and wrong from a very early age and have those concepts rigidly applied throughout their lives.

If it is OK for mom and dad to speed (break the law) and its ok to cheat on their taxes and drink a bit and then drive - the kids learn that the law doesn't always apply. If it is ok to keep a "teddy bear" that you find on the street then it must be ok to keep anything that you find... 
I took my grandson around the block to find out who lost the stuffed animal he found and they were extatic to get it back. It showed him that when someone loses something it is better to return it than it is to just keep it. When I found $80 in my driveway we went down the block asking if someone had lost it - nobody claimed it so we put it in a drawer for safe-keeping and two days later a friend of my daughter called our neighbor to see if they found it. They got the money back and they don't have enough to make the loss an affordable event.
The best way to behave as an adult is to try to be the kind of person your dog thinks you are.
The best way to act as a parent is to be the example that you want your kids to have. It is all too easy to say, "oh, he is just going through a phase" or that' "he is just being a boy" when you should be using discipline to correct bad behavior and love and acceptance when he is following the rules. Kids need love but they also need the discipline.


----------

