Ban or Censor Video Games, Not Guns?

[AmyNation]

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.

Exactly. Its the overzealous media that make us feel like America has become unsafe, when stats show the exact opposite.

Someone mentioned in a different thread that school shootings started in the 70's, and was surprised when I pointed out that the 1st mass school shooting was actually 1764.

 

[bobcollum]

Reading a little further into it, there's a varying scale of violent and sexual depictions that can at times place the T rating on games, sometimes the M rating.

Entertainment Software Rating Board - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Foxfyre]

Keep it going people.

Swagger suggests an emphasis on multiculturalism is creating a backlash, or if we are perhaps a bit more introspective, we could say that it is destablilizing a coherant society in which we all felt that we belonged and were safe. I'm not quite ready to buy into that as a reason for mass violence, but as one who sees both politcal correctness and multiculturalism as being destructive forces in society, I sure agree that the concept belongs in the debate and should be considered.

AquaAthena focuses on the breakdown of the family, another subject near and dear to my heart and one that I point to as one of the more destructive aspects of our modern society. Again I am not quite ready to zero in on that as a reason for mass murders, but it sure belongs in the debate.

AmyNation points to incidents in the past and assures us that we don't need to worry about kids getting their hands on inappropriate media. I don't know if she is suggesting that the recent rash of mass shootings is just same old same old, but that too belongs in the debate.

007 points to crappy parenting and while I think that might be a consequence of all the rest of it, I sure think it belongs in the debate.

All I know is that our schools were pretty much open to anybody who wanted to visit at any time, nobody was checked at the door, and I felt that my kids were perfectly safe at school or at the concert or at the movies or at the ballgame. If they were in school now, I would no longer take that for granted.

 

[bobcollum]

I don't believe it, but if Polerider thinks it's more of a parenting issue, I agree with him.

In the end, it's all about right and wrong, and understanding the difference between the two. That's one of the primary jobs of a parent, to teach their children the difference and why it's important to do what's right, and avoid what's wrong.

When a child understands that, nothing that comes after should be a problem.

 

[AmyNation]

I'm suggesting the "recent rash" is not a recent rash. Again, we don't have an uptick in violence and mass killings, despite what your preception may be.

 

[Foxfyre]

I don't believe it, but if Polerider thinks it's more of a parenting issue, I agree with him.

In the end, it's all about right and wrong, and understanding the difference between the two. That's one of the primary jobs of a parent, to teach their children the difference and why it's important to do what's right, and avoid what's wrong.

When a child understands that, nothing that comes after should be a problem.

There is a certain dynamic at play here that parenting doesn't always address though.

How many kids cheat on tests in order to win that higher grade. Why? For the benefits, prestige, or praise that a higher grade offers.

How many kids lie or exaggerate in an effort to increase their importance or status with their peers or others?

Making ourselves look bigger, smarter, more appealing, more capable, more important - or - feeling inferior because we feel we haven't accomplished that - has always been important to kids. (Many adults as well.)

But there was a time in America in which decent society expected a certain conduct from people and those who seriously broke out of societal expectations were criticized, scorned, and shunned. Movie stars could lose their contracts; sports stars were kicked off teams; rock stars would have an engagement cancelled. The language and content of movies, music, magazines, and books were all expected to meet basic standards of decency. It was shocking when Rhett Butler said "damn" to Scarlett O'Hara. "Wake Up Little Susie" was once banned in West Texas because it was just too risque.

Okay there was room to relax some of those restrictions. But now movie stars can behave abysmally and are rewarded with Oscars, musicians can be the scum of the earth, strung out on and exalt drugs, etc. and still be rock stars adores by millions. A Michael Vick can be exalted as a quarter back and a convicted rapist can return to the boxing ring or be invited to speak at important functions.

And we have violent video games in which success and victory is measured in how much mayhem you can commit and how many people you can kill.

Is that all part of it? I don't know for sure, but I sure think it needs to be included in the debate.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

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?

Perception.

Our culture was just a violent 40 – 50 years ago as today, if not more so.

From the assassinations of Dr King and the Kennedys, to Charles Whitman and Vietnam, Americans were subjected to equally horrendous acts of violence.

Limited conduits of media at the time, however, as opposed to today, create the illusion of a ‘more violent’ contemporary culture.

The advent of social conservatism and Christian fundamentalism in a partisan context some 40 years ago - the point at which many perceive our culture as ‘better’ and ‘less violent’ than today - is not a coincidence; indeed, rhetoric about society today being ‘immoral’ and ‘abnormal’ is a creation of the social right in an effort undermine Constitutional case law and public policy decisions social conservatives object to, but lack justification to oppose legislatively or in the courts.

Frustrated by failed efforts to codify social conservative and fundamentalist religious dogma into secular law, the social right contrived the myth of ‘liberal promiscuity,’ the inane canard that all of society’s ills were the direct result of a culture that no longer values personal responsibility, and rewards selfishness and lack of self-reliance.

Needless to say, nothing could be further from the truth.

Americans enjoy greater freedom today than at any point in our Nation’s history; this includes freedom of personal expression many on the social right might find ‘offensive.’ But that’s the very nature of a free society, and forms of free expression that manifest controversy are an accurate indication of individual liberty safeguarded and a government appropriately restrained.

Consequently, when a social conservative hears ‘rap music’ he finds offensive, he needs to perceive that as confirmation of each American’s personal liberty, and license for the social conservative to live his life as he sees fit, and to express himself in a manner others might indeed find offensive as well.

 

[elvis]

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?

18 and over stickers. No ban on guns or video games...

 

[Foxfyre]

Actually I could accept that Elvis. And maybe just don't make the violent video games so accessible/tempting to the younger kids by keeping them out of sight like convenience stores do with porn magazines. At least lock them up like they do cigarettes. We make it illegal to give booze to kids. Should it be made illegal to buy them other products that are rated for adults only?

 

[Foxfyre]

And noting that C_Clayton_Jones puts all the nations problems at the feet of social conservatives, but did not offer a comment on how that promotes mass violence or how getting rid of those social conservatives would correct the problem.

 

[Noomi]

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?

Video games are already restricted - or at least, they should be. Games like Grand Theft Auto are restricted to over 18's - but you can't prevent parents buying the game for their ten year old child.

They can 'censor' video games by restricting them to certain ages. That doesn't take away the enjoyment from anyone.

 

[Noomi]

Actually I could accept that Elvis. And maybe just don't make the violent video games so accessible/tempting to the younger kids by keeping them out of sight like convenience stores do with porn magazines. At least lock them up like they do cigarettes. We make it illegal to give booze to kids. Should it be made illegal to buy them other products that are rated for adults only?

Of course it should - does America have any restrictions on what video games kids can buy?

 

[Connery]

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?

US society has always exulted violence, guns and death, this can be demonstrated by the gangster films of the 1930'& 1940's, war films and television during the 1960's. If anything, society has gotten too soft and does not deal with it's problems, always looking for a quick fix such as blaming "medication" or video games.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD

 

[Swagger]

Actually I could accept that Elvis. And maybe just don't make the violent video games so accessible/tempting to the younger kids by keeping them out of sight like convenience stores do with porn magazines. At least lock them up like they do cigarettes. We make it illegal to give booze to kids. Should it be made illegal to buy them other products that are rated for adults only?

Of course it should - does America have any restrictions on what video games kids can buy?

The UK does, but it's hardly, if ever, enforced. Personally speaking, I think that the only viable deterrent is for society in general to treat the irresponsible fools who provide their kids with adult material with scorn and brand them as bad parents. Willfully irresponsible parenting needs to be stigmatised along the lines of how society treats rapists.

 

[Noomi]

Actually I could accept that Elvis. And maybe just don't make the violent video games so accessible/tempting to the younger kids by keeping them out of sight like convenience stores do with porn magazines. At least lock them up like they do cigarettes. We make it illegal to give booze to kids. Should it be made illegal to buy them other products that are rated for adults only?

Of course it should - does America have any restrictions on what video games kids can buy?

The UK does, but it's hardly, if ever, enforced. Personally speaking, I think that the only viable deterrent is for society in general to treat the irresponsible fools who provide their kids with adult material with scorn and brand them as bad parents. Willfully irresponsible parenting needs to be stigmatised along the lines of how society treats rapists.

I agree with that.

My aunt used to go out and buy violent video games for her son (my cousin) when he was only 12. She'd allow him to sit and play for hours and hours on end, so much so that his eyes (he had worn glasses since he was a small child) would squint up. He was unable to look at you with scrunching his eyes. It was awful.

 

[Foxfyre]

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?

US society has always exulted violence, guns and death, this can be demonstrated by the gangster films of the 1930'& 1940's, war films and television during the 1960's. If anything, society has gotten too soft and does not deal with it's problems, always looking for a quick fix such as blaming "medication" or video games.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD

There is a subtle difference though Connery. Somehow those war films were different. They supported our troops and our reason for being in the war, but carefully avoided showing graphic violence and kept disturbing scenes to a minimum. By Vietnam they were mostly critical of the war and showed it in the most negative light. The popular TV sitcom M.A.S.H. showed a more gentle humane character of the American spirit, mostly because the actors refused to do the show if it exalted war in any way.

But those old gangster movies were in the same vein as the Saturday afternoon western matinees. You KNEW who were the bad guys and who were the good guys. Breaking the law was not portrayed as okay, funny, and did not glorify those who did it.

You didn't have bad characters portrayed sympathetically and as heroes or somebody to admire.

 

[Swagger]

Of course it should - does America have any restrictions on what video games kids can buy?

The UK does, but it's hardly, if ever, enforced. Personally speaking, I think that the only viable deterrent is for society in general to treat the irresponsible fools who provide their kids with adult material with scorn and brand them as bad parents. Willfully irresponsible parenting needs to be stigmatised along the lines of how society treats rapists.

I agree with that.

My aunt used to go out and buy violent video games for her son (my cousin) when he was only 12. She'd allow him to sit and play for hours and hours on end, so much so that his eyes (he had worn glasses since he was a small child) would squint up. He was unable to look at you with scrunching his eyes. It was awful.

In 1993 a 3-year-old boy called James Bulger went shopping with his mother in the city of Liverpool. During the trip he was lured away by two ten-year-old boys called Robert Thompson and Jon Venables. Police later found Bulger's body with 42 wounds. He'd been beaten to death with an iron pipe by a railway siding. During their inquiries, investigating officers discovered the two suspects' parents would often allow them to watch violent films, Reservoir Dogs being one of their favourites. They remain the youngest people convicted of murder by a British court. They're free now, and live under different identities because the usual bleeding hearts deemed their punishment excessive.

Murder of James Bulger - Wikipedia

 

[Connery]

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?

US society has always exulted violence, guns and death, this can be demonstrated by the gangster films of the 1930'& 1940's, war films and television during the 1960's. If anything, society has gotten too soft and does not deal with it's problems, always looking for a quick fix such as blaming "medication" or video games.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD

There is a subtle difference though Connery. Somehow those war films were different. They supported our troops and our reason for being in the war, but carefully avoided showing graphic violence and kept disturbing scenes to a minimum. By Vietnam they were mostly critical of the war and showed it in the most negative light. The popular TV sitcom M.A.S.H. showed a more gentle humane character of the American spirit, mostly because the actors refused to do the show if it exalted war in any way.

But those old gangster movies were in the same vein as the Saturday afternoon western matinees. You KNEW who were the bad guys and who were the good guys. Breaking the law was not portrayed as okay, funny, and did not glorify those who did it.

You didn't have bad characters portrayed sympathetically and as heroes or somebody to admire.

The fact that a side was chosen or that right proved to be "might" is not my point......the answers had elements of a level of violence which put and end to human life. This is an aspect of American life that is interwoven in almost every aspect of society including church, I.E. the Bible. I do not believe banning video games and such is the answer at all it identifying patterns and addressing those issues, for example.

 

[Noomi]

The UK does, but it's hardly, if ever, enforced. Personally speaking, I think that the only viable deterrent is for society in general to treat the irresponsible fools who provide their kids with adult material with scorn and brand them as bad parents. Willfully irresponsible parenting needs to be stigmatised along the lines of how society treats rapists.

I agree with that.

My aunt used to go out and buy violent video games for her son (my cousin) when he was only 12. She'd allow him to sit and play for hours and hours on end, so much so that his eyes (he had worn glasses since he was a small child) would squint up. He was unable to look at you with scrunching his eyes. It was awful.

In 1993 a little boy called James Bulger went shopping with his mother in the city of Liverpool. During the trip he was lured away by two ten-year-old boys called Robert Thompson and Jon Venables. Police later found Bulger's body with 42 wounds. He'd been beaten to death with an iron pipe by a railway siding. During their inquiries, investigating officers discovered the two suspects' parents would often allow them to watch violent films, Reservoir Dogs being one of their favourites. They remain the youngest people convicted of murder by a British court. They're free now, and live under different identities because the usual bleeding hearts deemed their punishment excessive.

Murder of James Bulger - Wikipedia

That case, and that video footage, will stick with me forever. Horrific case - and those sick freaks should NEVER have been allowed out of prison.

 

[AmyNation]

Yeah! Lock up those little children forever!

I love that there's one thread going pointing out the lefts hypocrisy ie blaming guns and ignoring hollywood violence, while this thread is going, where people are attempting to blame video games for violence and wondering what laws the government should make to make it all better.