News

Comment by: handsom (Jul 03, 2006 20:31)

While I'm not about to get into that discussion (Me + Politics = Ugly, no matter who's side I'm on. I made my boss cry, by playing the devil's advocate in an argument, just to upset her..... And it was fun.) but I really think the bottom line with these laws, is that a lot of people see this as an opportunity to make the public think that they're doing everyone a great justice by passing more regulations, and feeding off of the ignorance of the public. These regulations have been in place for quite some time. Some companies have even threatened not to allow companies (the ones selling M titles to minors) to sell their games anymore. It's a big deal not just to the public, but to the companies that MAKE the games as well. Rockstar screwed up with Hot Coffee, but their publisher, Take2 is making very sure not to let anything like this happen. They have actually funded the ESA in making people aware of the ratings, and why they are in place. Not to mention the fact that they seem to be 'controlling' rockstar in a way. Bully, which has been confirmed as a completed title, continues being pushed back with no given reason, and the only new title from them lately seems to be "Table Tennis". It seems that their publisher is trying to let the public cool off after Hot Coffee. And that's a good thing, the media needs to calm down about this stuff, before Rockstar releases their next big 'topic of discussion'. Otherwise people get a little too nutty, particularly with the help of people like Jack Thompson. But we're not here to get started on him. He has some cooky quotes going around, but I will say that it would benefit a lot of people (gamers in particular) to find his interview online, and listen to it, I believe it's about 25 minutes long, and it's really interesting. He doesn't come across as crazy as most people think, but he does seem misinformed on several points. The bottom line is that he sees something that he feels is a problem, and has chosen not to acknowledge certain solutions that have been in place for years. But again, I'm not getting started on him.

This issue wouldn't be so bad, if it weren't for the news media. They love to exploit these stories, it's like sweet sweet candy for them. Some kid goes off the hook in Iowa, yells that he wants to kill someone (Is it because he plays video games? No. It's because he's mentally unstable? YES.) and then the media all across the USA goes nuts and covers this like crazy, and announces that it's because he played Doom on his 200Mhz pc. That *had* to be it. Right. What bugs me the most is that a lot of the 'experts' shown in these specials have no related qualifications to these instances, most of them have no real ability to make the claims they do. And this ignorance is hurting us, and potentially, a lot of our freedoms. I don't want game control to reach the same point as gun control. My entertainment is my freedom, and it is the responsibility of families everywhere to be aware and in control of what their children absorb mentally, and how often.

So, yeah, I've rambled enough, and hopefully made a LOT of points.... If anybody actually read all that, I feel very strongly on this topic, and I've taken the time to learn a lot about it, so hopefully other people will as well. IMO, this is a fight against ignorance, and the only way to protect our freedoms in this case, is to fight back with REAL, PROVEN facts and information.

Comment by: Dunker (Jul 03, 2006 20:50)

First of all, if you believe that police should be armed, then you cannot honestly believe that guns kill, because it does not stand to reason that you would intentionally, willingly allow, much less pay, people to go out into your own community and kill.

As far as restrictions, we have the ultimate restriction - total bans in some places. And, surprise! those places have the highest overall violent crime like DC and Chicago. That's even true of a lot of countries too; Google International Crime Victimization Survey (ICVS). Here's a quick summary that's a little dated but apparently still reasoanbly accurate now:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2001/02/23/n...

Anyway, you didn't list the most important reason: Self-defense, which should be in the first tier.

As far as licensing, I'm in a bit of an ideological quandary there. I compared the first and second amendments for a reason: For every reason you can give to justify more restrictions on the second, I can give to justify restrictions on the first and possibly others. I wasn't kidding when I said gun control is the perfect template for media/speech control laws. The kicker is, they'd probably actually work, unlike gun control, but that's a dangerous path to go down. With respect to licensing, the last thing we need is to give bureaucrats the power to approve or deny our civil rights. So it's a bit of a double-standard for anyone to support licensing for gun ownership but oppose licensive for the exercise of free speech, especially given that the pen IS much mightier than the sword.

A possible compromise is to provide proof-of-training when purchasing a gun which gets paperclipped to your federal paperwork. That'll take care of the primary excuse used to justify licensing - to make sure gun owners know what they are doing and are thus safe. There are two problems with this: First, ideologically, I would want the same standard for those who want to exercise free speech and other liberties. Second, gun control advocates are historically untrustworthy. If you give them an inch, they'll take a mile. That's proven itself true time and again, just about the whole world over. So, ultimately, there can be no gun restrictions.

And to answer your idea about reworking the system - eliminate all restrictions on the books, except for a prohibition on violent felons and mentally-incapacitated owning guns, which has long been the law (although privacy laws in most states strictly forbid the use of mental-health records for background checks; this has been a big issue and is going to be again, and not just with guns, but in general.) Be more like Switzerland, perhaps! :)

As far as rubber bullets, I was talking to one of my cop friends about this recently actually, and they apparently use just a tiny bit of cellulose powder, or just a primer cap (a primer is ignites the gunpowder and is the same stuff that's on a match stick). Ditto for bean-bag rounds. But even a rubber bullet can do you in if it hits you in the right place. Modern smokeless powders produce more velocity mainly because, unlike black powder, they *aren't* an explosive, it just burns quickly. Just like dynamite explodes and gasoline burns, but you can't use dynamite to run your car. A physics professor back in grad school explained it to me this way: try to move a chair by pushing on a leg or the seat horizontally, using nice, slow, steady pressure. It will move. Then try punching it with short, sharp jabs. It probably won't move as much and certainly not as efficiently.

Comment by: hot_ice (Jul 03, 2006 20:50)

"Guns are designed to protect people. That's why jsut about every police officer carries one. That's why some postal police are armed. That's why some dairy inspectors are armed. If guns were really designed to kill, then there is no way we could justify paying public servants to carry them, outside the military. And even then maybe not.

The logic that guns are design to kill is like saying video games are designed to train killers. They can do that, they do do that, but it's relatively rare compared to the number of people who have them and few people would be stupid enough to possess or sell them for that express purpose lest they get sued out of business by victims of violence or get thrown in prison."

Dunker, and how do they protect people? By either causing them harm or killing them, let's face it, it's not a toy, and in the wrong hands it is a dangerous weapon.

But let's face it, cops have misused them in a black man's killing, military in Iraq in the whole debacle have allegedly used them to murder whole families etc (notice I did say allegedly). On the other hand however, the second amendment was passed to guarantee the American people's safety just in case the government became a tyranny.

Therefore, guns like most things in our society, have pro's and con's attributed to them.

As for video games, they might influence unstable people, but there hasn't been a murder, copycat or otherwise, influenced by video games.

Therefore, there is only speculation and worry on the issue...

Comment by: ZippyDSM (Jul 03, 2006 21:18)

Dunker

Guns were made for killign and war,anyhtign else is 2ndy to it no matter how high the goal.

Self defence is not a good enough reason to ahve the street filled with illect guns..... self defence would be in the hunters/receration part becuse 80% of all selfdefance guns are handguns thus eiser to hide thus higer than normal hunting licnece,you have a point about them frist takeing guns away than to take free speech away...after all its all on the protecting ourselfs from ourselfs slope *L*

As I think it is hard and almost moot to overhaul the gun system sicne we are awashed in illect and unsold guns thier not going to jsut up and disspare...Switzerland...??? eeewwww...he and hillaery are the msot wishy washy vote mongering politions I have ever seen.

I see so youd rather it be state by state than a fedarl type thing

*nods intently on the rubberbullet and such stuff*

I pretty much know the newer stuff has a chemical reaction not just a phsical one as in buring quickly,still its neeat stuff,until they get voltage or sound to transment wirelessly and with enough power to take out a preson rubber bullets and its close counterparts are here to stay for non/less leathal take downs.

Hot_ice

"*hands you the award for good well balance posting"*

LOL

^^

Comment by: Dunker (Jul 03, 2006 21:29)

Quote:

---

Dunker, and how do they protect people? By either causing them harm or killing them, let's face it, it's not a toy, and in the wrong hands it is a dangerous weapon.

---

Their presence is a threat to potential wrongdoers and by wounding (and, relatively rarely, killing) perpetrators. Guns are used about 2.5 million times a year in self-defense (and that's a more conservative study - some show more). Yet there are only <10000 homicides. And while not all those defenses are life-saving (most estimates are about 400,000, based on circumstances), that's still a 40:1 ratio. There was a study done for the DoJ by Dr. James D. Wright and Peter Rossi (IIRC the name). They interviewed incarcerated felons in the late 70s and found that a substantial majority said they were more deterred from committing a crime because of the fear their would-be victim was armed than due to any other factor. In other words, the deterrence effect is extremely strong.

Quote:

---

As for video games, they might influence unstable people, but there hasn't been a murder, copycat or otherwise, influenced by video games.

---

Actually, quite a few have been linked to video games, not the least of which was the Paducah school shooting because, according to media reports, the shooter had never held a real gun before, but managed to get IIRC 5 out of 8 headshots. That isn't easy, not with a real gun, even for an experienced shooter. So there is some evidence that not only do games incite people to violence, but help train them to carry it out effectively.

Columbine and others have also been linked to video game playing by the actors involved. Can we say for sure they they caused them? It's probably about as provable as anything else in the mental-health field. The best you can do is look for correlations.

Comment by: ZippyDSM (Jul 03, 2006 22:10)

Dunker

and quite a few muders have been linked to gun useage and illect guns :P

BTW another dumb question if guns cant be made illeage then about bullets?

altho with said how hard is it to make somelike black powder *L*

I mean they put restrictions on the elemnts needed for makeing the Okahomla city bomb of corse you need a few tons to amkeing anythign worth while 0_o

damn it must be true you can make soemthign fool proof and a better fool will always come along 0-o

Comment by: Dunker (Jul 03, 2006 22:54)

Quote:

---

and quite a few muders have been linked to gun useage and illect guns :P

---

Yet there are more DGUs than deaths. I'm not aware of any instances of a video game being used to prevent a rape or murder.

Quote:

---

BTW another dumb question if guns cant be made illeage then about bullets?

---

Nope, and the courts have held that ammo restrictions are the same as gun restrictions. Besides, ammo is even easier to manufacture at home than bullets; almost all competitive shooters do it for cost and quality reasons

Quote:

---

altho with said how hard is it to make somelike black powder *L*

---

Actually, IIRC, it's just powdered sulfer, salt peter, and charcoal. My high school chemistry teacher told us how to make it though we didn't (and I suspect a few people did, though not me.) Modern smokeless powder is apparently even easier although I never did it either; commercially-produced stuff works out to less than a penny a round so it usually doesn't pay to make your own. But there are some real cheap asses who do.

Comment by: ZippyDSM (Jul 03, 2006 23:04)

Dunker

sicne its so easy to make why not ban the sell and trade of it and let people make thier own?? 0-o

If you did do it like that,it would be intresting,sicne bullets would be gone thru faster than the guns themselfs...mmmm oh well its always soemthign ^^

Comment by: handsom (Jul 04, 2006 00:33)

@Dunker

I was going to leave your gun control arguments alone. I don't know why they were in here. I really don't. But that much aside, you just tread into my topic, and I am going to tear some things apart right now:

Quote:

---

Actually, quite a few have been linked to video games, not the least of which was the Paducah school shooting because, according to media reports, the shooter had never held a real gun before, but managed to get IIRC 5 out of 8 headshots. That isn't easy, not with a real gun, even for an experienced shooter. So there is some evidence that not only do games incite people to violence, but help train them to carry it out effectively.

---

Good call. Because really, GTA shows you exactly how to hold a gun. It shows you how to aim. And apparently, moving a reticle that has one solid, unrealistically even pace of aiming can show you how to be a crack shot with a pistol. Sorry, I'll buy that as quickly as I'll buy some ABC gum on the streetcorner. Now, I know where this argument is going next. I've seen it before, and the next step of the argument is where a lot of people drop out of this debate on my side. But I'm ready to stick with it.

Generally speaking, the next "Bullet Point" if you will for someone on your side of this argument is the use of "Gun Games", particularly those seen in most arcades. Now, at least this argument SOUNDS good at first. Unlike yours. Some parents feel that these games, which attempt to simulate pistols, sniper rifles, and automatic weapons; can serve to 'train' children, and more concerningly TEENS, to use weapons, to enjoy the feel of them, and to feel comfortable holding them. When I first heard this argument, my jaw dropped, because that's some scary stuff to hear. Really scary. But over the years since someone presented this strong argument (And for reasons I will explain, it has lost a lot of it's pull since then) I have come along other facts which largely nullify it.

So I am going to pre-emptively run through this, which presumably is your next attempt at a logical point, and tear it down as well. Why? Because your argument is that predictable. You would be a big fan of Jack Thompson if you heard him speak.

-First off: Home use. Systems like the Nintendo, made the idea of the home console light gun into a popular idea. The original playstation game console had the fortune of being chosen to utilize the popular 'Guncon' setup, which is preferred by most "Gun Game" enthusiasts. It did very well for itself in the 8-9 years it was on the public market, available to consumers more than it ever had been. This was truly the coup de grace for "Gun Game" afficiandos. But you should take into account a few factors you may not realize. The PS1, the most popular home gaming console EVER produced made this so widely available to hundreds of millions of gamers in the USA, not to mention worldwide(The UK actually did very well selling these.) But the odd factor is how available they were, and the fact that in the 8 or 9 years they were so widely available, with the largest collection of "Gun Games" ever assembled on one platform, to this day; only around 20,000 guncon units were sold. What does that mean? That means out of the tens of millions of gamers who owned a PS1, less than 1% of them owned this spectacular unit, or one of it's many cheaper competitors.

Later, the Dreamcast attempted a revival of sorts on this medium. They launched with a widely popular "Gun Game" called "House of the Dead 2". The game demo was packed in with the system for all the units sold in the entire first year and a half. EVERYONE with a dreamcast played this game. The system launched with it's own sega branded gun. As well as a popular alternative from Mad Catz and Interact. Both were cheaper and better than the original. For the first time ever, a good, complete "Gun Game" setup was available to the general public, at the low price of $40 or less for both the game AND the "gun". Yet the title was deemed unprofitable, and the system (Which also attempted a re-launch of the arcade smash hit "Virtua Cop 2") failed miserably.

Since then, the Guncon has attempted re-launching on the PS2, to abismal sales every time, but Namco occasionally still tries again. The XBox saw a third HotD title, as well as a Mad Catz branded gun, that few users were even aware EXISTED. Even fewer users were aware of the 'Silent Scope' collection that launched with a specialized "gun" accessory, which could effectively be used as a pistol, a shotgun, or a full (over)sized sniper rifle. Again, a miserable failure, now sold for less than $10 in some stores. The Gamecube made no such effort, assumably as Nintendo tends to lean a bit more toward 'Family Entertainment' in general. No "gun game" has seen decent sales since. And even the forementioned titles are hard to call 'successful'.

-The individuals involved in these 'linked' crimes were deemed sociopathic, intraverted, and antisocial. And I think that looking at all of the crimes that the media has so kindly 'linked' for us, we can all agree on that statement, without exception. I was in the third big school shooting since 1999. There was Columbine, then in 2001 Santana High School, located near San Diego, CA (Lakeside, to be exact) suffered a tragic loss, when a student shot and killed to classmates during passing period. No one was prepared, and I spent that night at a youth group full of crying students. So, whatever you procede to argue next, I suggest my lack of knowledge and 'feeling' on this topic not be it. Two weeks later, there was a second one in the same school district. Granite Hills High School, located in El Cajon, CA (Also just outside of San Diego). This one involved no fatalities, although one student somehow suffered a direct bullet wound to the head, and yet lived. The target had been one of the vice principals, ironically he was considered to be the 'nice' one. Around 1pm, I heard what sounded like someone kicking a vending machine, a few minutes later, one of the campus aids was struggling to hustle another student with blood all over his head past our window. This has an effect on you. But it isn't the effect that the media likes to show so much of. They like to show hysterics. Why? Because hysterics are contagious. Hysterics insight a greater sense of urgency. Hysterics keep viewers. However, this was not the majority consensus. The majority who knew the shooter (Who will remain unnamed out of respect for the deceased. The individual later hanged himself on his own bed sheets, while awaiting his trial. Many students were angry, some were sympathetic.) knew why this happened. The individual was loud, protestive, and antogonistic. He was a miserable individual, living in what is assumed after psychiatric analysis, to be an abusive home, with little or no parental guidance. He had heard earlier (Exact time not specified, somewhere in the prior 48 hours) that he would not be admitted into the Navy, due to a slight hearing problem in one of his ears. Apparently, he had decided that a career in the Navy was his last, and only hope in life. When he lost that, he decided to strike out against those who had an affect on him at the school. The VP he specifically targeted had seen him on several occasions, when he had been sent there on discipline related reasonings. And it is assumed for this reason, he was targeted. Again, this VP was considered to be the 'friendliest' of them all. He did not give anyone a hard time about anything. He was a very unfortunate victim, I don't know if there could honestly be a staff member there, who was less deserving.

All that said about who he was, and his victims, the media immediately, like with Columbine, and as with Santana, went off to linking violent video games and movies. Why? Because it's fun. And man, is it easy. The individual had a game console in his living room, which the media went on to speculate he used often for 'violence simulation'. The fact of the matter is that the parents do not know how much time he might have used it. Of the students who had classes with, no one could say that he ever even used it. He reflected no knowledge of video games, or how they were played. In fact, he was more interested in getting into the Navy, and throwing his computer mouse at people's head in computer class. He was a grade A lunatic.

Andy Williams? Santana. Any video game connection? None. I challenge you to find otherwise. The individual went 'off his rocker' from being teased. He was a social outcast, and apparently a huge target for many fellow students. When he commited his atrocity, not one person could link him or his crime with games. Not one.

-Assuming the last fact, because I challenge you to prove me wrong on this, let's look at the biggest known haven for these "Gun Games". The arcades. Most of us on this site fondly remember the arcades, myself, I was a DDR geek back when the first japanese imports were hitting arcades (Way back, further than you think), and I used to love them. They were great, no matter what mall I was at. (It's San Diego, there are many malls within minutes of eachother, and apparently, they don't consider this to be too close) I would hang out with my friends, we would challenge eachother on DDR, play a few rounds of Star Wars Trilogy (When it was new) or play some Mortal Kombat. It was really fun. But there are some things to notice about these places, and they are pertinent, because this is the only market left for these "Gun Games" anymore.

---Subpoint A:

These arcades are indeed a haven for the individuals seeking more of an 'experience' than some gaming. People come to play games with their friends, and enjoy some of the best gaming that there is. Unfortunately, this creates a connection that a lot of the media won't discuss. The fact that these gamers aren't anti-social, sociopathic, or anything but normal kids and teens. They come to arcades not just to play games (Inlcuding "Gun Games"), but also to hang out with friends. Which means that the one last haven for these sociopath, antisocial, and violent individuals to get their "Gun Games" is a place they would never have any interest in going. Because frankly, you can't go to an arcade regularly, and be a depressed person. Too many people are having too good a time, and quite frankly, over time, it is an experience that rubs off on you. Not to mention that when you play the same game (Or game genre) you get very good. And in an arcade environment, gamers stop to watch other gamers constantly, and honestly, they offer eachother a lot of compliments freely "You're pretty good" "Can I play too?" are very common phrases. Honestly, most "Gun Games"(Almost every one of them.) have, and strongly encourage, teamwork. They bolster two players to work together, generally for a greater good. Which means that this haven for the "Gun Gamers" is the opposite of an environment that encourages violent outlashes and antisocialism.

---Subpoint B:

These arcades, while such a haven for many young gamers, and the only place to find "gun games" anymore, are becoming rare, even here in San Diego, where we still have so many malls and public places that used to have them. They are becoming few and far in between. There is literally only ONE arcade in my city(Which is within the San Diego county limits). Let's face it, the location for these "Gun Games" is virtually non-existent.

-Next major point, the realism affect.

We've all played these "Gun Games" they've been around since the 80's. And we've all enjoyed them. Most gamers have taken the time to waste many, many quarters going all the way through at least one of them. I've got a lot of time on my hands over the years, so I've completed a good number of them. These games have always been aimed at teens, usually right around late junior high school and early to mid high school. And yet, as these, one of the strongest arguments against gaming, and supposedly proving the violent connection, never caused an incident. Crimes and violence in the 80's and well into the mid 90's were not associated with video game violence, and it's not to say that it wasn't present and just as bad back then. Mortal Kombat and Area 51 were both titles featuring ultra violent gameplay, and strongly gory visuals, encouraging players to act without reason or regard with violence. And these games were phased out, because gamers got tired of this, favoring more sensible experiences with more multi-player oriented gameplay.

So, hopefully, you won't try to push any of the prior destroyed topics further, because if you think this is extensive, I am glad to supply more detail, and indication of these points, which I have very strong knowledge of, and am glad to continue with. I've held this ground for years, and I challenge anyone to bring me a new counterpoint on it.

Quote:

---

Columbine and others have also been linked to video game playing by the actors involved. Can we say for sure they they caused them? It's probably about as provable as anything else in the mental-health field. The best you can do is look for correlations.

---

Strangely this statement is correct. Unfortunately, the person making it... 'Dunker' didn't do his homework on this.... At all. In fact, after what I am about to say, 'Dunker' is going to be wallowing in the ignorance of it. When the columbine shooters were linked to video game violence, it was realized that they did not have a gaming system of any sort. The only thing that one of them had, was a very old pc. Equipped with the original Doom. Yes, Doom, as in a decade old game about large red, bajillion eyed demons. Bravo, this clearly links video games to real world violence. It's so realistic. It shows you how to hold the gun, how to use it, and who to shoot. Again, bravo on this one Dunker. Great work on that catch.

Now, I know that "Gun Games" may not have been your direct next argument, but whether you realize it or not, it was in your lineup, it always is. And now, we both know why these games are NOT the cause of these violent outbreaks. So, yes, you can 'link' violent video games all you like, the media loves it after all. But I challenge you to find any kind of 'proof' of this, as you know, due to the nature of it, something of your argument's nature can only be 'speculated' by those who clearly haven't considered most of their own arguments.

There are a lot of beligerent responses that I get at this point, and that's alright. My curiosity is whether you will actually have a valid response to the arguments listed above, other than to deny that you were even going to bring up "Gun Games". The fact of the matter is that whether you would or would not eventually bring this up over the argument (And yes, you would. It's not a thing against you, but it's always the final, big argument point), the fact is actually that there really isn't a better argument you will ever be able to conceive than the one that I just completely deconstructed, piece by piece.

Have fun with that one. I have my own opinions on gun control, and I'm not here to discuss them, because they have nothing to do with why I post on this board. But I do hope that your posts regarding the 'links' between video games and violent outbreaks come across more specifically educated with actual case evidence, rather than ungrounded, and uncalled for media speculation.

Have a good day.

Comment by: hot_ice (Jul 04, 2006 11:41)

I've given it some thought, and I believe violence isn't a fragmented phenomena, but rather an ubiquitous one in our society.

If we are to measure violence, and how it affects or influences people, we can only come to use video games as a variable of a larger equation, the larger equation being, television, internet, etc.

Comment by: handsom (Jul 04, 2006 14:36)

@hot_ice

*THAT* statement, I can wholeheartedly agree with. That is a VERY valid point, and I do appreciate hearing that from somewhere else. I'm tired of feeling like I'm the only one who says it.

The unfortunate problem is that these 'studies' and 'links' are bad science. And I don't mean that in any slang or casual sort of way. I mean it in the very literal sense.

In effect, these studies and connections that the media and several unqulaified 'doctors' are doing are a scientific experiment. And again, I mean this in a very legitimate sense, so please don't take this as a comparison. Because I mean that if you physically look up how this research is done, it actually IS through the use of scientific method.

How this works is that they 'study' and collect information on a large group or 'sample' of individuals. They try to either concentrate on one age group, or they try to get just a couple from several age ranges. The second type of sampling, btw, is much less effective and useful. It is known to produce intensely spurratic results.

So, you get a select group, or several that you can categorize in a very set way. Then you sample them with and without exposure to said element, aka violent video games. This way, you have at least two, but preferrably more samples with and without said exposure. The larger numbers, the more averaged, and usually accurate, result you get. The element of difference in the experiment is referred to as the 'control'. By changing this one thing, in a large sampling, you get a very good idea of what effect is had, and how strong it is. This is why current scientific method has been around for ages, it is tried, and proven effective.

But there's a problem in the formula being used for these media reports. There are actually a few, but they can all be summed up quite simply: In scientific method, there has to be, and I mean *has* to be one and only one 'control' element. That means there can be only one variant, or it is essentially a void result. This is because as small as something may seem to you, some other element may have a huge factor of difference in the results. So, all but one thing must be the same. In many serious medical studies, doctors realize that this is not possible, because human beings are all completely different. We have different blood types, different immunites, allergies, and reactions. We have different lifestyles, history, genes.

To combat this with accuracy, scientists doing human research will test on a HUGE sampling of people, collecting seemingly unreasonable amounts of data on every subjects, so as to plot any other possible elements that have an effect. When I say huge, I fear that I may not be properly explaining the case. In an actual yearly case study, a major pharmacy company does a study on what they plan to give out for a nasal version of the flu shot each year. Because, technically speaking, it is a different formula each time, that very unlikely, but still potentially, could pose harm to customers and patients. So, every year, to get FDA approval to distribute the new formula, they start in the Summer, by doing a large sampling of 100,000 citizens across the US. They collect extensive information on lifestyle, eating, exercise, geneology, allergies, stress, EVERYTHING. And they give all of these individuals a flu shot at hundreds of sites across the US. This means that while they can never have true 100% accuracy on these tests, they get about as close as possible, and using the data they collect, patterns can be found and investigated further through more pinpointed scientific method.

It's very complicated process, just to get some basic information, that is pretty much known to begin with.

My point is that in these studies, in these media reports, they don't do broad samplings like this. Some of the biggest case studies have been a few hundred people. And they base off of information collected in interviews (generally with psychiatrist), rather than physical data. Psychiatrists are left to see if there is a cognitive connection between violence in games, and violence in people.

Some of these studies have shown higher levels of aggrivation, irritation and aggression threshold. Ironically though, not one study has ever linked a violent video, or movie for that matter; to an actual shooting. The media has kindly implied it very thoroughly, which I take quite kindly to, given they have no evidence. Some psychiatrists speculate there is a connection, but one has never been found.

Media specials tend to use a sampling of around a whopping ten people, if that. Why? Because they aren't interested in investing the funds to really investigate long term. They don't need to, they can air a special specualting large harm, and people will watch out of the fear effect. It's been this way for decades. The only difference now, is that the media is using it to wield a sort of political weapon. And because people don't take the time to think for themselves, they don't take the time to investigate these things, to find out the facts for themselves; the media is winning the public's favor in this. I really hope that this ends. But I fear it may not.

Violent outbreaks can't be blamed on one thing. I don't care what it is. It's not video games, it's not music, it's not movies or television, it's not someone's neighborhood, it's not their hobbies, it's not their geneology. It's several things, compounded to cause a horrible event. And you can't blame one thing for it. Life doesn't work that way. Blaming game companies for influencing violence in video games that they print clear warning labels on, is pure idiocy. Narc wasn't advertised during Power Rangers commercials. GTA ads weren't aired during Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles, and I've certainly never seen an ad for Liesure Suit Larry in Highlights for Kids. Game companies do what they can to enforce and encourage these guidelines, it is up to retailers, and moreover PARENTS and FAMILIES to pay attention to what their children are enjoying. Working in a video store for a few years; I had a huge pet peeve, and it was something that I was confronted with more than regularly. About one in ever three to four customers was renting a game. And usually, for a child. And the GTA series was a frequent title for them. So, we would literally see a ten year old kid renting GTA, because his parent didn't look at it. To make matters worse, I took a bit of extra responsibility here, to favor helping parents do a better job with understanding the ratings. I was always helping on that end. When parents brought up M-Rated titles, I would actually look at the content descriptor (If I didn't already know it, as I am somewhat of an avid gamer) and I would actually explain to parents:

"This title is rated M. That means it is the equivalent, and often times far more graphic than an R-rated movie. It contains strong violence, language, gore, drug use, sexuality, nudity. All of that is in this game, and it may not be appropriate for your kid."

Yeah. I went that far, I did it while working in a game store too. Going on that, I was able to deter some parents, others even asked me how to know; and I was able to help raise a tiny bit of awareness on the ESRB ratings system. Unfortunately, this was not the mass response. The mass response was "I don't care", "He'll just go play it at a friends house anyways" or, my favorite, was the parent who was shocked, told the kid to get another game, and then gave in when the kid whined about it. And that last one was very common. I'm sorry, that's just bad parenting. Plain and simple. If you give in to something that will potentially damage your young childs moral capacity (Because younger children are much more succeptable to these effects in the longrun), because your kid might whimper about it... If you are a parent, and your willpower to control, guide, and discipline your child is THAT low... You shouldn't have one. And that's not meant as a mean statement, to bring people down. I'm sure that most the people on this site understand the rating system, and why it's in place. And that's good. But a parent who will subject their child to these things at an age of less than ten, for fear that he might throw a temper tantrum... That just makes me sick.

It's one thing when parents aren't concerned about certain topics or ideas for their kids. Some parents aren't worried about nudity, or language. Some don't mind the violence. But if you have a moral objection to your own child being exposed to something you feel is morally harmful to them, and you give up for fear of your own child's reaction.... That's an ugly place to be.

Anyways, I'm done rambling. I want to point out that I don't believe this is solely the fault of parents. Because it isn't. Not by a longshot. Parents, for the large majority are unaware that the ratings system even EXISTS. And more education needs to be available on this, so that parents are better equipped to handle this. Retailers have rules in place, and they are largely enforced. But parents and families aren't usually made aware of WHY they are in place, or what to look out for. The only people who seem to know are gamers, and the kids who know they have to buy GTA with their parents around, because it's a bad game, and the parents don't honestly know any better. I don't blame people for being ingorant to the ratings, it's not their fault. I'm glad to hear that the ESA is funding an ESRB ad campaign, to publicize the ratings system, and what it means. The artists at Penny-Arcade have actually been doing a series of ads for them, which should be releasing soon, hopefully to catch the eye of a more mass public, hopefully creating an awareness of these ratings, and how to understand them.

So, there's my rant. I guess I initially wanted to bolster hot_ice's post, because he brought up a valid point, and I like hearing it.

Comment by: hot_ice (Jul 04, 2006 15:39)

I think if anything Handsome, human beings are socialized in an environment where it is conducive to depictions of violence. Therefore, video games are hardly if anything, to blame for an epidemic of violence within our society.

That's my conclusion.

Comment by: ZippyDSM (Jul 04, 2006 19:53)

handsom

I have a air BB gun its eaier to hit milk jugs are 5-9 feet at 50 it gets tricky a gun will have 2 thigns mroe than a oc gun,wieght and kick back,games that use the mosue to aim is what they re bitcign at,altho it can only show you so muh you need pratice in order to do it.

And I was the one who asked about his thoughts on gun controll of lack there of *L*

@

handsom and hot_ice

even drunker san has a few coherant points..I could learn a thing or 2 from you all ^^

Damn you guys are good ^^

Comment by: handsom (Jul 06, 2006 02:32)

Now I understand WHY the gun control conversation was going on.

And yes, Dunker had some points. My rants, as harsh as they sometimes are, honestly are never to personally insult someone, which means:

Dunker, if I was personally insulting in my rants and responses, I apologize, this was not my intent.

As for the topic, I do feel the way I do for many reasons, most of which are stated in this thread. Yes, most games include kickback, which teaches the player that a gun WILL have some force behind it, but films do this as well. Not to mention, if you've held a real gun before (In most cases) you'll find that a game has yet to achieve a 'real' sort of kickback effect. I'm going to attempt a really strethed comparison:

Have you ever watched a hunting show? I mean the serious kind; where people wait in the bushes for hours, waiting for prey, when they spot the prey, they get the prey in their sights, they allow for wind factor, distance, gravity, etc... And they can hit targets from hiding in a forest brush, clear across the next two plains PERFECTLY. I could watch these for HOURS(I have HDTV, so it's much more amazing). But no matter how much I watch it, no matter how much they tell me what ammo to use, the best way to clean the rifle, where to find good prey, etc, etc, etc... I'm still not going to be able to adequately go hunting next week if I want to. It's not the real thing. And while it may contain a lot of information ABOUT the real thing, that shows me how it's used, etc, I still won't be able, based solely on that information, to go on a successful hunting trip.

The same goes for fishing, or any other game sport, because these actually seem to make a pretty good comparison.

I don't care how long you play GTA. You're never going to be able to take down a tank with a shot gun. It's just not going to happen. Far Cry isn't really going to show you how to hold a gun and aim; and even Rainbow Six isn't going to show you how to REALLY use a flashbang (aka willy-pete, if you're an online player.) None of these games, as realistic as they may seem, are going to serve as adequate training for real life scenarios.

Many people like to point out that the military has used computer games for training. And there is truth to this. In the early 90's, they used a heavily modified version of the Doom engine, for a largely failing 'simulator', which was quickly deemed completely innefficient as anything other than morale training. Later they did use a tactical simulator, which was well re-created with the PC Gaming title 'real war' based off of the actual TACTICAL training simulator. That means that this RTS was used to improve upon, demonstrate, and better understand TACTICS, and tactics only.

The US military force has been training killers for decades upon decades, while I won't go into other nationalities, I am only covering what I know here; so if you are from another country, please don't be offended. But if this nation has been training (successfully) controlled, kill-capable, machines out of regular people for this long, it's safe to say, they've got a pretty good idea of what works. If they don't believe that these simulations are useful for training people to kill and handle a weapon; it's a pretty good bet that they just aren't. Look at how much has been poured into the "America's Army" title; with (At launch) the most cutting edge graphics engine available. And yet, they won't use it for real training purposes of any kind. These people know their stuff, and it seems that this fact only bolsters my point.

@Dunker

You have made some valid points, and I have taken them into account, before responding. For all I know, you may have more, only time will tell. But don't let people like me stop you from voicing them, so long as you've thought them out well.

@hot_ice

Again, I agree with you whole-heartedly. While I will never say that games have no impact (Because they do, just not the kind many people would like you to believe), I will say that they are dwarfed in comparison to the effects created by this world, people's families, and everything else that they deal with and encounter in their life. Video games have an effect, just like everything else, but to say they are the 'cause' in any way, shape, or form is where the problem lies.

I don't believe a person who is unstable should expose themselves to things like that. But that is one of the unfortunate consequences of living in a country with the freedoms that we have. Hopefully as time goes on, we will mature as a nation, and accept responsiblity in other ways that make more sense. I only hope that certain freedoms aren't lost in the process.

Comment by: hot_ice (Jul 06, 2006 15:13)

Anyways, if anything violence is the real problem, and the real issues to discuss here, are the motivations of violence, and the psyche of the individual in question.

Comment by: Dunker (Jul 06, 2006 15:20)

Well, in short response to your posts, they go into some good details about the history of the games, but they don't cover the reality. As far as sight picture, stance, etc. I can tell you first-hand that these games teach you this stuff, and teach it well. You may wish to take a training course to discover this yourself - a decent concealed-weapon course (if they are offered where you live, 38 states do) cost under $100 and give you range time. Go to a local shooting range and find out yourself.

You'll find that even the professional courses like Frontsight are much like the video games. You learn sight picture, stance, rapid and off-sight target detection, identification and prioritorization, and other valuable skills. It's not surprising, then, that video games are used as a training tool as well as a recruitment tool.

As far as

With respect to Andy Williams, I never said every school shooting was linked to video games, just some. And they seem to be the ones with the highest body counts.

As far as the popularity of "gun games", you'll notice that first-person shooters have been the most popular for well over a decade. I believe the first one I played was Castle Wolfenstein 3 and that came out, IIRC, in the early 90s. While the arcade "gun games" have largely gone away, the lack of a good gun system for home games I think is the reason. I haven't seen many guns available for PC or console games, at least not any that aren't total junk, like the "Bio" gun. I suspect a reason also for the decline of the use of external guns is the convenience and the willingness of users to grip the thing for extended periods.

But whether it's economics or interest in the external gun, first-person shooter games is where it's at now. While the loss of the external gun reduces realism a little, the more-important skills are still taught by these games - movement-spotting, target acquisition, identifcation, prioritorization, etc. Some still teach sight picture too. These are vital combat skills, and the games are well-suited to teaching them.

But the fact that video games teach one to carry out violence effectively is only part of the story; more important is that violent games increase aggression dramatically. I personally have noticed that I tend to be more aggressive after playing them. I've also noticed since I almost never play them anymore, I'm more laid-back. Almost everybody I know who still plays them also tends to be more aggressive. There is some evidence, though, that heavy players stay aggressive afterwards (Anderson/Dlll, http://www.apa.org/releases/videogames.html) and some suggest that those aggressive tendencies stay long afterwards.

Moreover, some studies suggest the link between videogame usage and violence to be causal, not merely correlational, as the subjects, detail, and sample sizes grow and researchers are using more lab-based methods. (See D.A. Gentile, The Effects of Violent Video Game Habits on Adolescent Aggressive Attitudes and Behaviors).

So, the link between videogame violence and real-life violence is pretty strong. Moreover, that *some* (notice I didn't say ALL) videogames also teach you how to carry out that violence more effectively.

One other point I'd like to make. If you had asked me when I was 18 or 19 whether music or videogames cause violence, I'd probably have said, 'no fing way!' As I've gotten older (and stopped playing them), I do see some linkage to violence and aggression. It seems to me that asking adolescents and active videogame players whether games cause violence is sort of like asking a drug addict if he has a problem. Of course, he's going to say no.

Good summary of research:

http://www.psychology.iastate.edu/faculty/caa/abstracts/2000-2004...

Comment by: hot_ice (Jul 06, 2006 17:24)

Hmm, I've read Dunker's response, and I have something to add: to grasp the notion of "violence", I decided to closely scrutinize the inner workings of society itself.

As you may know, society can only come to thrive, if there is control within it on all fronts: with control comes order, with control comes justice, with control comes etiquette, with control comes folkways and mores, and so on.

Therefore, I think the question of violence, is a notion intertwined with control itself.

The notion of self-control, first and foremost applies here, since video games, give you perhaps momentarily, a feeling of "letting loose" so to speak, outside the normal boundaries, or conformist notions of self-control.

Hence, control is the culprit of the issue in my opinion.

Comment by: handsom (Jul 07, 2006 02:15)

Again hot_ice, great addition to the discussion. And Dunker, thank you for bringing some hard facts to the table, that makes your argument so much more valid. It's good to see people on either side of the fence, who actually have some real idea of what they are talking about.

Video games do teach you to detect and target movement quite well. And *some* of them teach you about stance. Honestly though, most of them don't; which can be summed up with the phrase "First Person Shooter" meaning you don't see the person you are playing as. Games such as GTA (While being a trademark series) are actually unusual in the fact that they take a third person perspective, showing how the character stands while holding the gun, etc. That's not to say there aren't popular series that do, other than GTA; because let's all be honest, GTA isn't the only one. And that serves to further Dunker's point. My counterpoint there is comparitively how many first person shooters that often outsell the third person shooters are released regularly.

First person shooters DO show (sometimes, but for the sake of argument, we will say always) proper gun handling. Having married into a family with HUGE interest in guns, and hunting. I've been to a local shooting range a few times in the last year, and while some similarities are had, there's no substitute for a steady hand, practice, and accuracy. Those are things don't come from a video game. I think it's also important to realize in some of these instances, that these students have actually had practice. Most of these are not the first time they have held a gun. Many (I won't say all, or even half, considering that no one could pretend to know THAT much) of these cases were precognitive, with intent, and sometimes even practice. So, I would like to stress that these kids aren't learning how to use weapons JUST from a video game. There are other sources of information they are seeking out. Regardless of whether it's practice, or how to handle the gun, or reload, etc; it is clear that ALL of the information isn't coming from games. There are clearly other sources that are involved. Not to mention mental instability.

As for the moods, etc, like I said. There is a direct link there. Anyone saying otherwise is full of it. However, mood does not entirely dictate a person's actions. I play many first person shooters; and I'm one of the most friendly, not to mention passive, people that you may ever encounter. Maybe I'm unusual (If you met me, you would probably agree, lol), but over the years; I've had a lot of experiences that have made me what I am.

There are plenty of kids who manage to come up with screwed up ideas on their own. Even without video games. And I mean completely without video games, or even violent images on television and movies. There are simply some people in this world that will seek out information and tools needed to do harmful things. There are other factors than the violent images. Again, that's not to say that these images aren't having an effect. But I very strongly feel that in nearly every case, there are much stronger ties to things like family, friends, etc. Those things have a much more profound effect on someone than a couple hours of playstation. Those things are what really emotionally drives someone to these actions.

Comment by: XENON (Jul 07, 2006 12:27)

Handsom: you bring up a lot of good and valid points. And another point (i think anyway) is most "gun" games fail to teach you how to calculate the range of the target or how to counteract the effects of the environment (ie wind speeds and direction)You just point and shoot. Like the game "silent scope" (sniper style gun game) and its sequels. I've played them a few times and there's no way I'd be able to headshot anyone in real life if i was so inclined like the way this game does so easily. You'd actually have to be taught these things either through a gun club (a scoped out rifle) or through the military.

Also the psychological issues as well. If you bully and pick on someone long enough and they will snap eventually. (The movie Full Metal Jacket for example. although it was only a movie it still brought up what happens when you drive a person to the edge)

Comment by: hot_ice (Jul 07, 2006 13:32)

Let's face it, gun games aren't realistic at all. In the first instance, you have to consider wind factor, handling, recoil, aiming at a distance, which video games don't really address, and the list goes on and on.

That being said, video games give you a feel, or a conception, of how it would be like to handle a gun, but regardless, a feeling can't contribute to anything real. Most people armed with AK-47 couldn't shoot you even if they tried from a distance, that's what the U.S. military understands. They lack the training, the expertise, the know how, and experience.

The U.S. military has virtual reality programs, that delve in on tactics and reaction time to perceived threats. However, gun fire in virtual reality, although impressive, isn't quite as accurate as you would hope for... These soldiers have to train countless hours, and actually get a feel of their weapon, before actually knowing how to effectively use their gun.

I will use a poor example here, but when the Somalians tried to assassinate U.S. special forces, most of them didn't know how to use their AK-47's, etc.

Hence, video games are only meant for what they truly are, entertainment value, and that's as far as it goes with the gun issue.

In regards to viewing violence, yes, it does affect us, play a video game for 6 hours straight, with explicit violence and gore, and let's see how you come out of the room once you're done...lol

Video games and arcades, do no such thing,

Comment by: hot_ice (Jul 07, 2006 13:35)

Oops, what a mistake at the end, I think I was ranting, so much so, I failed to see what I wrote at the end.

Or as my dyslexic friend would say:" Stop Blabbebling"

So true...

Comment by: ZippyDSM (Jul 07, 2006 15:09)

hot_ice

Stop babbleing :P

LOL

bah come out after 6 hours of any game and it snot a pretty sight,unless its a near prefct game (dtory and control wise thus givieng you that after glow of joy)

Comment by: handsom (Jul 07, 2006 20:26)

Play a game for six hours continuously, and one should consider getting some better things to do....

Comment by: ZippyDSM (Jul 07, 2006 20:55)

handsom

its funny I have to force myself to paly the last few games I have been palying (onimusha 3,legaia 2,FFX2,GOW)

I think metroid prime held me down for as long as 3+ hours a shot...

Comment by: hot_ice (Jul 08, 2006 17:41)

Anyways, if anything, my conclusion was fairly simple, video games do not reflect reality in any way, they are only fantasy based.

Therefore, we have two players, one that realizes that this is solely based on fiction, and the other, granted with mental issues, that thinks this is an extension of reality.

Hence, violence is a question engrained within our society, therefore making it a strict sociological phenomena, to be scrutinized and studied, and not some politician to give his or her two cents on the issue.