Forum

Sathelys wrote:

None of this kind of thing happens in Canada..maybe it's because we don't allow RANDOM people to walk around with GUNS.

Exactly! This shit never happens in Canada because people are simply not allowed to have guns in their houses (unless you go through a long and pricy process of getting the license). And you know what, I feel perfectly safe even though there are no firearms in my house.

The US has a long and sordid history regarding its right to bear arms going back to its infancy. For this reason the 2nd amendment will never be repealed. However, I still stand by the notion that it isn't the guns but the people who need to be regulated. Congress needs to spend more time tightening up gun laws and creating more hoops to jump through to get a license to own a gun so that any crazy who walks down the street can't easily get one for whatever reason.

Sathelys wrote:

None of this kind of thing happens in Canada..maybe it's because we don't allow RANDOM people to walk around with GUNS.

I was under the assumption that we had more stabbings and traffic accident deaths than the US. At least, in London which is just down the street from I live (technically speaking, of course)

That being said, we also have (somewhat) stricter gun laws I think.

This whole thing is actually kinda hilarious to me. Wouldn't real life be more....violent then video games? How are these kids GETTING these games in the first place? We have a rating system for a reason, folks. Rolling Eyes

Lynx Amali wrote:

How are these kids GETTING these games in the first place? We have a rating system for a reason, folks. Rolling Eyes

I started buying M-rated games when I was 15, and you know what, not once was I asked to show my ID at ebGames or Best Buy to prove that I was underage...I get the feeling this rating system is pointless if no1 follows it

Tenbyakugon wrote:

Doesn't matter, we have the Second Amendment for a reason.

But is that reason still valid? When did the Second Amendment mean a right to build a Camp Bastion style arsenal in one's home? Who are you defending yourselves from these days, apart from each other? problem is to some the Second Amendment has become a religion like cult more that a legal right with the NRA worshipping it like it is a holy scripture, just because. Rolling Eyes

Last edited by Reibooi on Sun Apr 07, 2013 11:54 am; edited 1 time in total

You know I am just gonna say one thing and then be done with this stupid crap.

I'm sick of stupid old people who know nothing of games coming out and saying how bad and evil they are. Are they so stupid they don't see that movies and books and even to some extent music is just as if not more violent then the vast majority of games? I mean come on these are people who have never touched a game and could not play one if their lives depended on it.

To be honest alot of the crap you see in PG-13 movies pisses me off alot more when it comes to violence. In a game at least you can kinda see the results of the action of violence in these movies you have people getting shot left and right like it's a shooting gallery and nary a drop of blood in sight. That kinda crap makes no sense to me. I kinda feel seeing something like that makes kids not understand the aftermath and damage of violence. At least games either amp it up to hilarious extremes or kind have a more real depiction that isn't making it seem like it's just a kid playing with toys.

All that said I do think alot of this violence stuff in all the media should be toned down a bit. I mean kids are constantly exposed to it and blaming one medium because they don't understand it is insulting. I mean in this country it's common practice to have the most gruesome and violent things on TV easy for kids to access but show a boob and dear god television goes crazy. I mean how does that make sense? A child is hopefully never gonna grow up to be a serial killer but a normal kid should expect to grow up and have a family. Why is sexuality treated like so much more of a taboo then violence? This is the crap these stupid politicians should be trying to fix not just focus on one medium they don't even understand.

Happiness for Subaru wrote:

Try doing a look at recently published (since 2012) research, not research done 6 years ago. Things have changed a lot since then.

http://scholar.google.com/scholar?as_ylo=2012&q=video+game+aggression&hl=en&as_sdt=0,14

I looked at the results and they returned a mixture of results supporting or refuting the link between violence and exposure to violent games. Further, the only study I saw thatdid link violent games to aggression seemed to be studying the effects over a limited time span. Quoting the abstract from http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0022103112000029 here:

Quote:

Research has clearly shown that violent video games can increase aggression. It is less clear why they do. This study investigates the mediating effect of the hostile expectation bias (i.e., tendency to perceive hostile intent on the part of others) on the link between violent video game exposure and aggression. French college students (N = 136) played either a violent or nonviolent game for 20 minutes. Afterwards, they read ambiguous story stems about potential interpersonal conflicts, and listed what they thought the main characters would do or say, think, and feel as the story continued. Aggression was measured using a competitive computer game in which the winner could blast the loser with loud noise through headphones. As hypothesized, video game violence increased the hostile expectation bias, which, in turn, increased aggression. Effects were larger for men than women. Thus one reason why violent games increase aggression is because they increase hostile expectations.

This sounds to me like they're having the subjects play a game, read something, then play a different game. Naturally I have no way of knowing how long it took them to read the intermediate material, but I would generally consider this sequence of events to be too short term to use as evidence towards a long-term increase in aggression, which is what people are actually worried about. Perhaps more convincing evidence is provided in the full text of the paper, but I'm not paying money to look at it.

In regards to short-term increases in aggression. I'd say just about everyone knows that exposure to violence in virtually any form tends to increase their aggressiveness during and shortly after the encounter. But if we're getting up in arms over short term effects, then we might as well ban the news, all non-G rated movies, all non EC rated video games, and a whole list of other things... which is never going to happen nor should it.

I still have yet to see an overwhelmingly definitive study that links violence in games to a long-term increase in aggression in players. Even recently published studies have shown that there is not any sort of causal relationship linking the two. So I stand by my belief that censoring violent video games would be an ineffective and foolish attempt to to decrease the crime rate or otherwise reduce violent tendencies in our society.

if I remember right when most of those shootings happened, wasn't video game violence used as a scape goat AFTER the shooters original intent and reason was stated to the public? this blame bandwagon is so ****ing old it's saw dust, these older then dirt politician ****ers should shut up and actually learn about what the hell they're throwing blame on instead of being blind and deaf puppets singing whatever tune they're told to.

Happiness for Subaru wrote:

That you say things like "muscle memory" (do you mean "implicit memory"?) and seem to think that "muscle memory" (implicit memory?) is an overwhelmingly physiological process leads me to think you need to learn the basics of the relationships between memory, physiology and psychology a tad more.

It really simply sounds like to me that a standard controller has a harder time leaving a training imprint that applies to a firearm than a gun controller. Had they tested rifle controllers, I'm fairly certain that group would've also been more likely to aim for the center of mass with the airsoft pistol.

Quote:

I'm glad you find it interesting too, though. My jaw dropped when I found this study a while back! Hopefully the government will give financial support to studies with such dramatic, extreme methods.

Does the study really tell us much we couldn't have figured out on our own - or even something we didn't already know? At most we had a number put on the effect of training someone to do something with more accurate simulations, an effect that doesn't need such a number to be taken advantage of.

Ambimunch wrote:

Exactly! This shit never happens in Canada because people are simply not allowed to have guns in their houses (unless you go through a long and pricy process of getting the license). And you know what, I feel perfectly safe even though there are no firearms in my house.

And generally in the US the places where guns are hardest to get are where you'd most want one. I personally feel perfectly safe without any gun in my household(as do most people) and live in a place where most anybody can get one if they can afford it(though carrying one is a bit more complicated and expensive).

Mohawk52 wrote:

Tenbyakugon wrote:

Doesn't matter, we have the Second Amendment for a reason.

But is that reason still valid? When did the Second Amendment mean a right to build a Camp Bastion style arsenal in one's home? Who are you defending yourselves from these days, apart from each other? problem is to some the Second Amendment has become a religion like cult more that a legal right with the NRA worshipping it like it is a holy scripture, just because. Rolling Eyes

The US also seceded from Great Britain due to that same belief in inalienable rights, so it's hardly surprising that people would be attached to the idea. The bigger problem is that most of them pick a few rights to defend and are perfectly willing to sell the rest down the river(but then, libertarian sentiment is making a comeback); of course they seem nuts if one they're defending is one you're selling, doubly so if they're selling what you're defending.

Happiness for Subaru wrote:

Try doing a look at recently published (since 2012) research, not research done 6 years ago. Things have changed a lot since then.

http://scholar.google.com/scholar?as_ylo=2012&q=video+game+aggression&hl=en&as_sdt=0,14

Using your link, I found several records of aggression's connection to video games, but I have to note that they all seemed to be accounts of the same experiment. The opposing records were pretty diverse and far more long-term.

This means aggression research needs to have more diverse experiments, or they won't have any footholds to defend their claims properly.

This woman is... how old? Has she even played a video game? Granted, it's certainly possible for an old person to play games like Call of Duty, but I highly doubt it in this woman's case... Unless she's actually picked up a controller, she should have NO say in this issue...

Let me offer an alternate take on this:

Suppose violence in video games somehow was found to be linked to actual violence. Since multiple studies have been conducted already, and the results are mixed, mostly favoring that it does not, any such effect found at this point would be minor. Even if it is so, it won't be many people at all. There isn't much that will be able to drive someone to arbitrarily harm others if they weren't strongly predisposed that way to begin with.

So even if in certain situations violent video games were actually linked to inciting violence in certain individuals, should we really be taking actions that affect and restrict with certainty millions of people based on the uncertain and potential actions of a very small number of individuals? I don't think so

As an analogy, automobiles (and any vehicle really) are responsible for a certain number of deaths, and yet we still use them. It's a fallacy to assert that anything that can conceivably have some catastrophic failure is bad.

Galap wrote:

So even if in certain situations violent video games were actually linked to inciting violence in certain individuals, should we really be taking actions that affect and restrict with certainty millions of people based on the uncertain and potential actions of a very small number of individuals? I don't think so

As an analogy, automobiles (and any vehicle really) are responsible for a certain number of deaths, and yet we still use them. It's a fallacy to assert that anything that can conceivably have some catastrophic failure is bad.

Society works that way, though. And automobiles aren't outlawed or censored because they're practically an essential part of life now. Not just a piece of entertainment.

Ryujin99 wrote:

I still have yet to see an overwhelmingly definitive study that links violence in games to a long-term increase in aggression in players. Even recently published studies have shown that there is not any sort of causal relationship linking the two. So I stand by my belief that censoring violent video games would be an ineffective and foolish attempt to to decrease the crime rate or otherwise reduce violent tendencies in our society.

I didn't make any overt statements of my opinion regarding the matter (and I still won't, I don't care about presenting my opinion), I just wanted to present evidence and promote discussion.

What I really wanted was to see if this forum was capable of discussion at this level. Your post is awesome and made me very happy. Smile

Polycell's post and Juno's posts too! Wink

Yes, with current review board ethics, support, and funding it is difficult to use reputable scientific methods that could help truly examine the link between video games and violence. Hopefully Obama comes through on helping to promote research. Very Happy

Researchers can do all they want, but in the end it comes down to what the legislators and laypersons think, not scientists.

Mohawk52 wrote:

Tenbyakugon wrote:

Doesn't matter, we have the Second Amendment for a reason.

But is that reason still valid? When did the Second Amendment mean a right to build a Camp Bastion style arsenal in one's home? Who are you defending yourselves from these days, apart from each other? problem is to some the Second Amendment has become a religion like cult more that a legal right with the NRA worshipping it like it is a holy scripture, just because. Rolling Eyes

Constitutions are sacred documents. To not uphold uphold them to the greatest extent is disrespectful to the nation a constitution represents. For the U.S. to infringe on any of Its Own is a sign of too much power.

And it's plain and simple: in this world of human nature, people have the right to defend themselves however way they deem for themselves they need to, and the Second Amendment guarantees that right for every American citizen.

Forum - View topic
NEWS: Californian Senator Links Games to Violence

This Week in Anime - How The Many Sides of Voice Actor Radio Captures the Reality of Gig Work

Shaman King Flowers Anime Series Review

Dahlia in Bloom Staff, Ekachi Epilka Studio Respond to Report Claiming N. Korean Animators Worked on Anime

The Grimm Variations Anime Series Review

Anime to Watch if You Liked Shogun

The Quintessential Quintuplets Manga Gets New Honeymoon Anime

BLUELOCK THE MOVIE -EPISODE NAGI- Anime Film Review

Interview: Author Akihiro Nishino on Bottle George, His New Stop-Motion Animated Film

The Spring 2024 Light Novel Guide

Forum - View topicNEWS: Californian Senator Links Games to Violence

Forum

Forum - View topic
NEWS: Californian Senator Links Games to Violence