Ban or Censor Video Games, Not Guns?

[Foxfyre]

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.

Well one was repeated in Post #100 here:

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

 

[Ravi]

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.

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?

 

[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]

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.

Well one was repeated in Post #100 here:

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

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]

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.

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.

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]

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]

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.

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.

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

 

[eflatminor]

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.

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.

 

[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]

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]

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?

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.

 

[eflatminor]

"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]

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]

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.

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.

 

[Ravi]

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.

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.

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]

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.

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."

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]

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.