TV News & "Expert" Blame Violent Games For Teen Killer

[Olorune]

I couldn't help but laugh at that last part:

But, if you decide to watch the actual video footage of the story, you can see how utterly negligent it was with actual fact checking: It shows Halo 3 being played on a PS3.

That's just asinine and so is all this fuss over violent games. Sure, I'm willing to believe that some kids may be affected by some violent things, but their access to those things still resides within the responsibilities of their parents.

 

[Littaly]

Why is it that every time a study backs the relation between violent video games and violent behavior, it is wrong because it opposes studies that show theres no relation. But whenever there's a study that shows there's no relation, it is always right, no matter how many studies oppose it?

I hate to sound like I'm defending this news report, but are we really any better? We sing the same old song every damn time this discussion is brought up. How many people on this forum claiming there's no relation between virtual and real violence are any more qualified to defend their point than all these people that figure in the media? "I've been playing shooters since I was a kid and I've never shot someone" or "It's just alarmist nonsense" aren't exactly scientific proof either...

Not saying they're right, they may very well be wrong, but why does it feel like we're assuming that they're wrong by default?

 

[ultratog1028]

Yep, because all 250 million+ players of halo 3 have killed their parents when they took it away from them. /sarcasm

There will always be extreme cases for anything. Remember when Pokemon made kids violent? What about Techno Music? Magic The Gathering? New stuff will always be hated by previous generations, church groups, and people with too much time on their hands. Hence the fact that Harry Potter was a banned book.

 

[AugustFall]

Lets replace Halo with peggle (a more addictive game). Seriously? The kid was annoyed he lost his toy. Had access to a gun and bullets. His parents failed to place firm restrictions on his gaming and had easy access to a gun.

Why do so many people look at this issue backwards? Could it not be that naturally violent people are attracted to violent videogames as a way to relieve stress? Not all people who play violent video games will be of this persuasion but surely some. Listening to songs with content pertaining to suicide does not make you suicidal but someone who is suicidal might be able to
relate to it a hell of a lot more.

 

[EternalFacepalm]

If the kid killed his parents in the first place there's nothing to blame but mental issues and bad parenting. Violent video games has shown to decrease violence amongst youth in several cases; it gives an outlet of rage and frustration.
And why wouldn't they let him play Halo in the first place?

 

[The_root_of_all_evil]

Not saying they're right, they may very well be wrong, but why does it feel like we're assuming that they're wrong by default?

Well, if you look up a few posts, I've got a pretty damning takedown of their suggestion. Along with @vansau pointing out you can't play Halo on a PS3.

 

[Hal10k]

"Chalmers went on to blame the rise of juvenile crime on 'the rap music', and the fall of Troy on the written word."

 

[Mackie Stingray]

Good one, Hal.
In my opinion, this violence clearly is a sign that parents should not modify PS3s to play Halo!

 

[Kahunaburger]

Next on WKTR News: does correlation equal causation? We ask some random guy who wrote a book. The answer may surprise you!

"Chalmers went on to blame the rise of juvenile crime on 'the rap music', and the fall of Troy on the written word."

Quoted for great justice.

 

[Zack1501]

Violent video games don't make kids violent. Violent kids just play violent video games.

 

[briankoontz]

I know it has been said before, but if violent video games cause violent behaviour where is the up swing in violent crime? We have had these games for some 20+ years, so we should see some general effect. But no violent crime rates have been decreasing over this period, QED.

Edit: Crime rate for those that would argue I am making this up. http://www.disastercenter.com/crime/uscrime.htm. Peaked in 93, deceased since then... Wasn't there some very famous violent video game released that year? One that started a whole genre. Could be argued as evidence that in fact violent games decrease violent crime with as much authority as saying it increases it. Some aberrant events like school shooting, etc don't change the overall statistics. That's enough freekonomics for one day.

Violent games and a lack of crime in society are caused by the same factor - totalitarian culture. The less that is happening in someone's world the more they need visceral excitement on the screen - sex, violence, and various fantasies of mystery or mastery.

The end of the Cold War marked the beginning of the age of corporate domination, with the zombie consumer swimming in a sea of shopping malls.

 

[Tyras612]

http://www.aap.org/advocacy/releases/jstmtevc.htm

This appears to be the statement he's citing

 

[aegix drakan_v1legacy]

Why do so many people look at this issue backwards? Could it not be that naturally violent people are attracted to violent videogames as a way to relieve stress?

But Augustfall! That makes too much sense! And it doesn't give us a scapegoat to point fingers at!

*sarcasm mode off* But really, I agree 100% with you. Why do people assume that violent games turn people violent, and not that inherently violent people are attracted to violent games?

Violent video games has shown to decrease violence amongst youth in several cases; it gives an outlet of rage and frustration.

I am living proof of this. My high school life was hell. I was bullied by pretty much half the school, even kids younger than me. I was frustrated, I hated the world, I hated myself, I didn't know what to do. I wasn't the violent type, nor was I strong enough in will or in body to defend myself. But the frustration just kept piling on and I'm not sure if I would have hit a breaking point eventually.

And then I got introduced to counterstrike, Soldier of Fortune, and Halo 1 at a local card shop that also had a PC gaming room. And this let me burn away my frustration, let me feel the rush of dominating someone without truly harming them. It made me feel...well...good. Without those games, I may very well have snapped and either a) hurt someone b) become forever trapped in my own little shell, unable to ever deal with people normally, or c) started self harming.

So I thank those games for giving me an outlet, for letting me get rid of my anger without hurting anyone. And to this day, if I'm really peeved or depressed, and I really feelthe need to let some rage/frustration out, then my game of choice is either no More Heroes, or Shadow the hedgehog (combines blowing up things for no particular reason with speedrunning, something I love to do).

 

[GeorgW]

Hey, you can't say things like that anymore! The supreme court has said, and I paraphrase, "People saying that violent video games cause violence are fucking morons."
Also, love that picture!

 

[t3h br0th3r]

Why is it that every time a study backs the relation between violent video games and violent behavior, it is wrong because it opposes studies that show theres no relation. But whenever there's a study that shows there's no relation, it is always right, no matter how many studies oppose it?

I hate to sound like I'm defending this news report, but are we really any better? We sing the same old song every damn time this discussion is brought up. How many people on this forum claiming there's no relation between virtual and real violence are any more qualified to defend their point than all these people that figure in the media? "I've been playing shooters since I was a kid and I've never shot someone" or "It's just alarmist nonsense" aren't exactly scientific proof either...

Not saying they're right, they may very well be wrong, but why does it feel like we're assuming that they're wrong by default?

My thoughts exactly. This is all just a cycle new media has to go though. Old people say its 'the devil corrupting the youth' and we say 'its tottaly awesome and has no possible negitive repercusions followed a few epithets and demeaning comments'. The truth always lies somewhere in the middle, which we will find then the 'corrupting the you' generation has become old and the 'this is awesome' generation controls the legislative and executive branch of government.

I mean lets just face it: If you play violent video games for hours and hours on end it is going to have an effect on you, the same way listening with music with tons of swearing for hours and hours on end will effect you.

Gaming doesn't make people into monsters but if you let a young child play CoD online constantly then you shouldn't be surprised if they become more violent or swear more often. That doesn't mean every 13 year playing Reach is a walking add for abstinence and condoms, but it dose mean exposing a kid to that sort of thing will make her or him more likely to act violently, swear, and teabag the neighbor's cat.

 

[Griffolion]

Yet again the community of individuals who have a vested interest in keeping their little status quo by downtrodding games are spreading more FUD.

Promptly ignore and move on.

 

[BrotherRool]

The Ohio teenager who killed his mother and shot his father after they wouldn't let him play Halo 3?

Forgive me if I'm wrong, but Halo 3 is a videogame (my fact-checking is a little better than most news sites ). You shoot people(but not enough to know that Halo 3 involves shooting aliens) in it, so I feel you can label it as violent. So i think it's entirely correct to say that in this particular case, a violent video game was the cause of a teen killer.

I'm sure the reporting was terrible and that there were other causes too, but if someone killed their wife for nagging them too much "nagging wives cause husband-killer" would be a fine, if imprecise headline

 

[Arcanist]

The Ohio teenager who killed his mother and shot his father after they wouldn't let him play Halo 3?

So i think it's entirely correct to say that in this particular case, a violent video game was the cause of a teen killer.

No, that would be the entirely wrong conclusion to draw.

This kid obviously had issues well before he picked up a controller. He's a sociopath with piss-poor parents and easy access to a gun. Add in an obsession with which to fixate, and there's only one way this story could possibly end.

Like somebody said before me, the object of his obsession is irrelevant - it is the fact that he is obsessed at all. All other circumstances equal, you could replace video games with grooming baby rabbits and it still would have ended the same way.