Guns don't kill people, video games do...

pitifulgod

Deleted User wrote: »

Gun violence in video games is a very valid concern the the U.S. it's not about blaming the video games industry for mass shootings, it's about dipicting gun violence in a society that has guns readily available to the general public. In a society where owning and using a gun absolutely must come with respect and an enormous amount of responsibily. Make believe gun violence is in complete conflict with the respectful, responsible gun culture needed in a society that has guns readily available.

To us, killing people with guns in a video game is complete and total fiction. There is no association between playing an FPS and the real world. In the U.S there is an association, a connection to the real world. It's not a complete act of fiction. Imagine owning a gun, going out on the shooting range or hunting trip and then coming home and playing a video game where you have to shoot people dead, possibly even with the exact same weapon.

Yes other countries do not have a mass shooting epidemic. But other countries are not the USA.

You can own guns in Canada.. 23% of the population own guns, they don't have the same mentality about guns and there's far more regulation on actually purchasing a gun. Also the likes of AR15s aren't an option. Canadians play videogames too. Swiss people own guns as a result of mandatory drafting however mental health reviews go with that. Swiss people also play video games. So freedom to own whatever you want and easily with no proper checks, that's probably more responsible for mass shootings than videogames.

Varik

pitifulgod wrote: »

You can own guns in Canada.. 23% of the population own guns, they don't have the same mentality about guns and there's far more regulation on actually purchasing a gun. Also the likes of AR15s aren't an option. Canadians play videogames too. Swiss people own guns as a result of mandatory drafting however mental health reviews go with that. Swiss people also play video games. So freedom to own whatever you want and easily with no proper checks, that's probably more responsible for mass shootings than videogames.

1 The AR15 is legal, you just need to do a second test which many do as it's also required for handguns

2 The Swiss don't get given bullets, they used to and it was checked yearly to make sure they'd not use any but now they store it all ammo at a local armoury.

wotzgoingon

In New Zealand you can also own semi-automatic rifles like AR15's etc... and they don't go out and shoot up schools and they would also play video games. There are actually a lot of countries where you can own a gun.

Varik

Even Australia where they ban is held up as a great success, ignores the fact that gun crime was dropping before the ban and that they even ran another buy back recently when they realised that 2/3 of the guns were still out there and hadn't been handed in.

As far as the US goes it wouldn't remove guns from the streets, as with Prohibition or the automatic weapon ban or the elapsed previous assault weapon ban they can't take what was previously legally held. All those were limited to banns on manufacture and importation and the sale of newly imported/manufactured goods.

pitifulgod

pitifulgod wrote: »

You can own guns in Canada.. 23% of the population own guns, they don't have the same mentality about guns and there's far more regulation on actually purchasing a gun. Also the likes of AR15s aren't an option. Canadians play videogames too. Swiss people own guns as a result of mandatory drafting however mental health reviews go with that. Swiss people also play video games. So freedom to own whatever you want and easily with no proper checks, that's probably more responsible for mass shootings than videogames.

What I'm saying is gun violence in video games is a genuine concern. I don't blame video games for mass shootings but I definitely understand why a society like the US, considering their lenient gun laws, would be concerned about people owning, carrying and using guns or being a gun fanatic and also playing violent shooters.

Evade

Deleted User wrote: »

What I'm saying is gun violence in video games is a genuine concern. I don't blame video games for mass shootings but I definitely understand why a society like the US, considering their lenient gun laws, would be concerned about people owning, carrying and using guns or being a gun fanatic and also playing violent shooters.

I don't blame driving games for car accidents but... is basically the same bad argument.

Billy86

Deleted User wrote: »

What I'm saying is gun violence in video games is a genuine concern. I don't blame video games for mass shootings but I definitely understand why a society like the US, considering their lenient gun laws, would be concerned about people owning, carrying and using guns or being a gun fanatic and also playing violent shooters.

Is gun violence in movies a genuine concern? It's been around for decades so should be begin to ban movies now in order to placate gun owners? Or what about books that depict violence, should we also get ban them? Plays maybe, should Shakespeare be banned because the likes of Hamlet, Romeo & Juliet and The Merchant of Venice might lead people to murder their families, anyone interested in their girlfriends and to antisemitic violence? Because that's basically as founded as these claims are, and yet I've never heard anyone try to claim that maybe the Holocaust was partly Shakespeare's fault... because it's an laughably absurd claim.

All it is, is lazily looking for an easy scapegoat that people are used to not having much wherewithal to vocally respond.

By comparison, parts of the gun lobby (e.g. the NRA) are openly pushing people to commit real acts of violence against actual American citizens, as in the video in my previous post. Literally calling for violence against people with different political opinions. There is simply no comparison between that (which meets the exact dictionary definition of terrorism, or inciting terrorism) and the protagonist Geralt lobbing the head off a fictional character in The Witcher or Trevor whatshisname going on a crime spree in Grand Theft Auto... or in Robert Deniro and Joe Pesci violently kicking Billy Batts to death and chopping up his corpse before burying it... or in Jon Snow chopping up ice zombies with his ice sword... or even Johnny Cash saying he shot a man in Reno just to watch him die.

Yet I don't see them blaming Johnny Cash or Robert Deniro, but at the same time they're happy to go after people in those mediums whose fans are younger, less likely and often flat out unable to vote (Natural Born Killers and rap music being two big examples I remember back in the 90s, plus teen horrors and hair metal in the 80s), because that's all this is - a cynical attempt to find a scapegoat in order to placate voters, without upsetting other potential voters.

What will be interesting here is to see how the games industry responds if the gun lobby and conservatives do try and go after them rather than, you know, limiting access guns, in order to prevent shootings (and genuinely investing in mental health - including the likely tax increases that would go with that). The gaming industry used to be such an easy target for this kind of scapegoating as many playing were in their teens or younger and overall clout wasn't so big compared to the likes of the movies. After all, money and votes win elections so who gives a sh*t about blaming a bunch of 15 years old's favourite pass-times when they can't impact much of anything anyway? Politicians are often infamously out of touch however, especially in the US lately where they're setting records for how old the average person in congress is, and they don't seem to have noticed that the average person who plays games is now over 30, and that the gaming industry made around $110bn last year compared to $40bn for the entire global cinema box office (which is probably somewhere around $100bn factoring in streaming/DVDs/etc to be fair).

"Just blame the video games" doesn't seem to be a particularly wise choice in terms of voters anymore due to demographics, and the games industry while (as best I know) having not really having dipped it's toe into politics has so much capital that it could shove many politicians out of office with as much effort as it takes to sneeze. We have yet to see that fully tested, though there is a part of me that would quite like to see it happen.

But to go back to the original point, if we should start looking at banning games due to violence we'll also need to the same across all forms of media, and will need to even ban or heavily edit Shakespeare. Though somehow I feel if that were proposed, a lot of people calling for bans on violence in games tunes would change immediately.

Right so violent shooting games have absolutely no affect whatsoever on a gun toting fanatics with a tendency for violence. mmmm-ok.

At no point did I ever say video games are to blame for anything or that they should be banned. What I am saying is it is a genuine cause for concern for a society which has a gun culture.

And I think many (all?) people on here are completely missing the point of the argument and making assumptions that it's just dumb (right-wing?) Americans looking to blame video games for mass killings. That's not the debate that is going on despite peoples efforts to make it all about that.

Should violent movies be banned too? Possibly. But you're not the one pulling the trigger in a Movie. You're not getting the thrill of the hunt.

Mickeroo

If someone being a gun toting fanatic with a tendency for violence is the starting point then you need to reconsider your stance a bit :pac:

Evade

You could just as easily make the case that the violent gun toting maniac could use videogames as a release for his urges to slaughter innocent people.

Mickeroo

Mickeroo wrote: »

If someone being a gun toting fanatic with a tendency for violence is the starting point then you need to reconsider your stance a bit :pac:

I haven't said what my stance is.

But if you want to know, I don't believe excessive, realistic violence is needed to make an entertaining video game. And the ones that do are largely successful because they have excessive, realistic violence and you'd really have to question if a company should be allowed to target and profiteer from an audience susceptible to that sort of violence - in a country with such lenient gun laws.

Mickeroo

I'm just pointing out the absurdity of having the starting point being a gun toting maniac with a tendency for violence, if that's that's the starting point then you can probably correlate gun violence to mowing the lawn about as much as you can games (unless they're lazy or don't have a lawn).

Robert ninja

I didn't make this thread

TerrorFirmer

Deleted User wrote: »

And the ones that do are largely successful because they have excessive, realistic violence and you'd really have to question if a company should be allowed to target and profiteer from an audience susceptible to that sort of violence - in a country with such lenient gun laws.

Realistic doesn't equal excessive. If anything, the vast majority of 'violent' games are not remotely realistic. Just having blood or an ability to kill doesn't magically make a game realistic, nor does having blood make a game excessive.

I can't think of too many games that actually trade on excess violence and/or realism. Besides, how do we define excess violence? Because violence in real life has no boundaries, nor would it in the context in which most violent games are situated.

In fact the last would probably be Soldier of Fortune 2, an FPS from about 15 years ago which had a very realistic (for the time) damage modelling system to the whole body. You could shoot/cut off limbs, digits, sections of the face/head, body parts could be maimed by explosions, etc.

That was a big marketing point at the time alright and genuinely hasn't really been done to any extent since, despite the technology being capable.

I don't buy that the likes of hugely popular mainstream titles like COD or Battlefield are marketed or sold on excessive or even graphic violence.

Typically, the more unrealistic the game or the context in which it is set, the more graphic the violence in modern times - think the likes of Wolfenstein.

Retr0gamer

Deleted User wrote: »

Right so violent shooting games have absolutely no affect whatsoever on a gun toting fanatics with a tendency for violence. mmmm-ok.

You might believe the opposite but actual scientific peer reviewed research has shown the opposite. Violent videogames and media can even be an outlet for these people who would otherwise vent this in far more damaging ways. And that really is the only information that matters even if people like the trump administration like to ignore it as a means to deflect away from America's deep seated culture of glorifying violence.

Saying these people that commit these acts play violent videogames these days is akin to saying they need oxygen to survive. It's ubiquitous these days. In fact there's a large number of spree killers, such as with the Virginia tech killings, were people thought the killer was strange because he didn't play videogames like normal people his age.

The fact of the matter is no videogame depicts realistic violence. There's far different consequences for pulling a trigger against an AI enemy in a game. It might be a great defense for a spree killer that they could distinguish between the two but that's just nonsense.

pitifulgod

[Deleted User] wrote: »

I haven't said what my stance is.

But if you want to know, I don't believe excessive, realistic violence is needed to make an entertaining video game. And the ones that do are largely successful because they have excessive, realistic violence and you'd really have to question if a company should be allowed to target and profiteer from an audience susceptible to that sort of violence - in a country with such lenient gun laws.

Research does not indicate violence in video games is the issue. The exact same logic could be used in relation to violent literature, films and music. Eg the most violent thing that I have witnessed in media is the film Martyrs. American Psycho, the book, is shortly behind. Should these also be taken off the market?

Ultimately, it's a pretty dangerous line to take in terms of limiting what an art form of any kind can portray.

I don't believe anyone is talking about banning video games.

Grumpypants

I wish people would stop linking no evidence and no link.

There is no evidence (either good or bad) because there hasn't been a proper series of studies done. There have been a handful that have either been bias from the start, or too small to give useable data.

They are great for headlines, but this isn't a shampoo add where asking 100 people is enough. This needs to be a massive study of thousands of people over years/decades.

Problems here is with how games evolve. Ten years ago games were very cartoony. What we grew up playing is very different than the ultra realistic games that exist now. Never mind what VR will do to the data.

Media absolutely effects society. Look at the rise of porn and the decline of pubic hair !!

You can argue if that is good or bad, but you can't argue that it's not real.

Retr0gamer

Grumpypants wrote: »

I wish people would stop linking no evidence and no link.

There is no evidence (either good or bad) because there hasn't been a proper series of studies done. There have been a handful that have either been bias from the start, or too small to give useable data.

They are great for headlines, but this isn't a shampoo add where asking 100 people is enough. This needs to be a massive study of thousands of people over years/decades.

Problems here is with how games evolve. Ten years ago games were very cartoony. What we grew up playing is very different than the ultra realistic games that exist now. Never mind what VR will do to the data.

Media absolutely effects society. Look at the rise of porn and the decline of pubic hair !!

You can argue if that is good or bad, but you can't argue that it's not real.

Just do a literature search. There's loads on it.

Or just look up the Byton Review which the mist comprehensive collection on research on it.

Pretty much all the unbiased research, and there is a huge body of it, points to no correlation.

Also of interest is a new paper released that states that 80% of spree killers have no interest in videogames.

Grumpypants

Retr0gamer wrote: »

Just do a literature search. There's loads on it.

Or just look up the Byton Review which the mist comprehensive collection on research on it.

Pretty much all the unbiased research, and there is a huge body of it, points to no correlation.

Also of interest is a new paper released that states that 80% of spree killers have no interest in videogames.

I have gone through buckets of the research, I've yet to find one that holds up to any scrutiny.

The Byton Review agrees with my point. The research is muddied, and there is no evidence. No evidence doesn't mean there is no link, it just means the research couldn't prove the link exists.

There was a time when studies showed no link between smoking and lung cancer, didn't mean there wasn't a link. Just that those studies didn't prove it because they were flawed.

quote "My research showed that it is very difficult to
tell what effect playing certain video games
may have on children. There is some research
that suggests violent games may make some
children feel more aggressive in the short-term,
but there is no proof that these effects last a
long time or make violent adults.

It is very difficult to carry out an experiment
that can tell us what effect violent video games
may have on children and young people, as it
would mean giving children games that may
not be appropriate for them."

Retr0gamer

The smoking studies were totally biased however, any research that showed otherwise was put down with a smear campaign from the tobacco companies. The Byron report on the other hand was unbiased and far more trustworthy. No evidence of a link in this case does not prove there is no link but it's a far stronger argument for there being no link than there is for a link existing.

Billy86

Is it then fair to think that video games are linked to crime and violent crime going down in general, as they have been doing for the last 20-30 years or so?

Mutant z

Its no different to watching a violent film and become violent yourself there obviously must have been something lurking underneath to make someone act thats why people are responsible for their own actions not films or video games but people.

Billy86

Well that didn't take long...

Students injured when Monterey County teacher accidentally fires handgun in class

SEASIDE — A teacher injured three students Tuesday when he accidentally fired a gun inside a Seaside High School classroom, according to reports.

The teacher was identified as Dennis Alexander, a reserve police officer for the Sand City Police Department and a Seaside councilman. Alexander was teaching a gun safety course as part of his administration of justice class when he fired a single shot from a semi-automatic handgun into the ceiling, the Monterey County Herald and KSBW reported.

Three students were injured, including a 17-year-old boy who was hit in the neck by debris or a fragment after the bullet ricocheted off the ceiling, said Seaside police Chief Abdul D. Pridgen. The boy was not seriously injured and classes resumed, the Herald reported.

Dyr

An excuse to post this classic:

BloodBath

Grumpypants wrote: »

I wish people would stop linking no evidence and no link.

There is no evidence (either good or bad) because there hasn't been a proper series of studies done. There have been a handful that have either been bias from the start, or too small to give useable data.

They are great for headlines, but this isn't a shampoo add where asking 100 people is enough. This needs to be a massive study of thousands of people over years/decades.

Problems here is with how games evolve. Ten years ago games were very cartoony. What we grew up playing is very different than the ultra realistic games that exist now. Never mind what VR will do to the data.

Media absolutely effects society. Look at the rise of porn and the decline of pubic hair !!

You can argue if that is good or bad, but you can't argue that it's not real.

Bollocks, there's been plenty of studies done that show a direct correlation between video game usage and reduced violent crime. The Japs have the highest game usage per capita in the world and 1 of the lowest violent and gun crime rates.

Sure you could say that's part of their culture as well but it rings true all over except for the states. Partly because of lax gun laws and party because of their crappy culture.

A lot of these shooters are on a messed up cocktail of medications as well which leads to all kinds of psychosis. There is a much bigger link here than games.

There has been a study that shows only about 20% of the mass shooters in the states play video games.

Martyr Logarius

If games have sexist content or go overboard with objectification then they will be widely criticised because sexism is bad.

If a game like The Witcher 3 doesn't have enough representation or if some other game just has outright racist content then you will again see a lot of criticism because racism is bad.

Trump decides he wants to talk about violence in video games and he's in the wrong because...?

I get that there is no connection between gun crime and video games but I think we can't deny that there is an exceptional amount of graphic and gratuitous violence in many video games that are published these days.

I'm OK with it. I enjoy some games that have quite a lot of violence. I do wonder about the wider impact on society. Especially when this violence is seen as kind of normal in gaming.

Violent games seem to be pretty mainstream and the violence in them seems to be more extreme than your average mainstream movie.

It just seems so typical of the way things are in the USA right now. How did the shooter get into the building? *shrugs* How did the shooter get access to a firearm? *shrugs* What media does the shooter consume? Well, he's been playing Playstation and we all know how violent those games are so maybe people are dying because of videogames?

Looks to me like a big effort to talk about nothing for a couple of weeks until it all blows over. Probably that is the plan.

Put the most violent games behind the counter or on the top shelf or in specialised "Adult Gaming" stores and be done with it. If parents are caught giving these games to their kids then deal with them appropriately.

Retr0gamer

BloodBath wrote: »

The Japs have the highest game usage per capita in the world and 1 of the lowest violent and gun crime rates.

Nothing to do with videogames, it's far more a cultural thing.

Which takes us full circle. This outbreak of gun violence and spree killings in America isn't about videogame violence, a common denominator in all other countries with various levels of gun control. The only other factor that isn't common to all these countries is American culture which really what needs to be addressed.

Rezident

I can only see gaming being an issue for people who genuinely cannot tell the difference between fantasy and reality. But how rare are those people? Can't be many (although they may be increasing these days, it's getting harder to tell!). For most people, it's a non-issue.

Yes, when I see gas canisters or certain barrels I sometimes do wonder: if I shot them, would they explode? But I never actually shoot them. Because I'm not a maniac. I don't even have a gun.


'A confusion of the real with the ideal never goes unpunished'
- Oscar Wilde.

Canis Lupus

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-43455550 Poor old USA...