U.S. Senator Seeks New Study of Violent Videogames

[Comrade Richard]

This article could be renamed "U.S. Senator gives a textbook example at how to kill a career" and it would be no less accurate.

One can only hope. He already lost my vote from here on out (makes me feel bad I've voted for him in the past).

First legislation to be proposed. This man gets zero points from me. ZERO. YOU FAIL. No matter how eloquently he managed to put it, he still proposed THIS first instead of anything related to guns.

A WV Senator is never going to propose anti-gun legislation. Strong NRA presence + strong presence of target shooters and hunters. An unfortunate number who'll be all for the "let's blame them vidya games -- we didn't have vidya games when I was a kid and we didn't have these kinds of things happen back then" are out there, though.

Gun bans work. Scapegoating videogames doesn't.

A gunman without videogames still shoots people.
A gamer without guns doesn't.
A deranged lunatic without guns doesn't either.

Instead a deranged lunatic grabs a knife if he wants to kill a few specific people, or some fertilizer and diesel fuel if he wants to kill a whole bunch. You still haven't solved the "deranged lunatic" problem.

And it's not that some occasional "deranged lunatic" got a gun and shot two dozen kids, but that HUNDREDS OF MILLIONS OF AVERAGE AMERICANS, are perfectly fine with the idea of everyone owning guns, so every year, several thousands of petty thieves, jealous lovers, angsty teenagers, and overexcited neighbours end up shooting each other, where in a sane country, they wouldn't.

Instead they'd be stabbing or bludgeoning each other, more likely. Unless we want to ban all things that are sharp or have a hard surface and are able to be effectively swung, along with anything that could potentially be used to manufacture an improvised explosive or incendiary device... Should be good for the Greens, they'd like banning gasoline and diesel fuel, I'm sure.

The fallacious argument that making civilian ownership of firearms illegal would lead to increased crime because criminals don?t care about the laws and that they?d find another way to kill people is pretty pro-gun people such as yourself just parroting yourselves for the millionth time. Our constitution isn?t some holy text that should be rigidly adhered to because everyone in this country has patriotism crammed down their throat. I?ll address the issues in an order.

#1: Criminals gaining access to firearms isn?t the concern as criminals actually have some degree of intelligence, they use it for malevolent reasons, yes, but they know if they cause too many problems they?re going to get themselves arrested or killed. The issue here is how irresponsible your average gun owner is; roughly 1 out of the 10 people I know who own firearms in West Virginia actually keeps his guns in a secure safe in his room, while the rest have them in inconvenient locations where they?ve nothing keeping someone from opening the cabinet and just grabbing one plus some ammo.

#2: If the government ever does become fascist than civilians armed with firearms isn?t exactly going to deter a force armed with helicopters, tanks, unmanned kill drones, and various other death machines that even rifle rounds wouldn?t do well against. The most you?d do is get yourself killed, worse is get your house blown up because I think the government would drop all pretense of caring the moment they started acting like an actual police state ? the moment you harassed the troops coming to your home to disarm you they?d probably just blow it up with a drone because you weren?t worth risking manpower on.

#3: The idea that people are just going to keep killing each other regardless of if you have guns or not is a weak argument at best and a strawman to squash any meaningful dialogue about gun control at worse. The point is to make killing someone more difficult; making a bomb isn?t as easy as you think it is and when some psychotic attempts to they normally just blow themselves up, public knifings or bludgeonings are also easier to handle than a lone gunman. Gun bans won?t eliminate crime or homicides but they?ll drastically reduce them. If you sight me the stabbings in China I will respond that no one died from that so you?re purposefully missing the point.

#4: This is more a gripe that I have personally about things but please state clear reasons as to why pro-gun or anti-gun are bad instead of abusing the tragic deaths of people to support your arguments. I?m pretty sure the families of the 56 million people who died from ?gun control? would be pretty disgusted at how some Americans were using this to justify their fetishistic gun culture, likewise the victims of the Connecticut massacre are probably sick of people politicizing the tragedy for their own personal agendas ? left or right.

With all this said I?m actually pro-gun ownership but it?s less about some misguided belief in the constitution mattering and more pragmatism. The arms industry is one of the few things keeping our economy afloat and I?m a different kind of paranoid: I?m not worried about the government coming to get me if they make guns illegal for civilians, I?m worried about normal people with guns trying to set themselves up as tiny dictators in the event that the government collapses.

 

[The_Blue_Rider]

Is 18 months really long enough for a proper study? It seems like it isnt

 

[crimson sickle2]

I don't really mind a politician asking for a scientific study about violence, it's fine as long as it's done well. I'd just rather the government assign mental health as the focal point rather than a side-note, effects of violent video games could be studied or diminished later as a side-note under that umbrella.

 

[Pink Gregory]

How many studies of this have been done already?

But yeah, can't see the forest for the trees; a study on the effect of videogames on already mentally ill people would perhaps be of some value, but as long as people in positions of responsibility continue to be ignorant of the real causes (if there are any), nothing will be gained.

What exactly do people HAVE against videogames anyway?

 

[Dane Tesston]

I use to believe there was nothing to the video game and violence link until I read "On Combat" (see link below). OK, Here we go. I did not want to do this, I fear yall. But the truth needs saying...

Video Games will not make you into a murder, they take a person (predisposed to murder) and make them a MASS murder.

You see, it is the same technique the Military uses to train soldiers, except they program in a "safety switch". Treating all controllers as real weapons, drilling in Laws of War, Shoot/No-Shoot scenarios, These are safety switches to teach the soldier to Stop Firing when the enemy is neutralized.

In Video Games, You shoot everything and if you want to just start over.

In the Army, You get one chance at the Shoot/No-Shoot and Law of War trainers. If you fail, you are disciplined (usually by having a long boring class).

In Video Games, You rarely have "Noncombatants". In the Army, Most of the scenarios have noncombatants, again you are punished for shooting.

http://www.amazon.com/Combat-Psychology-Physiology-Deadly-Conflict/dp/0964920549/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1355960395&sr=1-1&keywords=on+combat

PS: Remember Civility.

I can understand where your coming from, but your point doesn't hold up when you consider the fact that a controller cannot prepare you to handle an actual firearm. I've been playing shooters for years, but aside from the basics of gun safety, I wouldn't have a clue as to how to properly use a gun. Along with that, what your saying just seems like a generalization of human psychology. Yes, the military does train soldiers to form a mindset for combat, but it's never anything as simple as a "safety switch". Even a soldier who's seen combat will still hesitate. I agree with the notion that humans have a natural inclination to violence, but actual killing isn't something that comes easy to anyone.

As for the book you linked to, I don't see the connection between real life violence and combat, and games with violent content. If a person is predisposed to murder as you propose, then chances are they were going to commit murder regardless of what media or entertainment they consume. From what I can glean from the summary for "On Combat", it's contents only relate to those prepared to go into actual combat. Then there are the difficulties of actually obtaining a weapon. A person with a predisposition towards violence of such a caliber that they would actively seek out to do harm to those around them would likely have a noted history of violence, meaning they'd never pass the background checks necessary so they could actually get their hands on a gun. Yes, a person can be violent without having a history of it, but if they were really set on "mass murder", it's doubtful they'd have the patience to go through the whole process, and just use a bladed weapon, which is much easier to obtain.

Then there's everyone who's ever played a violent game. Again, most people just don't possess the capacity to make the conscious decision to kill other people. With all due respect, the point your trying to make has just about every flaw as the "murder simulator" argument. Pressing a button to fire a virtual firearm to elimenate a virtual enemy will never prepare you to use an actual firearm to kill another living person, and it never will. I know cynicism is the name of the game here on the Escapist, but I really don't think you're giving people enough credit.

I understand what you're saying, and I respect where you're coming from, but there's so much more to consider on the subject and you simplify things far too much.

 

[ResonanceSD]

The same old same old. VIDEOGAMES RATHER THAN OUR ENTIRE CULTURE ARE TO BLAME FOR RECENT TRAGEDIES.


Please, spare me.

 

[DragonStorm247]

I use to believe there was nothing to the video game and violence link until I read "On Combat" (see link below). OK, Here we go. I did not want to do this, I fear yall. But the truth needs saying...

Video Games will not make you into a murder, they take a person (predisposed to murder) and make them a MASS murder.

You see, it is the same technique the Military uses to train soldiers, except they program in a "safety switch". Treating all controllers as real weapons, drilling in Laws of War, Shoot/No-Shoot scenarios, These are safety switches to teach the soldier to Stop Firing when the enemy is neutralized.

In Video Games, You shoot everything and if you want to just start over.

In the Army, You get one chance at the Shoot/No-Shoot and Law of War trainers. If you fail, you are disciplined (usually by having a long boring class).

In Video Games, You rarely have "Noncombatants". In the Army, Most of the scenarios have noncombatants, again you are punished for shooting.

http://www.amazon.com/Combat-Psychology-Physiology-Deadly-Conflict/dp/0964920549/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1355960395&sr=1-1&keywords=on+combat

PS: Remember Civility.

The problem with this reasoning is that, while games very well might serve in training technical skills, ie how to properly operate a firearm, shot accuracy, etc (and it is important to remember that the military uses highly realistic simulations, different from games designed for entertainment which are likely less effective for this purpose), this is not the same thing as activating a desire to kill others.

Similarly, whenever someone references one of those studies that DOES show a correlation between games and aggression, they merely demonstrate an elevated response shortly after the game ends. To say they cause some form of insanity from this is a rather bold and foolish leap.

 

[Ashley Blalock]

I don't mind a study because perhaps science will show there isn't a link or perhaps it is only something about certain types of video games that can be changed. If nothing else perhaps we need to change how violence is measured as part of the rating of video games.

But what bothers me about these media studies is that video games are labeled as something foul and evil while Hollywood seems to get a free pass. A film like Transformers Dark of the Moon can get by with a rating of PG-13, but if you put the same amount of violence, death, and destruction into a video game people would be screaming how we must keep it out of the hands of children. It's like it's okay to make movies as violent as the ratings will allow and market violent films towards kids but video games are the evil industry.

 

[weirdee]

At some point, we have to defend our right to not be used as a political footstool every damn time this situation comes up.

 

[Strazdas]

Studies - good.
Predisposed opinion about the results - bad.
Opinion that everyone think we should ban games - even worse.
This thread turning into a gun ban discussion - what did you expect?

Capcha: more chocolate. it expected more chocolate.

 

[Abomination]

This just in, reinacting or researching various methods of combat can grant people insight in how to perform said combat.

The reason why guns will be brought up is because both video games and guns play a "similar" role in violence. They both contribute to how efficiently the aggressor carries out their acts.

A gun will give him the capability, playing violent games will give him inspiration. Niether will actually make him pick up the gun then reenact the Russian Airport Scene from COD:BO1.

 

[Lunar Templar]

well, nice to see this brought all the rm chair politicians out, again. yippy ....

@everyone bitching about guns in my country; Fix the people FIRST, then worry about the weapons. Just banning one type of weapon isn't going to stop some ass hole from STILL going out and hurting/killing large groups of people at a time, Or have none of you heard of Improvised Explosive Devices and other such home made murder tools one can make with bewildering ease.

 

[renegade7]

How about we just look at the 150 or so million people in the USA that play videogames in some form. And remember that almost none of them are murderers.

 

[getoffmycloud]

One thing I have to say to this guy is if parents knew violent video games caused problems for kids then we wouldn't be having this discussion because you could label any parent that buys call of duty for their kid a bad parent.

 

[47_Ronin]

The USA had about 12.000 gun related homicides in 2009. In Japan it was a national scandal that in 2007, 22 people were killed by guns. Do the Japanese play a shitload of video games? Don't bother, that one was rhetorical.
It's guns. If you want to defend them, at least be honest with yourself and everybody else. By the way, the US government seems to be as corrupt as ever, so if you'd like to defend yourself against The Man in a well trained militia (that's the part of the second amendment everybody seems to forget, often) now is as good as ever.

And btw, there really should be no discussion about children playing violent games or too much video games for that matter.

 

[Comrade Richard]

well, nice to see this brought all the rm chair politicians out, again. yippy ....

@everyone bitching about guns in my country; Fix the people FIRST, then worry about the weapons. Just banning one type of weapon isn't going to stop some ass hole from STILL going out and hurting/killing large groups of people at a time, Or have none of you heard of Improvised Explosive Devices and other such home made murder tools one can make with bewildering ease.

Hey, I live in the same country as you so don't get all high and mighty. As I've said before your purposefully ignoring the point that easy (keyword here: EASY) access to firearms makes the possibility of mass violence that much more likely. People who say 'oh well you can't stab someone' or 'oh well you can make a bomb' fail to realize that is actually very difficult to do and most of the psychotics who go on killing sprees lack the focus to do anything beyond shoot a bunch of people. Every attempted bombing in the US in the last few years has failed because the attempted bomber was apprehended or they screwed up the bomb and it didn't work. As for the other possible weapons it's a lot harder to kill someone with a knife than a high powered rifle or handgun - you actually have a more than 1% chance of succeeding in fighting back in that case. Also excuse the fuck out of us for discussing politics in the wake of bad shit happening, it's not like a democracy is supposed to be able to let the citizens get involved but maybe you're right: the people have about as much effect on legislation as someone using a teddy bear to stop a bulldozer.

So even if we don't do anything about it it's better to get people talking and concerned about things going on then continuing to be the apathetic dipshits that we are.

 

[Nazulu]

That's right, looking for something/someone to blame. How about putting money into helping the people with issues? No? Is that too straight forward and reasonable?

 

[BrotherRool]

It#s a shame he's doing this in hope of confirmation, because otherwise this would be a good opportunity to move towards some sort of conclusitivity.

Since he is biased, to undo that he needs to also command the Academy to conduct a study on whether having access and playing/shooting with actual guns leads to an increase in violence. There are many people who are under the belief that possessing and using firearms as a hobby is no worse than watching violent cartoons.

So I guess I'm saying that before we look at the violent effects of videogames we need to look at the violent effects of actual weaponry

 

[romxxii]

Troubled kid growing up in an environment full of guns kills his mom, then 20 people at a nearby school.

Who's to blame? Video games!

Silly Americans. It's not like he slit all those people's throats with a broken Halo 4 game disc.