Forum - View topicNEWS: Paper: Police Investigates If Sandy Hook Shooter Emulated Game Scenario
|
Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3 Note: this is the discussion thread for this article |
| Author | Message | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
ikillchicken
 Posts: 7272 Location: Vancouver |
|
|||||
|
...and predictably, Polycell shifts the focus to an easier target.
|
||||||
|
||||||
Chrno2
 Posts: 6171 Location: USA |
|
|||||
|
Well, this is no surprise to me. Funny they are just now reporting this considering I read about his involvement in VGs from a UK source trying to report the story. Which was probably posted within the time frame after the series of events. Which goes to show you they still can't figure out what his motives were and are grasping at straws or whatever they can gather. Meanwhile all the news feeds over the internet while somewhat informative still don't have all the facts. Now in this report they say he killed his mother before heading to the school and then in another report someone stated that his mother was at the school when she was killed. In the meantime it's just becoming a "conspiracy theorist's dream that they are reporting something that mainstream news couldn't. In the meantime nothing has been made clear. Neither side has been able to produce any evidence. Just theories on their own warped or misinformed reality because even if you present your own theory "you're wrong". I'll just wait for the 48 hour or Dateline to finally piece it together and be done with it. Sorry about the partial rant but I've been following this story for awhile and listening to info from all sources and keeping an open mind on it. Funny thing is most of the stuff I've read doesn't even come up. Which goes to show you how messed up this story was. As I say, "the internet is boon of info but also a bane."
So here we are back at the VGs again as to a reason "why". I fear that VG fans will eventually start seeing games on the chopping block again as they've been attacked before. Vtech shooter was known for the same thing. So was the Norway shooter, but his motive had nothing to do with VGs. Sure he used it, maybe it influenced him a little but in the end his warped emotions were about racial paranoia and racial cleansing. But nope the don't look the true motives they target the simplest patsy they can find. "In his twisted manifesto he cited that he felt he had to do something about the changing times and went on a shooting spree. Among his possessions he collected numerous "violent" video games." AH HAAA!!! So violent VGs have to do with shoot ups. Well, what about gang violence? What about carjackings, no wait that was GTA. What about robbing the elderly and abducting children? Really? No seriously? I just realized something. Men and women go to the military and actually experience actual combat where they ARE killing people [and sure it does do something to the mind in some cases] but how come you don't hear of a military vet shooting up a place? Why is that? How is VGs somehow believe to create criminals but actual war situations don't? Could it be that these individuals are so down in the dump that whatever outlet they can find allows them to eventually come to the conclusion of hurting others? Something to think about. |
||||||
|
||||||
Polycell
 Posts: 4623 |
|
|||||
Or did you skip over the articles, feeling assured you'd been vindicated? |
||||||
|
||||||
|
ikillchicken
Posts: 7272 Location: Vancouver |
|
|||||
I'm not sure what you are saying here. Are you suggesting that the articles are valid and show that both video games and guns cause violent behavior? If not then I don't see what your point is. I think we're both on the same page here. We both agree that you don't simply become a killer because you have a gun and/or play a video game. However, while the argument against video games is solely that they somehow motivated him to kill those people, by and large that isn't the argument against guns (or at minimum it is not to the only one). The argument is that they gave him the means. Obviously he didn't shoot up that school with a copy of Call of Duty. It was a gun. A gun was the tool that gave him the means to easily and efficiently murder all those people before anyone could stop him. Hence my point: You cannot equate people blaming video games with people blaming guns. You might not think the blame is valid in either case but clearly guns have a lot more to answer for here than merely motivating him to kill. |
||||||
|
||||||
victor viper
 Posts: 630 Location: The deep south |
|
|||||
|
In a thread from a few weeks ago, I went on a rant about this topic, so this time I'll keep it short.
These simplistic, one-size-fits-all, post hoc attempts to explain this guy's behavior are never going to get to the root of the issue, and it's intellectually lazy. Does someone need access to a gun to commit a gun crime? Yes, that is in fact true; A and B implies A. Is possession of a gun a predictor of violent behavior? That's not so clear. Is owning a large collection of violent video games a predictor of violent behavior? Well, that probably correlates with being young and male and young males do probably commit a disproportionate number of violent crimes. Is it a reliable predictor of violent behavior? Not in a million years! It seems to me the question that needs to be answered is why this guy chose a bunch of strangers (children no less!) after killing his own mother. The proximate cause of the mass murder is the murder of his mother. Figure out why that happened (which is an easier investigative problem) and then things might become clearer. I'm betting that the reason has nothing to do with the fact that his mother owned a gun or his violent game collection. |
||||||
|
||||||
Parse Error
 Posts: 592 |
|
|||||
The post that triggered this whole line of discussion sure sounded to me as though it was citing guns as the root cause of this violence, rather than the means. The reply you started arguing against criticized blaming the shooter's decision to commit this act on guns as no better than blaming it on video games, presumably because Polycell interpreted it the same way. What difference does it make what other arguments exist, when only a specific one was being addressed? If you agree guns didn't cause this person to want to kill people, then just what in the world was this argument supposed to be about in the first place? Surely I'll regret wading into this, but it's just too bizarre to observe a conflict where it's not even clear to me what the source of disagreement is. |
||||||
|
||||||
|
ikillchicken
Posts: 7272 Location: Vancouver |
|
|||||
No, you're using the word "cause" in a different, more general sense here. Guns do not necessarily motivate people to act violently. Thus, they are not the cause of their desire to act violently. However, if they provide someone with the means to act on their desire, they are still (one of) the causes of the violent act actually occurring.
Well that just highlights why my point is worth making. I can't speak to what specifically the poster meant but concluding that he must have meant guns motivate people to act violently is an unjustified assumption at this point. The argument that guns actually motivate people to act violently is not necessarily the only one being made when someone says guns are to blame. Yet you both apparently assume it is. Hence my point.
It makes no difference if all you're truly saying is that guns don't motivate people to act violently. But, if you're saying that guns therefore aren't to blame here (which clearly is the implication when responding to a post specifically stating that guns are to blame) then obviously pointing out that you've failed to address other arguments is perfectly valid. |
||||||
|
||||||
|
Parse Error
Posts: 592 |
|
|||||
I suppose that's where my confusion arose. What you quoted in your original response explicitly stated exactly which two things it was comparing, even if one of them was the result of a misinterpretation:
Which I read as "blaming his decision to murder a bunch of kids on guns" being equated with "blaming his decision to murder a bunch of kids on video games." You seem to have misread it as something more like "claiming guns played any role in this crime is just as facile as saying video games were responsible." |
||||||
|
||||||
 |
All times are GMT - 5 Hours |
|
|
|
Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group