Ban or Censor Video Games, Not Guns?

[JustTheFacts]

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.

Gotcha. So let's say I query: Coke, better than Pepsi? That in your opinion means we should talk only about Coke?

Hmmmm?

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]

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.

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]

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.

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.

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]

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]

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?

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

So "guns" = Dr. Pepper in the OP? Who knew???

Astonishing.

 

[catzmeow]

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]

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.

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.

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]

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]

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]

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.

At last we know why the Columbine killers did it. - Slate Magazine

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]

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]

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]

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.

And we'd have a lot fewer posters here.

 

[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.

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?

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

I believe you are alluding to the greatest generation, and they would have been adolescents in the 30s, not the 40'.

 

[JustTheFacts]

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.

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.