Jimquisition: Desensitized to Violence

[mgirl]

Wow. Excellent episode that makes a point, rather brutally as well. Best way to fight back against brutal accusations I would say, with brutal evidence. I mean, I've been gaming since I was a kid, racked up thousands of game 'kills' but the second that guy even got the gun out I couldn't watch and felt physically ill. I hate guns, am terrified of them, thank god I live in the UK. Oh, and thank god for jim.

 

[Erttheking]

And to those who say that video games desensitize people, I give you, Geoff Lazer (That' actually his middle name) Ramsey. One of the original founding members of the company known as Roosterteeth, one of the heads of the website Achievement hunter, and a very big fan of Halo, video games in general, and a husband and FATHER! Now, watch this video of him trying to watch the Dead Island trailer.

<youtube=rv-SQc6LA2E>

 

[I Max95]

woah, wait a minute here...Jim has a step-son?
...i'll be honest THAT was th most surprising part of the video for me

on another note, I have seen that clip before, still disturbing the second time

 

[Stryc9]

No, a civilian should DEFINITELY be scared of guns. My dad grew up on an Army base, and one of the first things they taught him was the rules for handling guns:
1. It's always loaded, even when you're sure it isn't
2. Don't point a gun at someone unless you intend to shoot them
This was, I remind you, an ARMY BASE. The MILITARY recognizes that guns aren't toys and should be handled with caution, and frankly I'd expect them to know as much on the subject as anyone.

Why should I as a civilian be scared of guns? If ANY person is properly trained in the handling and use of a gun there is nothing to be scared of. The military isn't the only place to receive such training, you can sign up for a gun safety course through you local sheriff's department or at any store with a sporting goods department.

They teach you to treat every gun as if it's loaded, not to point a gun at anything you don't intend to shoot, to keep your finger off the trigger until you're ready to fire, all the same rules they taught your dad in the military. The average civilian can handle a gun safely with a little education. Guns are not something everyone except the police and military should be afraid of and saying so is just plain stupid. Responsible gun owners are not crazy people who like to have guns because 'Murrica Fuck Yeah! that want to go out kill everything in sight. Responsible gun owners buy and collect guns for a number of reasons. Some people just like to go out and do a little target practice, some people like to hunt, some people even collect certain guns because they see them as works of art and just like to look at them.

So don't tell me, a responsible gun owner, who has done no military service but did take a class that I should be scared of my legally obtained and responsibly handled guns.

 

[1337mokro]

Not so much shocked as kind of angry. Comes with the line of work.

Not only did the camera man keep rolling to make SURE he got it all on tape, we also have this man who wanted to make his death as public, dramatic and traumatizing as possible.

Disgusting is the only word I have for it quite simply. A disgusting act made more disgusting by the attention it eventually got.

-sic

All the evidence you've seen hu? Meaning which evidence?

It's an easy thing to say you have evidence it's a difference to show it. Anecdotal retelling doesn't count. Quotes, links, sources that is evidence.

I take particular problems with the statement about games being murder training simulators. Mostly because off an evidence-less post and the complete discontinuation between game and actual use of firearms. There is a reason why soldiers don't get sent out to war after playing 80 hours of COD.

I wholly advice you to get someone you know who has never fired a gun, but loves shooters/violent games and take em out to a gunrange somewhere, observe the absolute lack of knowledge and utter inexperience of the person who according to you has spent long hours training for this.

 

[I Max95]

And to those who say that video games desensitize people, I give you, Geoff Lazer (That' actually his middle name) Ramsey. One of the original founding members of the company known as Roosterteeth, one of the heads of the website Achievement hunter, and a very big fan of Halo, video games in general, and a husband and FATHER! Now, watch this video of him trying to watch the Dead Island trailer.

<youtube=rv-SQc6LA2E>

he was also in the army

...just saying

 

[Rellik San]

Why should I as a civilian be scared of guns? If ANY person is properly trained in the handling and use of a gun there is nothing to be scared of. The military isn't the only place to receive such training, you can sign up for a gun safety course through you local sheriff's department or at any store with a sporting goods department.

So don't tell me, a responsible gun owner, who has done no military service but did take a class that I should be scared of my legally obtained and responsibly handled guns.

As a responsible gun owner, perhaps you can tell me, for what purpose a civilian would need a military grade assault weapon?
And no hunting isn't one of them. I've argued before the point of gun control isn't to limit the civilians and collectors with legitimate interest, but to prevent the unsuitable candidates from getting them; a common misconception in the UK is that you can't get a gun, but the truth is, it's very easy to get one, there are plenty of shooting clubs and the licence and application cost is £50 for 5 years. So we have nothing stopping anyone from getting a gun, yet we have laws and restrictions in place, whatever you may say about our violent crime rate, the number of those crimes committed with firearms is low and low for a reason.

 

[gamerguy20097]

That bit was depressing but I wouldn't say it made me horrified or sick to my stomach; but than again I have grown to hate my fellow man over the years so that could be why.

 

[GentleCoatHanger]

I've seen the footage before, but watching it again in this context really does drive the point home in a visceral way. Thanks, Jim, for having the balls to put it this starkly.

 

[abell]

As a responsible gun owner, perhaps you can tell me, for what purpose a civilian would need a military grade assault weapon?
And no hunting isn't one of them. I've argued before the point of gun control isn't to limit the civilians and collectors with legitimate interest, but to prevent the unsuitable candidates from getting them; a common misconception in the UK is that you can't get a gun, but the truth is, it's very easy to get one, there are plenty of shooting clubs and the licence and application cost is £50 for 5 years. So we have nothing stopping anyone from getting a gun, yet we have laws and restrictions in place, whatever you may say about our violent crime rate, the number of those crimes committed with firearms is low and low for a reason.

Apparently, it's that time. The AR-15 is not an M-16. An AR-15 is a semi-automatic weapon, the M-16 is select fire, which means that it fires semi-auto, and full-auto. It is very difficult to own a full-auto weapon in this country and has been since the 30's. They're considered Class 3 weapons, they're tightly regulated by the ATF and there's a crap ton of hoops to jump through to get one. The AR-15 and the M-16 are similar in a lot of their design, but, the elements that make it full-auto makes it a different weapon. Think of them as cousins, at best. So, almost no one owns a military grade assault weapon. The best you can argue is that they're military style, but, that just means it looks like a military gun, not that it is one. As for why you'd want an AR-15? They're very versatile, you can easily add a whole bunch of gadgets to it (they've been described as a barbie doll for men), ammunition for it is relatively cheap, it has very minimal recoil, due to the small size of the round, it's enjoyable to shoot, and, should you find yourself in the middle of a riot, like Korean storeowners during the LA riots, you could probably due a decent job of dissuading people from harming you and yours, and your property. However, the AR would be no more effective at that than a Ruger Mini-14. Of course, we could get into conversations of piston operated vs direct impingement, or styles of extractor and breaches, but, I highly doubt that's what you mean. Unless, you're actually upset about semi-auto weapons entirely?

http://ruger.com/products/mini14RanchRifle/models.html

And thank you, I will say what I like about the UK's violent crime problem. If I remember correctly, it's worse than the US and all of the EU? What difference does it make if you're robbed at gunpoint, or at bat point? Is rape less terrible at knifepoint, than with a gun at your back? There is no moral argument that the method used to commit a crime makes the crime worse. Where is your moral superiority coming from there?

 

[DataSnake]

Why should I as a civilian be scared of guns? If ANY person is properly trained in the handling and use of a gun there is nothing to be scared of. The military isn't the only place to receive such training, you can sign up for a gun safety course through you local sheriff's department or at any store with a sporting goods department.

They teach you to treat every gun as if it's loaded, not to point a gun at anything you don't intend to shoot, to keep your finger off the trigger until you're ready to fire, all the same rules they taught your dad in the military. The average civilian can handle a gun safely with a little education. Guns are not something everyone except the police and military should be afraid of and saying so is just plain stupid. Responsible gun owners are not crazy people who like to have guns because 'Murrica Fuck Yeah! that want to go out kill everything in sight. Responsible gun owners buy and collect guns for a number of reasons. Some people just like to go out and do a little target practice, some people like to hunt, some people even collect certain guns because they see them as works of art and just like to look at them.

So don't tell me, a responsible gun owner, who has done no military service but did take a class that I should be scared of my legally obtained and responsibly handled guns.

I didn't (and I suspect Jim didn't either) mean scared as in "when you see a gun you shit your pants, scream and run away", more as in "you would never do something like this [http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/01/03/savannah-ramirez-accidentally-shoots-brother_n_2403488.html] because you understand that guns should be handled with care".

 

[UNHchabo]

As a responsible gun owner, perhaps you can tell me, for what purpose a civilian would need a military grade assault weapon? And no hunting isn't one of them.

"Assault weapon" is a term made up by the gun control lobby to confuse the public into banning "scary-looking" firearms:

From Josh Sugarmann, one of the gun-ban lobbyists: The weapons' menacing looks, coupled with the public's confusion over fully automatic machine guns versus semi-automatic assault weapons?anything that looks like a machine gun is assumed to be a machine gun?can only increase the chance of public support for restrictions on these weapons.

The legal definition of "assault weapons" covers certain semi-auto firearms based on cosmetic or ergonomic features like adjustable stocks and pistol grips, and have nothing to do with the lethality of the firearm.

Semi-auto rifles are incredibly useful for defense; it's possible to buy a semi-auto rifle that operates just like a pistol, and use pistol magazines and ammo, but has a long barrel and a stock, so that it's more stable. I'd love to get one; this would mean I'm less likely to miss my intended target and hit something else. However, these rifles would be classified as "assault weapons", so I would only be allowed to buy a much more powerful "hunting rifle".

I've argued before the point of gun control isn't to limit the civilians and collectors with legitimate interest, but to prevent the unsuitable candidates from getting them; a common misconception in the UK is that you can't get a gun, but the truth is, it's very easy to get one, there are plenty of shooting clubs and the licence and application cost is £50 for 5 years. So we have nothing stopping anyone from getting a gun, yet we have laws and restrictions in place, whatever you may say about our violent crime rate, the number of those crimes committed with firearms is low and low for a reason.

My firearms are not for hunting; they're for defense of myself and my family. So while you may be able to go down to a shooting club and use a number of different firearms, how many can you actually keep in your home? Will you be arrested and prosecuted if you use them in defense of your family?

 

[Gilhelmi]

snip

Ya, 9 hours and 250 odd posts later... here I am.

There is a well known researcher named Lieutenant Colonel Dave Grossman. He agrees with you about everything, especially the part on the idiots in the media.

He believe that videogames cause violence but not because of "desensitizing" to it. But rather because (and this is the important part) in the hands of a person already likely to commit murder, they can train said psychopath in to a Mass Murder.

So I agree with you. But I still believe videogames can be dangerous, in the wrong hands. Just like anything else really.

 

[Urh]

The first time I saw the Budd Dwyer video a few years ago I found it hard to watch. Now, not so much, although I suspect that is mainly because I know what's coming. So I guess that means that real violence has desensitized me to violence?

There is a well known researcher named Lieutenant Colonel Dave Grossman. He agrees with you about everything, especially the part on the idiots in the media.

He believe that videogames cause violence but not because of "desensitizing" to it. But rather because (and this is the important part) in the hands of a person already likely to commit murder, they can train said psychopath in to a Mass Murder.

So I agree with you. But I still believe videogames can be dangerous, in the wrong hands. Just like anything else really.

I've never understood the argument that video games can 'train' a killer. Exactly what kind of training do they provide? I've never used a gun, but I'm fairly certain that games don't prepare you in any practical way when it comes to the operation of firearms. The AI of enemies in games is still scripted and rather rudimentary, so the tactical training that these games can offer is dubious at best.

 

[chadachada123]

You'll notice that the man's last words were, if I heard correctly, "No, no, no, don't don't [come closer]. Look, it'll hurt someone. Just chill out, I-"

It's very clear to me that he died an honorable death. Remember, also, that he did this so that his wife would continue receiving benefits, as they would have been revoked had he been impeached. If he was truly innocent, I don't really blame him for doing it. If he wasn't innocent, I still don't blame him, though it cuts on the "honorable" bit a bit.

I feel as if this video hit me particularly hard today because of my current troubles (being screwed by, ironically, the court system myself just this very day). That said, this video has always been rather eye-opening to me. Between this and the suicide video of the Mexican man who killed himself while in custody, this sort of suicide is rather sickening, and extremely effective at showing just how fragile we are.

I've seen multiple death videos, usually as a sort of "train-wreck that you can't look away from once you see the start of it"-type thing. I've been close to puking several times, and I really don't see a single drop in disgust from my millions of video game kills.

Having also personally mercy-killed several animals, having my childhood dog die in my arms, and even saying goodbye to my best friend a mere hour before his heart finally gave out, I can attest that death is no trivial matter to me. I can joke about death all day long and enjoy the sickest of jokes, but at the end of the day, when it's time to get serious, I'm as cautious and caring as they come.

As a side note, I'm a large fan of firearms, and I liked that you noted that the standard person should be terrified of them. I agree to an extent: I enjoy firing guns and all, but I respect them just as much as I take pleasure in them. I would even say that I admire their strength, like a Jedi admires his blade. I understand their power and the fact that they could end a life in under a second, and, as most gun-owners will attest, this is a very shared feeling. Nearly anyone that has fired a gun before, I imagine, will say as much.

 

[abell]

All the evidence you've seen hu? Meaning which evidence?

It's an easy thing to say you have evidence it's a difference to show it. Anecdotal retelling doesn't count. Quotes, links, sources that is evidence.

I take particular problems with the statement about games being murder training simulators. Mostly because off an evidence-less post and the complete discontinuation between game and actual use of firearms. There is a reason why soldiers don't get sent out to war after playing 80 hours of COD.

I wholly advice you to get someone you know who has never fired a gun, but loves shooters/violent games and take em out to a gunrange somewhere, observe the absolute lack of knowledge and utter inexperience of the person who according to you has spent long hours training for this.

Wait, what? I specifically referred to a published book, On Killing, by Lt. Col. Grossman USAF (ret.), a book that is considered the seminal work on the psychology of killing, a book that was nominated for a Pulitzer, and I am citing that. That book is a full psych text and has all of the studies cited, etc. There's other studies that support that, but, that's the most accessible for a non psych reader, hence why I referred readers to it. Also, the theory that I was referencing is about repetition being used to overcome the psychological barriers to killing another human being, not about the proper use of a firearm. At no point did I say that it was, even going so far as to add my own opinion that these shooters seem to lack proper training evidenced by the reports of shooters discarding weapons that jam. I think you read a very different post than the one I wrote.

 

[DewMan001]

Thank you Jim. Thank you so much...
You've changed the argument, and given us a clear succinct specimen that proves the point that games don't desensitize us to violence. But now I can't watch this video ever again. I like to rewatch videos, but I can't do it for this one. For the same reason why I can no longer watch Breaking Bad. The season 4 finale and, specifically, Gus' death. Fuck, I hadn't even gotten up to that point in the series, I was just in season 2. I was just in the room when my mother and brother were watching the finale. That almost made me throw up. As did the clip of Budd Dwyer.

Also, my sister honestly believes that not only video games but all forms of violent media will make you more likely to cause violent acts. She's doing a PhD in psychology. Now I can propose to her an experiment to show her that the human brain can in fact discern between fictitious violence and real violence. Gamers React will be a parody of the incredibly popular Fine Bros. series of similar names wherein 20-somethings who have played or are fans of violent video games are shown the clip of Budd Dwyer and are shown reacting. This can then be shown as proof that games do *not* desensitize you to violence.

The clip is awful and my brain can discern that because it knows what's real and what's fake.