Ban or Censor Video Games, Not Guns?

[eflatminor]

NOTE: Clean debate zone thread here. . . .

This morning I was listening to a concept put out by a military psychologist who suggests that it is not guns that are the problem in a 'violent America', but rather the changed American culture. Violent concepts are prevalent in our television programs, movies, comic books, music, and most especially in video games that are available in large quantities to very young children.

His theory is that this is desensitizing young people to violence and even exalting and promoting it.

Are video games conditioning kids to accept violence as virtue? As the way to get things accomplished? To win? To reach the pinnacle of success? In many/most of video games out there, it is necessary to be ruthless in order to win the game. Does this change the way people view their world in an unhealthy way?

If you do see this as a problem, how do you get around censorship as being somehow better than gun control? Do you want the government to have power in that area?

Or is there a way for the public/radio/Hollywood to self censor itself as it once did? And should we push for that?

Or maybe you don't see it as a problem at all?

Do you realize that as violence in games/movies has increased, the rate of violence in America, including murders AND mass killings, has DECREASED, rather dramatically? What do you make of that?

 

[JFK_USA]

Not only did that pyschiatrist make me ponder this topic, but also a contentuous exchange between Piers Morgan and Alex Jones the other night on CNN, followed by an analysis in this video:

[Video] Local News Investigates Piers Morgan's Claims - Thoughtful Women

The video was to fact check some of the numbers being thrown around in that exchange but it offered some interesting statistics summarized as follows:

The USA has the most guns per capita of any country in the world with 88 guns per 100 people. We're No. 1 in that category.

The U.K. has some of the strongest gun controls of any developed country.

In 2011, the U.K. had 59 gun related homicides within a population of about 63 million.
.
The USA had 853 gun related homicides; however 400 of those are documented as justifiable homicide by law enforcement and 260 of those as justifiable homicide by private citizens leaving 193 criminal homicides in a nation of more than 300 million people.

Despite being #1 in gun ownership, the USA is 28th in the world in gun violence. and well below the U.K. in violent crime in general.

The U.K. has the 2nd highest crime rate in the E.U. and is rated the most violent country in the E.U. with 2,034 violent crimes per 100,000 people in 2011.

By comparison the USA documented 466 violent crimes per 100,000 people in 2011.

*****************************

All this suggests to me that guns are not the problem. As given in the video, the hearts and minds of the people themselves are the problem.

Perhaps we--all of us everywhere, not just in the USA--need to look again at the overall affect of gratuitous violence promoted in our music, our television programming, our movies, our video games, and even the most popular comic books.

We had over 10,000 gun related deaths not 853. That's wrong by a long shot.

 

[bobcollum]

Let's say I agree with the premise that video games desensitize the young and promote violence.

Now what?

Now that we've all agreed "what's bad" you move to ban them for the good of the public?

It's not just a premise or a theory, there's established proven evidence of it...

Video Games Desensitize to Real Violence | Psych Central News

... and that's only one example.

What our society is becoming is where all this new insane kids with guns going on mass killing rampages is coming from.

I think to myself, I never grew up playing high definition video games on a massive TV that were so real they almost appeared alive, and there's no way I could ever go out and shoot up a crowd. So how is it these young kids can do it? A common link to them all is violent, bloody video games where they can indiscriminately kill, rape, rob and maim other people, even kids and infants in these games. I think to deny that they have an effect, coupled with the constant blood lust and violent movies full of guns, bombs and whatever else can kill you coming out of hollywood is completely dishonest. What's the latest Stalone movie? Well, "BULLET TO THE HEAD" of course. And they called Wayne LaPierre insensitive.

Your solution to the problem is to ban video games?

It's better than banning guns!

Well, only if you have guns, don't want to lose them, and don't care about video games.

 

[bobcollum]

I think the same argument pro-gunners use can be applied here....there are far more people that can use videogames responsibly, and it's not fair they should be punished for the actions of the few.

 

[Foxfyre]

Not only did that pyschiatrist make me ponder this topic, but also a contentuous exchange between Piers Morgan and Alex Jones the other night on CNN, followed by an analysis in this video:

[Video] Local News Investigates Piers Morgan's Claims - Thoughtful Women

The video was to fact check some of the numbers being thrown around in that exchange but it offered some interesting statistics summarized as follows:

The USA has the most guns per capita of any country in the world with 88 guns per 100 people. We're No. 1 in that category.

The U.K. has some of the strongest gun controls of any developed country.

In 2011, the U.K. had 59 gun related homicides within a population of about 63 million.
.
The USA had 853 gun related homicides; however 400 of those are documented as justifiable homicide by law enforcement and 260 of those as justifiable homicide by private citizens leaving 193 criminal homicides in a nation of more than 300 million people.

Despite being #1 in gun ownership, the USA is 28th in the world in gun violence. and well below the U.K. in violent crime in general.

The U.K. has the 2nd highest crime rate in the E.U. and is rated the most violent country in the E.U. with 2,034 violent crimes per 100,000 people in 2011.

By comparison the USA documented 466 violent crimes per 100,000 people in 2011.

*****************************

All this suggests to me that guns are not the problem. As given in the video, the hearts and minds of the people themselves are the problem.

Perhaps we--all of us everywhere, not just in the USA--need to look again at the overall affect of gratuitous violence promoted in our music, our television programming, our movies, our video games, and even the most popular comic books.

We had over 10,000 gun related deaths not 853. That's wrong by a long shot.

Okay. The video didn't cite a source for their fact checking, but cited numbers they say they fact checked. They were focused on homicides. Where did you get your numbers? I will accept any credible source for a different number.

 

[Katzndogz]

To Amy, Katz, and Swagger, all pertinent observations.

But don't you think people can be desensitized to what they would otherwise deem unacceptable. You see it in boxers--they have no problem inflicting as much pain and suffering as possible upon their opponent when most of us would recoil at the idea of striking somebody. Military types become unaffected by the mayhem they inflict on the enemy or even some of the collateral damage done in the heat of battle.

Wouldn't it follow that constant exposure to people doing violence to other people necessary to win a game could change the psyche of the most vulnerable to the point they would use violence in order to feel like the hero in the game?

I certainly don't think that a game can desensitize anyone to violence. Getting away with acts of violence is worse than video games. It was the "desensitization" to violence that stopped games of tag and dodgeball. It didn't help. Young people still got away with sadistic acts in the name of having fun. Boxers have no problem inflicting pain on another boxer because it is a sport with definite rules. They are not enemy combatants. Outside of the ring, they are usually friends.

In times past when men went to war it wasn't nice and neat like it is now. It was swords and axes, spears and battlefield gutting. It didn't turn the men who went to war into murderous madmen intent on repeating their acts against their neighbors and families. Such insanity wouldn't be permitted, someone who did that would soon find themselves at the end of a rope or drawn and quartered without endless appeals.

Using boxing as an example was just to illustrate how one can come to see doing violence to another as a sport and not feel any remorse or discomfort in doing that. It isn't that there is anything wrong with boxing. But I would be extremely uncomfortble striking another person with the intention of injuring him/her if I could. The boxer learns to have no such feelings when striking his/her sparring partner or opponent. It IS a kind of conditioning.

Nor do I think police officers or soldiers or any others who are trained and drilled in using force, lethal or otherwise, then more likely to become more violent in their personal lives. If they ARE prone to violence, they may know how to be more lethal or effective, but I don't see that becoming a part of their psyche. Nevethless, they do become desensitized to the effects of the job they are called on to do.

So back to that young person playing endless video games, reading those violent comic books, seeing the violence on television and in the movies. If he or she isn't wired exactly 'normally', could this gradually condition him to see violence as the way to achieve, to succeed, to be glorified or important, to be a success? And evenmoreso if he is successful in accomplishing large scale mayhem?

That's the crux of the issue. We don't have a problem with video games, boxing, football or movies but with abnormal people! We don't have a violence problem but a crazy problem! The answer isn't at all to transform the lives of normal people to accommodate crazy people. That will never happen. It's to control the crazy people. Starting with admitting they are abnormal and insane. The first thing will be to overcome the whole liberal idea of "What's normal? Something normal for you, isn't for me." People who want to cause harm to others, male or female, human or non human are not normal people. They need to be identified and dealt with, even if dealing with them is to remove them from the normal people they would harm. To do that we need standards and judgment, both of which are lacking today.

Instead what our off kilter culture does is inject drugs into a culture that protects crazy, ensuring that the crazies will be even crazier yet and those who were once normal aren't.

What do you suppose happened here? Video Games?

Homeowner shoots naked intruder found choking dog, police say - U.S. News

The assailant was both violent and naked leading to a suspicion that he was on bath salts, usually mixed with pot and smoked.

Violence that comes from mental illness is like a balloon. Squish it on one side and it expands somewhere else. That's why no matter how much the activities of normal people are curtailed, it will never address the problems caused by the mentally ill. The entire culture will eventually be nothing but puppets dancing to the tune only the insane can hear.

 

[Foxfyre]

So one person says that there has been a decrease in crime despite an escalation of media and video game violence.

There has also been a huge increase in gun sales since the President and Congress have been talking more gun control too and that has been going on for several years now. So it is just as easy to say that more guns, less crime.

And the correlation of either is most likely not translatable as causation.

But the fact is, four or so decades ago, most of us had no worries about some gunman invading a school with the intent of doing mayhem. Schools were not equipped with armed guards and locked doors and lockdowns being a common part of the routine. The kids could have a pen knife on their key chain or a jackknife in their pocket and that was perfectly okay. And guns were just as much a part of the culture then as they are now.

So what's different now?

 

[007]

Let's say I agree with the premise that video games desensitize the young and promote violence.

Now what?

Now that we've all agreed "what's bad" you move to ban them for the good of the public?

It's not just a premise or a theory, there's established proven evidence of it...

Video Games Desensitize to Real Violence | Psych Central News

... and that's only one example.

What our society is becoming is where all this new insane kids with guns going on mass killing rampages is coming from.

I think to myself, I never grew up playing high definition video games on a massive TV that were so real they almost appeared alive, and there's no way I could ever go out and shoot up a crowd. So how is it these young kids can do it? A common link to them all is violent, bloody video games where they can indiscriminately kill, rape, rob and maim other people, even kids and infants in these games. I think to deny that they have an effect, coupled with the constant blood lust and violent movies full of guns, bombs and whatever else can kill you coming out of hollywood is completely dishonest. What's the latest Stalone movie? Well, "BULLET TO THE HEAD" of course. And they called Wayne LaPierre insensitive.

Your solution to the problem is to ban video games?

I think they should be considered to a minor as is liquor, cigarettes or porn, etc. I don't think anyone under 17 or 18 should be playing these games or watching the blood lust, kill everything that moves movies. No doubt it is having an effect and polluting young minds. But as mentioned in a prior post also, it is up to the parents to control what their children are watching and playing, and their internet activity. Sadly, that will always be the weakest link.

But saying the solution is to ban large capacity clips and so called assault weapons is nothing more than treating the symptom and not the cause. They can ban all the clips and assault weapons under the sun, but this killing will simply continue, until people stop pushing an agenda and start being honest about the cause.

 

[AmyNation]

Games having ratings, just like movies....children are already not allowed to purchase them.

 

[007]

So one person says that there has been a decrease in crime despite an escalation of media and video game violence.

I'd like to see a link to those stats and the evidence supporting it.

In any case, decrease in crime, increase in whack job mass killings.

 

[007]

Games having ratings, just like movies....children are already not allowed to purchase them.

The rating system is broken and should be reviewed.

 

[bobcollum]

Games having ratings, just like movies....children are already not allowed to purchase them.

The rating system is broken and should be reviewed.

I'd bet all games that feature life-like violence get the M rating, which is supposed to be 17 and up.

 

[AmyNation]

Games having ratings, just like movies....children are already not allowed to purchase them.

The rating system is broken and should be reviewed.

It's not broken, children can't buy the type of games in question. What do you want to do, demand parents stop buying them for their kids?

 

[eflatminor]

So one person says that there has been a decrease in crime despite an escalation of media and video game violence.

I'd like to see a link to those stats and the evidence supporting it.

In any case, decrease in crime, increase in whack job mass killings.

Nope. Overall violent crime is on the decrease, as is mass killings, the peak of which was 1929. Even recently, mass killings are down. Incidents of mass murder in the U.S. declined from 42 in the 1990s to 26 in the first decade of this century. Further, the three worst K–12 school shootings ever did not take place in America, but in Britain and Germany.

Lots of sources out there for this. Here's one:
The Facts about Mass Shootings - John Fund - National Review Online

 

[Foxfyre]

Games having ratings, just like movies....children are already not allowed to purchase them.

The rating system is broken and should be reviewed.

I'd bet all games that feature life-like violence get the M rating, which is supposed to be 17 and up.

I honestly don't know much about the criteria they use to rate anything anymore. My Rise of Nations game is rated T (teen 12+) but I'm pretty sure any person of any age could purchase this game. My Civilzation IV game, which is based on a similar concept to Rise of Nations, is rated E (everyone) but the people who are killed don't scream in agony in Civ IV.

I have another one "Oasis" that somebody gave me and I haven't tried but the explanation on it is "Rescue your lands and defend your empire" which suggests warfare and it is also rated E (everyone.) I bought Hombre a Godfather game (that he found exceeding boring after checking it out for a short while) but it is rated M (mature 17+) but I picked it up at Office Max and suspect anybody could buy that game too.

But those video games where you go through the hallways machine gunning everything you see, having sex with people, etc. etc. etc.--how are they rated? And can a 10-year-old go into the game shop and buy one or order one from Amazon?

I wonder how many parents check out the games their kids are playing?

 

[Swagger]

So one person says that there has been a decrease in crime despite an escalation of media and video game violence.

There has also been a huge increase in gun sales since the President and Congress have been talking more gun control too and that has been going on for several years now. So it is just as easy to say that more guns, less crime.

And the correlation of either is most likely not translatable as causation.

But the fact is, four or so decades ago, most of us had no worries about some gunman invading a school with the intent of doing mayhem. Schools were not equipped with armed guards and locked doors and lockdowns being a common part of the routine. The kids could have a pen knife on their key chain or a jackknife in their pocket and that was perfectly okay. And guns were just as much a part of the culture then as they are now.

So what's different now?

People are reacting to the set of frustrating societal conditions they've been burdened with.

Multiculturalism and political correctness being the worst.

I'm going to take this conversation into uncomfortable territory, but I feel it should be said/written, nonetheless.

The media quite rightly draws attention to the undeniable fact that these massacres are almost exclusively committed by young white males. But no-one's willing to go any further down that road, and blames the cultural acceptance of drugs, porn and video games. I think this racial element might be telling us something, because when you go back four decades, the American demographic was almost 90% white/European. The America when these shootings were an appalling exception to the rule was an America without multiculturalism and the mantra of political correctbess to keep the mob in line. On the strength of that, do you think it's beyond the realms of possibility that these kids are rebelling against the constraints of multiculturalism and political correctness? I don't think they're targeting those constraints exclusively, but I certainly think more light should be shed on the topic.

 

[AquaAthena]

So one person says that there has been a decrease in crime despite an escalation of media and video game violence.

There has also been a huge increase in gun sales since the President and Congress have been talking more gun control too and that has been going on for several years now. So it is just as easy to say that more guns, less crime.

And the correlation of either is most likely not translatable as causation.

But the fact is, four or so decades ago, most of us had no worries about some gunman invading a school with the intent of doing mayhem. Schools were not equipped with armed guards and locked doors and lockdowns being a common part of the routine. The kids could have a pen knife on their key chain or a jackknife in their pocket and that was perfectly okay. And guns were just as much a part of the culture then as they are now.

So what's different now?

I know this will sound lame to many of you, but I think all the information that has been offered here, is relative to the problem and the problem originated and was/is compounded by the breakup of the family, and lack of any faith of a higher power. Lack of sitting down with the family for a meal. All those little things that a functional family once did together on a regular basis, however imperfect they may have otherwise been.

Kids had a feeling of belonging. They not only felt loved, but they often had consistency and stability in their lives.

Today, these kids without that, are very lonely and very empty, with a feeling of nothing left to lose. Their souls are vacant. You can see it in their eyes. As a volunteer in the nurse's office, in an elementary school, I could see the kids who were disturbed....those that came in to take their meds., for ADD. I showered them with love and attention and they came in to just visit with me, on the two days a week I was there. They needed someone to care and it wasn't against the law to put my arms around their little pathetic bodies. Now it is.

The functioning kids of today, often have both parents in their lives and those parents pay attention to their kids. One can see that is their eyes, also.

This is not to imply that a one-parent household cannot bring up quality kids.

What to do about the problem? No banning will heal. Only love and as little negative emotional interference in their early, developing minds, would be good for starters.

 

[eflatminor]

So one person says that there has been a decrease in crime despite an escalation of media and video game violence.

Correct.

There has also been a huge increase in gun sales since the President and Congress have been talking more gun control too and that has been going on for several years now. So it is just as easy to say that more guns, less crime.

Them's the facts.

And the correlation of either is most likely not translatable as causation.

Why not? You'll have to prove that. We've got reams of proof that more guns = less crime. Why, there's even a book dedicated to the subject called...wait for it..."More Guns, Less Crime". It's a VERY informative read.

But the fact is, four or so decades ago, most of us had no worries about some gunman invading a school with the intent of doing mayhem. Schools were not equipped with armed guards and locked doors and lockdowns being a common part of the routine. The kids could have a pen knife on their key chain or a jackknife in their pocket and that was perfectly okay. And guns were just as much a part of the culture then as they are now.

So what's different now?

Media hysteria and increased control by central planners that cannot stand the idea of an armed populace. That would be my guess.

Either way, the facts are we are a far less violent society today when we were kids despite the exponential increase in firearm sales.

 

[AmyNation]

A ten year old cannot go in to a game store and buy a video game that is rated for 17+. As to amazon, they don't check your age, but id assume that's because most 10 year olds don't have a credit card.

 

[bobcollum]

The rating system is broken and should be reviewed.

I'd bet all games that feature life-like violence get the M rating, which is supposed to be 17 and up.

I honestly don't know much about the criteria they use to rate anything anymore. My Rise of Nations game is rated T (teen) but I'm pretty sure any person of any age could purchase this game. My Civilzation IV game, which is based on a similar concept to Rise of Nations, is rated E (everyone) but the people who are killed don't scream in agony in Civ IV.

I have another one "Oasis" that somebody gave me and I haven't tried but the explanation on it is "Rescue your lands and defend your empire" which suggests warfare and it is also rated E (everyone.)

But those video games where you go through the halways machine gunning everything you see, having sex with people, etc. etc. etc.--how are they rated? And can a 10-year-old go into the game shop and buy one or order one from Amazon?

I wonder how many parents check out the games their kids are playing?

I don't think of Rise of Nations or Civ IV to be life-like violence, when compared to games like Call of Duty, Battlefield, or Grand Theft Auto.

Anything with that level of realistic violence, or mature themes, especially involving sexual situations, are and should be rated M.