A lot of these shootings and violent outbursts tend to stem from family issues.
As I stated time and again, if you want violence to end, treat your kids right (i.e., don't coddle or abuse them).
This topic is locked from further discussion.
A lot of these shootings and violent outbursts tend to stem from family issues.
As I stated time and again, if you want violence to end, treat your kids right (i.e., don't coddle or abuse them).
[QUOTE="OB-47"]Probably. But I'm not going to claim that allowing a violent child to play violent games isn't going to have any effect.I'd assume he loved the violent video games because he was violent himself. The games didn't make him violent
MrGeezer
Yeah I agree somewhat. If you look on this page a bit higher up you'll see what I think of it.
I think that you and I sort of have similar views on this. I mean...I agree that it's stupid to blame videogames, and videogames aren't going to make some kid kill a dude. But I'm not going to act like they have no effect whatsoever, I'm not going to act like they don't matter just because they're videogames. One videogame probably isn't going to hurt a kid. Especially when it's a well-adjusted nonviolent kid. But if you take a kid who is violent and has got serious problems, and then you basically expose him to videogames so much that he's basically being raised on videogames, then I suspect that probably isn't insignificant. The thing is, videogames very clearly send the message that violence gets rewarded. You take a kid who already has emotional and violent behavioral problems, and then repeatedly fill his head with the message that violence is the way to solve problems, then it's shocking how anyone would think that has no effect. It still probably doesn't make him murder anyone. That requires a conscious decision. But will it affect his attitude and overall outlook on life? I'm sure as hell not ruling that out. In any case, I don't know this kid's life story, so I'm not going to speculate on it. I don't know how his parents raised him, I don't know what influences he was exposed to, I don't know if he was mentally and emotionally healthy. All I'm saying is, gamers have a tendency to dismiss any criticisms against games way too quickly. The second that anyone even suggests that games might have any effect on people, gamers just get defensive and make comments like, "we'd might as well just ban everything, then." That kind of attitude really isn't helping.Yeah I agree somewhat. If you look on this page a bit higher up you'll see what I think of it.
OB-47
I played Doom II at the age of 8 and have enjoyed violent video games for almost a decade and a half... and I am a law abiding citizen who does not murder people. Mental illness was why this boy did what he did.Zeviander
DOOM II has planted the seed of violent rage within you nonetheless.
That rage may be dormant now, but oneday, suddenly and inexplicably, everyone around you will resemble a fireball-tossing imp and you'll feel compelled to reach for a shotgun ...
:o
He was also a "fan" of the violence in McClouds Daughters.
And didn't eat his vegetables.
And played board games with his mother that he frequently lost.
And wore intimidating red shoes.
I'm sure there were murderers that loved violent films, or violent books, or violent music, etc
potential murderers/psychopaths probably don't spend every second of their life murdering or planning murder and probably have hobbies like other not-psychopathic people.
I played Doom II at the age of 8 and have enjoyed violent video games for almost a decade and a half... and I am a law abiding citizen who does not murder people. Mental illness was why this boy did what he did.Zeviander
i got doom in 1994 on atari jaguar and im 28 now yea man im in a psycho ward now typing this.
I played Doom II at the age of 8 and have enjoyed violent video games for almost a decade and a half... and I am a law abiding citizen who does not murder people. Mental illness was why this boy did what he did.ZevianderSame, I remember playing GTA 3 when I was like eight years old, and tons of other violent video games.
The teenager was obviously troubled regardless of the video games he played. Somebody should have noticed that something about his personality was off from the start.The guns should have been kept in a gun safe or at the very least had a trigger lock on them. I keep the keys to my gun safe on me at all times for the sole reason that I don't want anybody else to have access to them without my knowledge. Its also worth noting that with the exception of the AR-15 none of the firearms listed would have fallen under any kind of gun ban. As some others have pointed out his love of violent video games is just a symptom of a greater problem.
Pretty good video, but I think the dude is missing something. I don't think that the Obama's goal is really to reduce gun violence, I think his goal is to look like he's doing something to prevent mass shootings (or "massacres" or "shooting sprees" or whatever you want to call those kinds of incidents.) Remember, this isn't in response to a shockingly high murder rate, it's in response to incidents like the Sandy Hook shootings and the Dark Knight shootings. And the reason is simple, he already sort of went there when he talked about how we demonize guns and give tobacco a pass. Why? because tobacco kills you slowly, while guns kill you quickly. Someone slowly dying from cancer is a lot less shocking and a lot less sensational than someone getting shot. And that's what people respond to: shock and sensationalism. And there are few things more shocking and sensational than 20 kids getting shot to death in an elementary school. My point being: I like his idea on reducing gun murders by ending the war on drugs. I'm just saying, I don't think that has much to do with the current national attention that's being put on guns. Ending the war on drugs would reduce gun homicides, but it wouldn't put a dent on things like the Sandy Hook shootings since those kinds of murders don't have anything to do with drugs or gang activity. This would currently be a big issue even if the war on drugs had ended. Because any time something shocking like the Sandy Hook shootings happen, people demand that something be done, and politicians have to scramble to make it look like they're coming up with solutions. Ending the war on drugs is a great idea and I think it should happen, but we'd be having this discussion regardless.I'm just gonna leave this here.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=thLjckkNVl8
gamerguru100
[QUOTE="loco145"]
We should arrest all who play CoD and GTA, just to be sure.
theone86
This is what I hate about arguments involving violent video games, it seems no one on the side of video games even bothers to argue intelligently. I feel like they're constantly arguing against strawmen, whether it be a comment like this, jumping down the throats of people who just want to have a conversation on the issue and are not necessarily advocating specific action, or going on eloquent tangents that don't actually address any of the concerns the other side raises. I do think there is a large segment of people on the other side who are just prudes and/or don't understand video games and video gamers because of a generational gap, but I think to say that the pro-video game crowd is combative would be putting it mildly. For as much of a lack of understanding as there is on the other side, there's equally a lack of wanting to be understood on this side.
mhm[QUOTE="JohnF111"]I wasn't saying anyone was blaming games or wanted to ban games.MrGeezerThen why even make the comparison about banning cars? Sure, it'd be silly to ban cars. It'd also be silly to ban games, that's why pretty much no one is proposing such a thing. That's why I was exaggerating and being facetious. Ever heard of it?
It's sometimes known as "Not being serious".
[QUOTE="MrGeezer"][QUOTE="JohnF111"] That's why I was exaggerating and being facetious. Ever heard of it?JohnF111So basically, you're saying that that comment was not the least bit relevant to the discussion at hand. The only relevance to the topic would be if you were making an analogy, but that analogy fails if the implications don't also apply to the topic at hand. The whole point of such an analogy is to demonstrate how ridiculous something is by applying the same logic to something else. But if you're intentionally NOT applying the same logic, then the analogy breaks down and becomes completely irrelevant. The topic contains video games, so did my post. Relevance = met.
His butthurt is showing
Please Log In to post.
Log in to comment