Videogames, weapons, knifes aren't responsible for terrorist acts. But someone else is always responsible.
Comment has been collapsed.
Some mass shootings might be responsible for the creation of some videogames, but it definitely isn't the other way around :P.
I completely agree with your point of view, there have been times when I wanted to beat the shit out of someone but then I rather go home, play Prototype one and kill a bunch of random people there in a very gory fashion and cool down.
Comment has been collapsed.
Definitely? Nothing definite, yet, in surprisingly little serious research done up to now.
Ofc, if they were, they would not be solely responsible, but it's possible (and in my opinion, likely), that they may be a very significant, if not most significant, factor in the recent rise of different forms of violence, mass shootings included.
In case of mass shootings this impact may be even bigger, than easy access to weapons in US. But there are many other contributing factors, like growing economic gaps between different groups of society, growth of youth gangs, religious extremism and the very simple fact, that any taboo gets weakened by the very fact, that we learn, that someone else has broken it (like in case of suicide epidemics). Hence the research separating those factors is very hard to perform in an unbiased and convincing manner.
Comment has been collapsed.
Mass shootings are an exclusively American problem; videogames exist everywhere. There is absolutely no correlation between these two variables.
Comment has been collapsed.
Once again, there is nothing definite or absolute about this issue so far, except prejudices and prejudgements on both sides of this argument, sadly based on emotions and politics, not on logical thinking.
While there is a lot of true in the statement, that guns restrictions lead to bandits and terrorists still having the guns and citizens having them taken away, a typical mass shooting is not an act of a "bandit" or a "terrorist", but of a "citizen". Therefore, ofc, the easy access to guns for people not involved in criminal or terrorist activities makes mass shootings occur predominantly in US. Most of similar accidents in Europe, are not only not shootings, but as a result of chosen weapon cause much less casualties - people getting mad run around with knifes or even axes, not a semi-automatic rifles. Lately, however, a new and much more lethal "weapon" seems to be introduced in Europe, as there are increasing number of incidents, when people are using their vehicles, for example ramming bus stops full of bystanders.
The separate issue, though, is the rise in the numbers of those shootings. AFAIK, the guns are not easier to get in US, than they were in the past, yet the number of mass shootings is growing. It does not seem, that they occur more often, because recently more people have guns, more people know how to shoot or more people just like to shoot. So, most likely the answer to the question of increased number of mass shooting does not lie in the "shooting" part (which does not mean, than restricting guns would not lower the number of those incidents, but at it's own cost in different areas), but in the more general issue, why the people are more likely to use indiscriminate violence in public, why the taboo against killing innocent bystanders weakens, and why we seem to be less and less able to constructively deal with our own aggression.
As for the scientific research, and how inconlusive and how far away from any definite and absolute statements it is currently, there is the conclusion of Harvard Research from 2014:
Though we now know that public mass shootings have been occurring more often, the reasons why have yet to be identified. However we come to understand the complex factors that drive these events, it is unlikely that this recent shift is the result of social and cultural factors that have remained relatively constant over the past decade—such as the prevalence of mental illness. While many mass shooters had mental-health problems, as the Mother Jones data shows, there is no reason to believe that there has been an increase in mental illness rates in the last several years that could help explain the rise in mass shootings. (In fact, federal research on the prevalence of severe mental illness shows a decrease in recent years.) As we search for answers with the common goal of diminishing mass shootings, studying them effectively remains key, not least for gauging the success of any policies aimed at reducing the frequency and toll of these events.
Comment has been collapsed.
When it comes to mass shootings, I mostly agree with you. Unfortunately, guns pose a much larger problem in the US, where mass shootings account for only a tiny fraction of gun-related deaths.
There is nothing absolute about it (like in so many other fields), but there is strong evidence hinting at a relationship between high rates of lethal criminal acts and easy access to guns. The fact alone that the US has much more violent deaths than other developed countries where guns are difficult to come across should is suggestive of that, though correlation does not necessarily indicate causation. However, there is research on the topic (see https://www.rand.org/pubs/research_reports/RR2088.html or https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6187769/ for instance) showing that stricter gun regulations probably reduce firearm deaths, both in the context of criminal violence or suicides.
While certain groups may gain access to guns even if they are officially prohibited, most criminals do not belong to organized bands. In Europe and other parts of the world, one can reasonably expect that a regular bandit will not be carrying a gun; by the same token, the felon has little incentive to have one himself because he knows a knife will be more than enough. And nasty as it is to encounter a guy wielding a knife asking for your money, chances of dying in that encounter are way less. Accordingly, deadly crime in Europe is extremely rare, even though robberies do take place.
Even when there is a clear intention of causing harm, semi-automatic rifles or any other kind of firearm are much more effective than knifes or axes. Vehicles are indeed a weapon of formidable power, though somewhat limited flexibility, and most of the time only employed by terrorists. Once again, the problem with guns is not restricted to mass shootings, but to a wide array of situations where the easy access to a device designed to kill quickly makes death a much more likely outcome.
Comment has been collapsed.
People around the world play the same video games, but those mass shootings seem to be an American problem.
Comment has been collapsed.
Hahaha. I don't live in the US, so I don't know if they have them in display or not, but they are available at walmart.com.
Comment has been collapsed.
Just a few years ago we had this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2014_Sydney_hostage_crisis
The only reason it didn't turn into a mass shooting was because the perpetrators took a different approach. Gun control isn't as magical a solution as the people that support it make it out to be.
Comment has been collapsed.
Even if I agreed with that, I'm not sure how that's really relevant to the point I was making, which was basically that minirop's implied logical argument (that Australia's gun laws have prevented further massacres) is bollocks.
The example I gave of the Lindt cafe siege was just one. This informative wkipedia article mentions a handful of "mass shootings" since the new gun control laws came in over 20 years ago: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_massacres_in_Australia .
Are there fewer than there would have been if the gun control laws hadn't been enacted? We will never know.
Comment has been collapsed.
VEN here, gun control doesn´t serve the general population in general, In my country is almost impossible to buy a gun without the permission from the Gov. And we are under a violence law, by criminals and government agents. Controls only give power to the government. Corruption is a huge part of power in south america at least. So...
Comment has been collapsed.
Indeed, gun control will surely help (at leas having some king of control and not selling them as candies) but once there is a black market big enough the psychos will keep doing their crap. This is a problem that goes beyond guns (even if they are the main tool for the massacres), videogames, etc. and everyone is occupied pushing their political agendas instead of elaborating a proper plan to stop or at least minimize this.
Comment has been collapsed.
There are racists at the head of the country and almost anyone can get a weapon so the easiest way to get rid of any real responsibility is to blame something that could have minimal impact and we do not have enough information about their effect, like video games just to drown the people on the question of the impact of these violent games while everyone knows that this is not the problem behind all this
It's been a few years since the US is the laughingstock of the world, they ridicule themselves openly and if the American people follow the media and start criticizing the impact of video games in these tragic events rather than the real reasons then politicians will have managed to cloud the real issues
Comment has been collapsed.
You can't say that, racism and discrimination against different beliefs are a real problem in the USA.
The leader of this country is openly racist towards certain populations and this kind of behavior can call a part of the uneducated population to take up arms against these people.
Look what happens to this country, they even backtrack on the issue of abortion so we may not be in "1870" as you say but this country is regressing.
Comment has been collapsed.
Crazy people are responsible for mass shootings. I've played video games since I can remember. I also own guns. The only thing I've killed are pixels and paper targets. When I was in high school, we played Doom in computer class, and I took a gun safety class where we shot guns... at school. During hunting season it was not a big deal to see student's trucks in the parking lot with guns in the gun racks. I don't recall hearing about mass shootings back then, but we didn't have 24 hour news networks glorifying these assholes either.
Comment has been collapsed.
However, a lot of this news right now centers on the Republicans who are blaming video games
Sure, guns being so easily accessible to get is irrelevant.
Comment has been collapsed.
I'd disagree with that. The weapons industry doesn't make that much off of consumers. Selling guns to civilians may be big business, but the competition in the market means that most of them don't see huge profits. Their real bread and butter is military contracts, which is what they're really after when/if they buy a politician.
Those politicians are simply representing their constituents. There are quite a few people in America that do value their 2nd Amendment rights. It's not just some small fringe of alt-right nut jobs. Every day people buy guns for a wide variety of purposes and it's only natural that the politicians they elect would represent them. Just as the politicians that are elected by the left do their best to represent their constituents.
It's easy to blame the oppositions party, call them crooked and ignore the fact that they're simply representing the people that put them into office, the very same people that they have to appease if they want to stay in office.
Comment has been collapsed.
Those politicians are simply representing their constituents. There are quite a few people in America that do value their 2nd Amendment rights.
Well, let's not start a topic on how this amendment is antiquated because it's not the debate here, but I disagree with the fact they are representing their constituents. A lot of people "value" the 2nd amendment but if you look at polling about how much of the same people would welcome stricter regulation, you'll see that these people are not representing their constituents. They would be if they opposed the right of the people to keep and bear arms but nobody is talking about a full ban of weapons. 2 in 3 people do want a stricter regulation on guns though, across political boundaries, and yet these politicians consistently vote to repeal any regulation on guns that makes sense.
the very same people that they have to appease if they want to stay in office
Money gets and keeps politicians in office. Not votes. You can't get the votes without spending hundreds of thousands of dollars in any elections, millions in a national election.
Comment has been collapsed.
It always bears repeating - even the 2nd amendment explicitly states "well regulated", which is inarguably not the case now.
Comment has been collapsed.
When tragedies like this happen everybody plays the blame game. However it's unlikely that anybody will ever blame the real cause, simply because fixing the real cause will require more than the passing of a law to solve. It's easier for politicians to exploit the situation and pander to their constituents demands for a quick solution.
Access to guns has been the norm since their invention and the uptick in mass shootings is a more recent phenomenon. Can you think of anything that's changed in recent times? Our society is making many revolutionary transitions simultaneously, the likes of which have never been seen before. It's not one variable, reality is far to complex for that kind of simplicity. It's my belief that technology as a whole is at least in part to blame since it can cause some people to feel alone, isolated and those people don't develop connections to others, which in turn results in their lack of empathy towards their victims.
Regardless, the fact stands that the perpetrators of these events are very unstable. If it's not a gun, it's a gas can and a match, a truck, a pressure cooker, or even a bag of fertilizer. As a society we need to find a way to identify people that are unstable before they act and help them in a way that is stigma free. That's something that isn't easy, especially given how easy it is for people to be isolated in our modern world. There's usually warning signs that somebody is a danger to others or themselves, people just don't always pay attention to them.
That said there is one thing that I know that doesn't help; attacking people you disagree with. It's never been an effective way to bring people around to your point of view or even to come to some kind of middle ground. All it does is push people further apart, increasing the divide and the resentment that they feel for the other side. So as much as some people want to play the blame game it's actually the worst possible thing to do.
Comment has been collapsed.
The change in the definition of "mass shooting" really didn't change anything. See a detailed analysis here. They even address the change in definition:
In January 2013, a mandate for federal investigation of mass shootings authorized by President Barack Obama lowered that baseline to three or more victims killed. Accordingly, we include attacks dating from January 2013 in which three or more victims were killed. (Any analysis of the frequency of mass shootings should account for this.) Our original analysis, which covers cases from 1982-2012 with four or more victims killed, follows below. The cases we’ve documented since then using the revised federal baseline reaffirm our major analytical findings.
The cases we’ve documented since then using the revised federal baseline reaffirm our major analytical findings.
Comment has been collapsed.
But, like most other factors, every country on earth has that. Sure, our mental healthcare might be slighly better, but that hardly seems to explain the massive gap between US and the World. But hey, we all know the real reason in the first place...
Comment has been collapsed.
I tend to believe that people who are violent are going to play video games because of the violence so sure, every time they find a mass shooter and unearth their computers, shocker, there are violent FPS games that have been played for thousands of hours on them.
But the correlation is the opposite of what they are depicting.
It might have been an argument that was plausible to float in the 90ies but let's be honest here, IF there was any correlation with playing violent games and becoming violent (without starting out violent or already having psychiatric issues) with the sheer amount of violent games and the massive number of players, worldwide and in the US, nowadays, we would be living in a Mad Max world.
If video games made gamers violent, there would be tens of thousands of violent gamers roaming the street and shooting people.
Comment has been collapsed.
Exactly. People who have psychiatric issues and are violent due to other factors will be attracted to video games, just like they are to guns or explosives.
The difference is banning games won't make them less violent. Making guns less easily accessible may reduce the body count though.
Comment has been collapsed.
Nah you did good. And you are right, there are two sides because gun owners are demonized in general, which is stupid and manipulative. But there are a lot of people who are armed and shouldn't be, because they are too stupid or too disturbed and should not be allowed anywhere near guns, just like they shouldn't be (and most of the time are not) allowed near cars or a cockpit but for some reason that became a political thing instead of what it should be: a logical thing.
Regardless, I was mostly talking about guns because the agenda of the politicians trying to blame games is obvious. They're trying to distract people from the real issue, which is something they are doing mostly because they are paid to do so.
Comment has been collapsed.
I have no problems with guns either. I own guns. I've been shooting guns since I was young. I trained and I know how to handle them safely. I competed when I was younger in various national competitions and yet I wouldn't dream of carrying a weapon and playing cop/hero if something was going on. And I keep my guns dismantled in a combination locked safe with trigger locks as required by law here. I have no problem with that. I don't want my nephew blowing his sister's head off because he found a gun in a drawer and is playing with it.
I agree with the NRA on something kinda. Guns don't kill people. People (with guns) kill people so it's our responsibility to make sure guns are not in the wrong hands and however hard it is to define what "the wrong hands" are sometimes, I think that when someone has had a history of violence, a psychiatric record or is being medicated for various psychiatric issues, it's not too hard.
I know that it opens a lot of concurrent issues about privacy and how to know whether people have psychiatric records etc but I think it's worth the debate.
I mean... we license people to drive! Can't we all agree that guns are as dangerous as cars at the very least?
Comment has been collapsed.
maybe things like better-enforced and regulated licenses aren't a bad idea.
The irony is that the 2nd amendment actually contains the words "well regulated". These guys wrote the amendment and were like "hey wait, don't you think idiots are going to assume just anyone can get guns at the supermarket if we write that? Let's add a regulation is necessary, that'll do"... guess it didn't.
I mean... convicted felons have to go through a lengthy process to get their second amendment rights "back" if they fit a certain profile (including not being convicted of a violent crime!) but anyone who's under a boatload of anti-psychotic meds is just eligible out of hand?
And we're not talking politics here. Anyone who says it's a political issue is either naive or bought the NRA rhetoric... or was bought by the NRA.
Comment has been collapsed.
We had this discussion on SG in several threads before and the general consensus in the community is that they're not responsible. And of course they aren't. So what is? American culture of violence, racism and easy access to weapons even for mentally unstable people are probably the main causes. I would also say that their culture is bigger problem than easy access to weapons.
They're not only constantly in war with someone, but they're making a link between that violence to freedom and liberty which is a dangerous thing to do.
Comment has been collapsed.
At least for mass shootings where the motive is clearly racism, I'd say that Republicans encourage that more than video games do.
Are video games and shootings related? My guess would be no. At least not a causal relationship. Probably not a statistical one either, but that seems a little more possible.
Comment has been collapsed.
I need my coffee and I'll kill ANYONE that gets in my way of it! Just not with a gun as I HATE guns.
Comment has been collapsed.
I would say games definitely leave an impression on .. well... less intelligent part of society. Making them detached from reality and forgetting that your actions have consequences....
But I dont think they are the reason for these tragedies.. And even less that you can just go and generally blame video games for everything.
Its just a distraction for those asswipes in politics to make them look like they are doing something but in the end they dont do anything. The actual problems always get overlooked. For example - why did some brain dead moron had access to guns at all ? I understand Americans are touchy when it comes to topic of guns. I understand that with load of criminals on your streets you want to protect yourselves - but has such a free access to guns actually helped any one of you ? Or is it just the 1 % news articles about some paranoid lucky guy with a gun in his shower ?
I am in several US based facebook groups about cars.. and ive seen bunch of topics with people just showboating their guns on facebook as if it was as regular as a watch.
For what the world sees - this obsession over guns and your self made sens of security has lead to more people dying then actually being saved because of such a free access to guns.
Dont get me wrong - I love guns. I was in kind of boy scouts that prepare you for army.. I learned to assemble and shoot guns. I love haunting. and I am actually pretty accurate shooter. I have no guns myself and there has been no mass shootings here.
Just pointing it out, no to be labeled anti-gun person or whatever.... Im just genuinely wondering about all this after reading about these crazy cases all the time.
Comment has been collapsed.
Hm, great point about NRA.. to be honest when you put one huge business tag on them and start seeing it as a way to earn money it becomes more and more logical..
Comment has been collapsed.
Just googled it and found it interesting to read about the two interpretations of the 2nd Amendment.
Comment has been collapsed.
I'll admit I've been shocked by the rage that has suddenly burst out of otherwise calm, rational friends when playing games... But the same could be said for other friends when driving, which is a far more troubling situation, given the potential for physical harm in each case.
Truth is people just rage sometimes, simple as that. And if they have absurdly easy access to military weaponry and underlying mental health issues, and a culture of hate exacerbated by irresponsible idiots in the media and public office...
Comment has been collapsed.
I know the point you're making - but nothing can turn a gun into a weapon. It's a single-function device.
Comment has been collapsed.
You're posting this question on a gaming forum, you already knew what kind of answer you're gonna get. If you needed to reaffirm your belief so much you could do that in a less obvious way, like reading the guy advocating corporal punishment.
The topic of media in general playing a part in the desensitization to violence is important, but it barely has any chance of getting actual traction since people want to shut the entire discussion down before it even begins in fear of censorship of their entertainment.
Comment has been collapsed.
There certainly were. Here's a good list of historical American ones:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_mass_shootings_in_the_United_States
They started to become far more prevalent in the 1960s. As you can see they seem to become more frequent quite steadily from then onwards.
Perhaps the fact that they occur so frequently makes it easy for a mentally unstable individual to rationalize a mass shooting as being an "acceptable" outlet for their issues?
Comment has been collapsed.
It's pretty much impossible to assume that no video game ever contributed at least some minor part.
But there are tons of other factors far more relevant. Most of all having a culture that embraces weapons, violence and where acting polite and with empathy became an expletive in form of "political correctness" and where the most hardcore Christians somehow manage to consider it "christian" to act exactly the opposite way as the New Testament suggests.
So if Republicans complain about video games "dehumanizing individuals" I can only reply that I know little contributing more to dehumanization than GOP.
Comment has been collapsed.
It's pretty much impossible to assume that no video game ever contributed at least some minor part.
It's pretty much impossible to assume that no Mariah Carey song ever contributed at least some minor part. :)
As long as there is no scientific evidence for any causation, it is in fact reasonable to assume that no video game ever contributed to mass shootings.
Comment has been collapsed.
812 Comments - Last post 52 minutes ago by PicoMan
30 Comments - Last post 52 minutes ago by IAMERROR404
315 Comments - Last post 1 hour ago by MeguminShiro
2,046 Comments - Last post 3 hours ago by Gamy7
35 Comments - Last post 3 hours ago by Sunshyn
163 Comments - Last post 8 hours ago by WangKerr
1,533 Comments - Last post 14 hours ago by Whoosh
9 Comments - Last post 4 minutes ago by Fluffster
26 Comments - Last post 6 minutes ago by Fluffster
152 Comments - Last post 6 minutes ago by lext
702 Comments - Last post 27 minutes ago by Vincer
27 Comments - Last post 33 minutes ago by PicoMan
16 Comments - Last post 35 minutes ago by workerofsecret
496 Comments - Last post 49 minutes ago by LastM
Comment has been collapsed.