Ban or Censor Video Games, Not Guns?

[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]

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]

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?

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

 

[catzmeow]

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?

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]

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]

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.

Mass killings occur in USA once every two weeks

Personally, I'm not a fan of overreacting.

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

 

[Foxfyre]

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]

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.

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]

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.

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.

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]

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]

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]

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.

"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."

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’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]

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.

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]

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?

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