Video games in crosshairs after Newtown shootings

Post Reply New Topic

I'm unaware of any peer reviewed research which has ever conclusively verified a causal link between video games and violent acts.

Post hoc ergo proctor hoc aficionados need not apply.

I can put a gun in your hands, and YOU WILL NOT KILL ANYONE.

I can force you to play a violent video game, and YOU WILL NOT KILL ANYONE.

It's not a question, it's a fact. If you disagree with either of those, then you're lying. If you think that you're "special" and that everyone else is susceptible to them, then you're probably a narcissist.

I understand you're trying to work around those facts by saying that just 1%, or 3%, or .2%, of people are somehow susceptible. But in the absence of actual research showing a causal link, all you're saying is that 1%, 3%, or .2% of the population has criminal tendencies, and obviously a certain fraction of the population does indeed have criminal tendencies, otherwise there wouldn't be any criminals.

Stop blaming non-causal factors.

You want a causal factor? Try here:

http://psychology.wikia.com/wiki/SSRI_discontinuation_syndrome

We're prescribing drugs to 15 year olds that can cause psychotic episodes manifesting in homicidal behavior, and we think cartoons are the f*****g problem? Come on.

I have a hard time believing that video games cause violent behavior because it never did for me. Violent video games never made me violent any more than playing Harvest Moon or Farmville made me move out to the country and become a farmer or The Sims made me become a promiscuous architect that liked to kill people by locking them in my house and burning or starving them to death or trapping them in my pool until they drown. To me it's more like a fantasy escape to do things I'd never do in real life, except for some obvious life simulation parts of the sims.

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=991_1356132926

Yet, even NRA VP blamed the recent shooting on video games, movies and television. Most media leave out the fact that Lanza was on meds. I don't really know if he played violent games too much. But some people are quick to resort to blame it on those things, or on "evil guns".

It's a miracle that nobody is attacking meds yet. Or on those guns being outside a gun safe.

Fyi, I heard rumors that Obama cutted mental health funding recently. I don't think this would help but I felt like it should be put out there.

I said that media definitely affects and influences people, nowhere did I blame video games for anything.

I wonder about this, but I think it's related to the fact that most nightly news shows are heavily funded by pharmaceutical companies. Look at all the ads.

By 2015, firearm fatalities will likely exceed traffic fatalities in the United States

http://news.nationalpost.com/2012/12/20 ... ed-states/

Only if you include suicides, which are over 60% of gun deaths. Not exactly an honest point.

DUI checkpoints only catch a small number of offenders, it's akin to placing metal detectors in public facilities to prevent people from bringing in weapons. All one has to do is bypass these measures, which isn't hard to do.

So the basic argument I see here is that a certain amount of killing is just something to put with...just can't do anything about it.

Point out where I've said this. I merely pointed out the faulty logic regarding the idea of banning video-games due to the possibility that even one person may go "off the deep end" yet saying that things that lead to far more deaths should not be banned. What's good for the goose is good for the gander. You argue that if video-games and music cause one person to commit a spree killing (there is absolutely zero evidence supporting this) we should instantly assume every gamer/listener of certain genres of music is a ticking time-bomb, inching ever closer to detonation. I bring up that alcohol, falls and MVAs kill far more people than any influence the media has, but you balk at the idea that we should ban those things. Why the inconsistency?

If the only purpose of society is to prevent killing, then the entire population should be forcibly sterilized and locked up in padded rooms.

Forget it.

Enjoy the violence.

/rant
I don't get why people would blame videogames for it. If someone ends up "going crazy" over something like that than anything relatively violent/upsetting would have.

*cough* let alone the whole thing that people -do- kill each other even legally and sometimes for no other reason than someone living in another country by for example means of war every single day and those people are supposed to praised for -their- mass murders *cough*.

I mean, what do people want, either become completely passive to any form of violence, or stop raising your kids on some platform that they should be hide from reality.
What kind of plan do these people have? Block their children from the one thing every nation on this planet is built on; bloodshed by war till their 18 and then have "the talk" with them about all the news/wars/ect they missed, oh and btw, we're sending you to war too now since you're 18 and our president now got into an arguement over some oilprices so have fun.

And what does his possible autism got to do with it? That recent media rage is making me pretty scared, especially considering how dumb most people are, as shown by that video I posted earlier.. people were clapping like sheep because the lady who had the camera pointed on her was asking for it. I don't see why I should get restricted anymore than anyone else who didn't look at themselves good enough to get themselves possibly diagnosed. I really hope the american autism organisations are raising hell against the media over their linking the tragedy directly to that guys autism.

/rant off.

Violence is not for enjoying. But we shall always have it. It is the nature or our species.

ruveyn