Ban or Censor Video Games, Not Guns?

[blackhawk]

I just finished a game of Modern Warfare 3 got 10 kills feel no desire to kill in real life.

 

[Uncensored2008]

I just finished a game of Modern Warfare 3 got 10 kills feel no desire to kill in real life.

If it drove a desire for anything, it seems like it would be a desire to join the Army.

 

[Foxfyre]

But are you kids who have been playing these games since you were pups? Day in and day out? A possible form of programming during the years your core values were formed? Sure we all played Cowboys and Indians, Cops and Robbers, etc. when we were kids. Sometimes we were the Cowboy; sometimes the robber. But it was not hours of repetition in which success was measured in how successful we were in creating mayhem.

I love video games and play them a lot. And my very favorite happens to be a game based on wiping out all the opposition. I'm not about to judge anybody for enjoying something I too enjoy.

But isn't there room to at least consider what these super violent games could be doing to some kids?

 

[PaulS1950]

There is no evidence that violent games breed killers. The first amendment protects the rights of the producers and the right of people to purchase these games.
No right should be discarded because of the acts of criminals.

 

[Foxfyre]

There is no evidence that violent games breed killers. The first amendment protects the rights of the producers and the right of people to purchase these games.
No right should be discarded because of the acts of criminals.

Which is why I have not proposed that people be denied the right to purchase the games.

I HAVE proposed that we as concerned citizens consider what these games may be doing to some kids.

Is it not possible for both concepts to co-exist side by side?

 

[Underhill]

I think we've gone the wrong direction with video games.

We've limited the amount of gore in games, very little blood. It takes the realism out of the game.

We saw a demonstration at Scout Camp once where the range officer put a pumpkin out in front of the target board and proceeded to shoot it with a 12 gauge. He then explained to the boys that this is why we practice gun safety as that is exactly what a gun like that can do to a persons head.

I could see that it had the boys thinking.

 

[Foxfyre]

I think we've gone the wrong direction with video games.

We've limited the amount of gore in games, very little blood. It takes the realism out of the game.

We saw a demonstration at Scout Camp once where the range officer put a pumpkin out in front of the target board and proceeded to shoot it with a 12 gauge. He then explained to the boys that this is why we practice gun safety as that is exactly what a gun like that can do to a persons head.

I could see that it had the boys thinking.

Well that is an interesting concept. Some earlier in this thread have suggested that it is because the games are so realistic that they are affecting kids/young adults in negative ways by conditioning them to become conditioned to and devoid of moral reluctance to commit gore, violence, mayhem.

And you are suggesting that they aren't realistic enough?

For me, I can't/won't watch any living creature be tortured. But I suppose I could learn to do so--even enjoy it--if I watched enough slasher movies with gratuitous violence etc. All it takes is the conscious concept that it isn't real. It's just a movie. Right? But I wonder if it really doesn't desensitize us in ways that aren't good for us. Aren't good for society?

And how much do the super violent video games desensitize kids to creating mayhem and even equating that with success?

I wonder how many of us are experiencing real grief when we hear about another shooting; somebody's life snuffed out in the prime of life? Or has it become so matter of fact we just emotionally shrug it off?

I don't know the answers. But I have been made sufficient curious about the social dynamics to explore the subject.

 

[Uncensored2008]

But are you kids who have been playing these games since you were pups? Day in and day out? A possible form of programming during the years your core values were formed? Sure we all played Cowboys and Indians, Cops and Robbers, etc. when we were kids. Sometimes we were the Cowboy; sometimes the robber. But it was not hours of repetition in which success was measured in how successful we were in creating mayhem.

I love video games and play them a lot. And my very favorite happens to be a game based on wiping out all the opposition. I'm not about to judge anybody for enjoying something I too enjoy.

But isn't there room to at least consider what these super violent games could be doing to some kids?

We should consider everything. In most cases, video games will have no negative impact, but like all things in life, some will become obsessed. We've all heard about those who called off work for 3 days when the newest World of Warcraft expansion came out, or the crazy Korean who played Starcraft until his bladder burst and he fell over dead. Humans are a strange species. But these are the rare exceptions.

Should we try and develop ways to identify people like Adam Lanza and Jared Loughner? Of course. Maybe the first sign is the inability to distinguish fantasy from reality. I knew a guy in high school who took Batman comics WAY too seriously. If it were today, little doubt he would have been obsessed with video games. But it was the personality that made him obsessive, not the medium.

A boy like Adam Lanza who doesn't have access to guns will just fill bottles with gasoline, the gun isn't the issue. Likewise prohibiting video games will just drive him to obsess on comic books, or GI Joe dolls.

 

[Foxfyre]

But are you kids who have been playing these games since you were pups? Day in and day out? A possible form of programming during the years your core values were formed? Sure we all played Cowboys and Indians, Cops and Robbers, etc. when we were kids. Sometimes we were the Cowboy; sometimes the robber. But it was not hours of repetition in which success was measured in how successful we were in creating mayhem.

I love video games and play them a lot. And my very favorite happens to be a game based on wiping out all the opposition. I'm not about to judge anybody for enjoying something I too enjoy.

But isn't there room to at least consider what these super violent games could be doing to some kids?

We should consider everything. In most cases, video games will have no negative impact, but like all things in life, some will become obsessed. We've all heard about those who called off work for 3 days when the newest World of Warcraft expansion came out, or the crazy Korean who played Starcraft until his bladder burst and he fell over dead. Humans are a strange species. But these are the rare exceptions.

Should we try and develop ways to identify people like Adam Lanza and Jared Loughner? Of course. Maybe the first sign is the inability to distinguish fantasy from reality. I knew a guy in high school who took Batman comics WAY too seriously. If it were today, little doubt he would have been obsessed with video games. But it was the personality that made him obsessive, not the medium.

A boy like Adam Lanza who doesn't have access to guns will just fill bottles with gasoline, the gun isn't the issue. Likewise prohibiting video games will just drive him to obsess on comic books, or GI Joe dolls.

That is something new to consider. However in comic books the plot is constantly changing so you don't become fixated on a single scenario. And it requires using imagination and some creativity to have fun with a GI Joe so I see that as generally a healthy thing. The video games though--it is the same repetitious violence over and over and over as the player tries to hone his skills and get more and more proficient. I think the way that might affect the brain could be different.

 

[beagle9]

There is no evidence that violent games breed killers. The first amendment protects the rights of the producers and the right of people to purchase these games.
No right should be discarded because of the acts of criminals.

And so you are an advocate maybe, of corrupting minors in ways that come back to haunt them and us in the near future, and maybe it's because of this selfishness that you might have within yourself, that doesn't allow for you to see what is going on all around you these days, especially with the youth culture as of late in which we all see ?

All one has to do is watch TV or movies and play these games, and the themes or scripts are bombarding us and our children in ways that can't help but affect us sooner or later in our mindsets, then just add in the other volital mixes to the frey, and wah-lah we have a killer or killers now produced out of it all. What is wrong with trying to promote good by creating good scripts, good themes, good senario's, good messages for us and our youth ? What then, would it would be to "Barney" for you ? How far down the pipe do you think your sensitivities have gone ? Could you actually sit and watch a full episode of "Barney", Andy Griffith, Gilligans Isle, The Wizard of Oz, Lassie, Gun Smoke and etc. without going bonkers because it is so stupid looking to you or maybe not violent enough for you and etc. ??

Playing the devils advocate in reverse here, so don't get mad, just think about what I am saying for a second or two.. The Gennie is out of the bottle now, so there may be no going back for many in all of this we are dealing with, but if we could maybe look foward to try and create that good in our lives, and within programing once again, then maybe we can save America in the eyes of our Lord, and for our children's sake, and our sake as well.

One may think now, that taking away the (film projector) of the producer and director, would be just like taking away an AR-15 or other guns from a killer intent on killing. The projector over time, may actually kill more premeditatedly, than any gun in history has or was then used spontaneously and/or randomly in an act of murder. The film industry, one could say could be a huge caytalyst that triggers the mind in some and/or in many instances yet all depending, then next "all depending", it falls back on the gun or other tools used, where as these are the weapons of choice in which were illustrated and learned of in these things in order to kill efficiently with, and this by watching or taking into the mind these things that are evil or written/produced in evil ways. Then next we have crazy people then literally picking up weapons afterwards, that's if one decides to take it to that side of the situation, and then using them in such henious ways. Now yes of course they may have had a long held problem that was born out of a bad experience or maybe having many bad experiences in their life, but we must consider all that are linked in ways that create the disasters that we are having in it all to some degree or another now.

We don't need to be assisting these killers with to many ideas, nor do we need to feed them ideas, so we have alot to consider in all of this, and for many it's the children who comes to mind first in it all, because it seems that they are on the front lines lately. They need to be conditioned and raised up right in the world, and not raised up wrong instead. This is why the Lord is straight foward about the children, where as we read that if a child is learned by one to do wrong or is taught to do wrong and/or evil in his or her life, then it is and/or will be better for a person or persons to take a talent and place it around their necks, and then to sink themselves to the bottom of the sea, more so than it would be to face the Lord afterwards.

 

[Foxfyre]

Well while I understand your point Beagle, I don't think Paul is in favor of corrupting minors any more than I think most who enjoy violence in their entertainment, including video games, is going to commit violent acts.

But you do raise one point. There was a time in America when Andy Griffith and I Love Lucy and all the old long running sitcoms were great entertainment for the vast majority of Americans. But as they lack gratuitous and graphic sex, violence, profanity etc., they are no longer intriguing or fun for the younger generation coming up. Just as those who watch the super violent movies become immune to the pain, gore, blood, and mayhem and seek more of them; just as those who become fixated on pornography seek it out; it only stands to reason that young people will become accustomed to violent video games and prefer those to the Mario Brothers and other more innocent pastimes that a lot of us learned to play.

And maybe the genie is out of the bottle and we can't turn back the clock and recreate a society with different tastes and perferences. But I doubt any kid was ever inspired to go out and kill people after watching Andy Griffith.

 

[PaulS1950]

There is no evidence that violent games breed killers. The first amendment protects the rights of the producers and the right of people to purchase these games.
No right should be discarded because of the acts of criminals.

Which is why I have not proposed that people be denied the right to purchase the games.

I HAVE proposed that we as concerned citizens consider what these games may be doing to some kids.

Is it not possible for both concepts to co-exist side by side?

Considering what the games do (not may do) to children would require double blind tests with full controls and detailed psych evaluations prior to the playing and then at intervals during the period of play. We can see the anecdotal evidence in the violence rate among the age groups that we are considering and the violence has gone down since the games were introduced. You must remember that our children don't always learn what we teach but they will learn something from what we teach depending on their interpretation of the consequencial value the information holds for them.

 

[beagle9]

Well while I understand your point Beagle, I don't think Paul is in favor of corrupting minors any more than I think most who enjoy violence in their entertainment, including video games, is going to commit violent acts.

But you do raise one point. There was a time in America when Andy Griffith and I Love Lucy and all the old long running sitcoms were great entertainment for the vast majority of Americans. But as they lack gratuitous and graphic sex, violence, profanity etc., they are no longer intriguing or fun for the younger generation coming up. Just as those who watch the super violent movies become immune to the pain, gore, blood, and mayhem and seek more of them; just as those who become fixated on pornography seek it out; it only stands to reason that young people will become accustomed to violent video games and prefer those to the Mario Brothers and other more innocent pastimes that a lot of us learned to play.

And maybe the genie is out of the bottle and we can't turn back the clock and recreate a society with different tastes and perferences. But I doubt any kid was ever inspired to go out and kill people after watching Andy Griffith.

Very good analysis my friend... It was the point that I was trying to make exactly.. Think about how insensitive or badly programed that many minds are now, towards that which was once good in our society anymore. Then think about how drawn to these other bad things ((just as you have also mentioned)), that we are drawn to anymore, in which as a nation we are now glorifying or lifting up these days? It has become an ugly and very bad problem in this society anymore.

It is a telling story isn't it ?

 

[beagle9]

There is no evidence that violent games breed killers. The first amendment protects the rights of the producers and the right of people to purchase these games.
No right should be discarded because of the acts of criminals.

Which is why I have not proposed that people be denied the right to purchase the games.

I HAVE proposed that we as concerned citizens consider what these games may be doing to some kids.

Is it not possible for both concepts to co-exist side by side?

Considering what the games do (not may do) to children would require double blind tests with full controls and detailed psych evaluations prior to the playing and then at intervals during the period of play. We can see the anecdotal evidence in the violence rate among the age groups that we are considering and the violence has gone down since the games were introduced. You must remember that our children don't always learn what we teach but they will learn something from what we teach depending on their interpretation of the consequencial value the information holds for them.

Would require further test ? How about the reality test and their results that are already out there ?

 

[Foxfyre]

There is no evidence that violent games breed killers. The first amendment protects the rights of the producers and the right of people to purchase these games.
No right should be discarded because of the acts of criminals.

Which is why I have not proposed that people be denied the right to purchase the games.

I HAVE proposed that we as concerned citizens consider what these games may be doing to some kids.

Is it not possible for both concepts to co-exist side by side?

Considering what the games do (not may do) to children would require double blind tests with full controls and detailed psych evaluations prior to the playing and then at intervals during the period of play. We can see the anecdotal evidence in the violence rate among the age groups that we are considering and the violence has gone down since the games were introduced. You must remember that our children don't always learn what we teach but they will learn something from what we teach depending on their interpretation of the consequencial value the information holds for them.

Then it is time to do those double blind tests. It is true that violent crime has been steadily declining for the last 20 years or so though there was an 18% (I think) spike in the analysis year ending October 2012. But most experts say you can't judge a trend on what could be an anomaly in any given year.

But in that same 20 years we have seen a substantial increase in senseless crimes of mass mayhem targeting innocents and in which there is no conclusive motive. And it is that driving the current debate. Some focus only on the proliferation of guns and refuse to consider anything else while others, accurately or not, can point to those same guns as possibly the reason there has been less violent crime. People determined to commit violence will most usually seek the path of least resistance to do it. And in the UK, confiscation of guns has resulted in a great decrease in gun crime, but other violent crime has escalated many times over. This would suggest that guns don't necessarily result in more violence.

You suggest that perhaps it is the video games that is reducing the violent crime? Maybe they are. But it is also noteworthy that many, if not most of those doing those mass killings lately have also had access to and have loved playing the violent video games.

I just think it is something we need to look at really closely before we rule anything out.

 

[Zoom-boing]

Kids are not walking into stores purchasing video games rated Mature, the store won't sell them to minors. It starts with the parents. They are the ones buying this stuff. Maybe they buy it for themselves then let their kids play it as well? I don't know. But I do know that many, many parents today seem to think absolutely nothing of letting their kid have a cell phone at age 7, an iphone or android with internet access at age 12, tv in the kid's room, computer with internet access in kid's room, Playstations and Xboxes in kid's room. Really? That's like opening your front door and saying 'come on in world and have at it'. I simply don't understand giving a child that much freedom at such a young age.

If the demand for these games/shows goes down and demand for better, less violent/graphic goes up that's when the makers will change what they produce. Unfortunately I don't see that happening anytime soon. The genie may indeed be permanently out of the bottle.

 

[Foxfyre]

Kids are not walking into stores purchasing video games rated Mature, the store won't sell them to minors. It starts with the parents. They are the ones buying this stuff. Maybe they buy it for themselves then let their kids play it as well? I don't know. But I do know that many, many parents today seem to think absolutely nothing of letting their kid have a cell phone at age 7, an iphone or android with internet access at age 12, tv in the kid's room, computer with internet access in kid's room, Playstations and Xboxes in kid's room. Really? That's like opening your front door and saying 'come on in world and have at it'. I simply don't understand giving a child that much freedom at such a young age.

If the demand for these games/shows goes down and demand for better, less violent/graphic goes up that's when the makers will change what they produce. Unfortunately I don't see that happening anytime soon. The genie may indeed be permanently out of the bottle.

No quarrel with any of that. But cultural pressures can change the culture. When I was a young adult, all the cool people smoked cigarettes. Ash trays were as common in almost every home as coasters on the end tables. It took awhile but gradually places where people could smoke became less and less. In the airport, it was almost funny the poor smokers huddled around the one ash can in the one designated smoking area, or the smokers were assigned a distant area of the restaurant. And then even those designated areas disappeared. It was no longer 'cool' to smoke and it was especially unacceptable to do it around children. Advertisements for tobacco products disappeared from television and in magazines. The remaining smokers, all good people mostly, are all mostly trying to or contemplating quitting. That's what social/cultural pressure can do.

We didn't become a society tolerant of gratuitous sex, violence, and profanity overnight either. It happened drip by drip, pushing the envelope a little until people got accustomed to it, and then a little more, and then a little more until now almost anything goes. That's what social/cultural pressure can do too.

And when enough of us get enough of it, I don't see why we can't start pushing back the other way.

 

[blackhawk]

But are you kids who have been playing these games since you were pups? Day in and day out? A possible form of programming during the years your core values were formed? Sure we all played Cowboys and Indians, Cops and Robbers, etc. when we were kids. Sometimes we were the Cowboy; sometimes the robber. But it was not hours of repetition in which success was measured in how successful we were in creating mayhem.

I love video games and play them a lot. And my very favorite happens to be a game based on wiping out all the opposition. I'm not about to judge anybody for enjoying something I too enjoy.

But isn't there room to at least consider what these super violent games could be doing to some kids?

Is it possible yes it's also possible violent movies, TV shows, lyrics in music, and graphic novels formerly known as comic books do as well I'm not sure what can be done about any of that it all falls under parents responsibility.

 

[PaulS1950]

First - Mass murders of innocents has remained virtually and statistically constant for the last 50 years. It is no more prevelent today than it was 50 years ago but the media has changed. There are more editorials (slanted news) about the tragities that do happen. The coverage lasts longer and it is presented in a way that sells better.

Next - violence among our youth 10 - 18 (disregarding the gang violence which is an entirely different group) has dropped steadily since the introduction of these violent video games.
We are considering the facts related to the kids and these video games - at least the facts presented by the number and frequency of crimes committed by people in the affected age group and it shows that the games do nothing or may lower the number of crimes that are committed by these kids.

Any perception that these games that are so graphic and violent MUST be affecting our children is totally unsupported by the facts as represented in the crime statistics released by the FBI.
I don't particularly care for the games - I find them senseless - but I see no evidence that they are corrupting our children anymore than "rock-n-roll" corrupted my generation or that RAP corrupted my children's generation. You cannot "consider" anything when you enter into the act with an opinion unless you allow that opinion to be changed with an open mind.

All the evidence shows that these games have either no effect or they make kids LESS violent. That is the evidence that we have.

 

[Zoom-boing]

Kids are not walking into stores purchasing video games rated Mature, the store won't sell them to minors. It starts with the parents. They are the ones buying this stuff. Maybe they buy it for themselves then let their kids play it as well? I don't know. But I do know that many, many parents today seem to think absolutely nothing of letting their kid have a cell phone at age 7, an iphone or android with internet access at age 12, tv in the kid's room, computer with internet access in kid's room, Playstations and Xboxes in kid's room. Really? That's like opening your front door and saying 'come on in world and have at it'. I simply don't understand giving a child that much freedom at such a young age.

If the demand for these games/shows goes down and demand for better, less violent/graphic goes up that's when the makers will change what they produce. Unfortunately I don't see that happening anytime soon. The genie may indeed be permanently out of the bottle.

No quarrel with any of that. But cultural pressures can change the culture. When I was a young adult, all the cool people smoked cigarettes. Ash trays were as common in almost every home as coasters on the end tables. It took awhile but gradually places where people could smoke became less and less. In the airport, it was almost funny the poor smokers huddled around the one ash can in the one designated smoking area, or the smokers were assigned a distant area of the restaurant. And then even those designated areas disappeared. It was no longer 'cool' to smoke and it was especially unacceptable to do it around children. Advertisements for tobacco products disappeared from television and in magazines. The remaining smokers, all good people mostly, are all mostly trying to or contemplating quitting. That's what social/cultural pressure can do.

We didn't become a society tolerant of gratuitous sex, violence, and profanity overnight either. It happened drip by drip, pushing the envelope a little until people got accustomed to it, and then a little more, and then a little more until now almost anything goes. That's what social/cultural pressure can do too.

And when enough of us get enough of it, I don't see why we can't start pushing back the other way.

Cultural pressure didn't change the views on smoking, government did. Government decided that since smoking is bad but too many people smoked they must come to the rescue! so they pushed for getting rid of smoking. Government said no more smoke ads, government said no more smoking here then there and nearly everywhere. As it disappeared from places due to being banned then it lost its appeal. Movies also stopped including it so massively, although not completely, which also influenced people. I don't want government butting in with video games and movies because they think it's 'not good' for us; that's not uncle's job. We as individuals and as a society have to make the choices ourselves to reject these types of things or not.

I quite enjoy Dexter and Shameless and choose to watch them; I also choose to take advantage of the parental controls offered by our cable provider and keep those types of shows (and others) out of reach of my two youngest. We can push back but it has to start at home, imo. I don't know that most parents want to be bothered or go to the trouble of pushing back. Very sad.