Warriors Of Freedom Prompted Rampage Attempt? 771
Thanks to an anonymous reader for pointing to a Philadelphia Inquirer article linking videogames to an alleged spree killing attempt. According to the article, "Investigators suspect the three teens arrested.. as they allegedly were about to launch a killing rampage in the small town, found inspiration in violent computer games.. [police] learned that the name the three reportedly had given themselves - Warriors of Freedom - is also an Internet-based combat game." But only a few media reports mention that the violent game connection was made by Jack Thompson, a Miami lawyer and outspoken critic of violent video and computer games - is this a case of shameless Googling to find any obscure game with a similar name and make a connection, or is there genuine evidence here?
does it matter? (Score:5, Insightful)
Evidence of what? Playing a violent video game? Big deal. Most kids play violent video games. What kind of games do you expect psycho killers to enjoy: doom3 or oregon trail? These critics really need to understand that a=>b does NOT mean b=>a. It's a very simple logical fallacy. I'm not discounting the possibility that violent games can incourage violent behavoir either, it's just that you actually need to show that video games lead one to violence when one would otherwise not be disposed to it. Violence was here long before video games were.
Warriors of What? (Score:3, Insightful)
As an avid gamer, I can say that I've never heard of this game, and unless there is some evidence on their computers to back up this claim, its basically groundless.
Offtopic, I love the new gaming icon (Tellah is my favorite video game character of all time!)
warriors of freedom (Score:5, Insightful)
All the murder, none of the legal problems.
Truth? (Score:5, Insightful)
Well, is the game installed on any of their computers? If so, then maybe the game has something to do with the group's name. If not, then move along.
Who is to blame? (Score:5, Insightful)
1) the people who teased them to death for years.
2) the boys themselves for choosing to plan the crime and carry it out.
EVERYONE else will be blamed first- you, me, and the internet....
... HUH? (Score:2, Insightful)
Violent video games, last time I looked, weren't terribly accurate as far as blood and guts and such went. Granted, it's been a year or so since I played a first-person shooter, but if memory serves, the blood flying across the screen had an almost comical effect, with more blood than would possibly come from one living thing. Quake was always amusing, not serious.
I know that they're going to blame the "violence that we expose our children to in video games" for these screwed up kids, but I don't buy it. If it wasn't video games, these kids would be into real guns in a much more serious way, or knives, or swords, or compound bows, or something. And, they'd probably be a helluva lot more dangerous, since they'd actually know how to wield these implements, rather than going through video game experiences.
If parents would raise their kids, rather than letting the TV, the computer, the entertainment system do it, maybe we'd have less problems.
All through history... (Score:2, Insightful)
racist (Score:2, Insightful)
When some black kids do it, well you know how those negros are...
It's as if a nice whiteboy would never do a murder it must of have been an evil video game that corrupted him, but when some black kid shoots someone at his inner city school it doesn't even make the news. I guess blacks are just expected to shoot each other naturally. No one looks for the causes of a black kids violence.
It's racism really.
Books? (Score:5, Insightful)
What about TV? Movies? Magazines? Where does it end?
Guns kill not games (Score:2, Insightful)
Stop the buck passing... (Score:2, Insightful)
I even hate this line of questioning (and I'm not remotely a gamer so it's not like I'm defending gaming out of desire to protect my own personal habits/preferences). I hate it b/c it allows the kids to potentially carry on with the illusion that they themselves were not and are not 100% to blame for their own actions.
And, yes, at ages 15, 16, 18, you are responsible for your own actions. Even if you've got "absentee parents" and the rest of your life has sucked the big one, you are old enough to know right from wrong and thusly you are old enough to choose one in lieu of the other.
That's not to say that there aren't things existentially *wrong* with American culture -- I personally think it's important for kids to have a parent at home particularly during *the formative years* -- but those aspects of culture are part of being an American: where choice and free will are implied and no legislation intrude.
Rampage Attempt? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:My take on videogame violence. (Score:5, Insightful)
Now a kid who grows up playing violent, realistic games could tend to be lsss affronted by violence. How easy would it be for a kid to look out his apartment window to the street below and imagine getting a perfect rail shot to a person below? Or turning the corner in school and hitting the local nerd with a double-barrel shotgun blast? Now that doesn't mean the kid would necessarily consider acting it out in real life, but is that the first step on a slippery slope towards real violence?
Re:My take on videogame violence. (Score:2, Insightful)
Don't blame violent games or violent movies for the actions of crazy people. As Michael Moore points out in Bowling for Columbine, we see the same movies and play the same games here in Canada and in the rest of the world as you do in the States, but there's nowhere near the violence (generally speaking of course), so there MUST be something else at play here.
For the 1000th time, correlation != causation (Score:5, Insightful)
"He never went anywhere with anybody," Crymes said.
Ever think he was on the computer constantly because he was harassed by the other students and had nowhere to go? Maybe that same harassment had something to do with his motive?
Was the guy that shot up that Lockheed Martin factory also "under the influence" of computer games and violent movies? Or is there a more complex societal problem going on here?
Ronald Lovett, who works as a electronics repairman on the same block as his apartment, said his son had become withdrawn after his mother's death. His son also often had to defend his younger brother, who has undergone 13 operations for a cleft palate, the father said.
"When they used to go out when they were little, of course people would pick on the brother, and Matt would have to defend him," Ronald Lovett told CNN. "They didn't get along well with their peers."
.
.
.
"The boys also had to endure the death of an older half sister who was hit by a car a year after their mother's death, Crymes said."
What kind of evil SOBs would pick on a kid with a cleft palate whose mother and sister recently died. I thank the Lord that these kids were picked up before they hurt anyone, but if you want to examine "root causes" instead of video games maybe take a look at an utter lack of conscious or morality by all parties involved.
Evil begets evil.
Brian Ellenberger
This journalist is so ignorant (Score:3, Insightful)
Quoted from the article "And among the names Lovett used in a letter left for his family was the Neo, an apparent reference to the main character of The Matrix, which is both a movie series and a computer game." ...
Instead of pointing out the fact that the movie itself was about cyberpunk, he just said that 'The Matrix' is also a video game.
I guess that's enough to prove that people who write these kind of articles are ignorant about the subject, are mostly scared about things that they just do not understand and they would prefer that everything would stay the same.
Maybe we should forbid weapons and take care of our children instead of trying to find evidences that the actual society is responsible of their acts. Guns do not kill, people do. The same for children, they did not went bad because of the actual world, some grow up bad because WE made this world as it is.
Let's see here... (Score:5, Insightful)
The only reasonable explanation for a kid to lash out under these circumstances is the evil influence of games like Mech Commando. I just can't see it any other way.
I certainly wouldn't put any of the responsibility for these crimes on the people who made up these kids' world. There is no way that people are to blame for this sort of thing.
It has to be video games. Or rock music. Or D&D. (D&D!? That's sooo 80's.) Or marijuana. Or the devil. Or a malevelont, super-intelligent giant chicken from the center of the Earth. Anything, as long as people don't have to come face to face with their role in the lives of these kids.
Violence??!!?? (Score:3, Insightful)
If...
>> There is a knight ahead. Attack or flee? {A/F}
$$ A
>> The knight has been slain.
causes people to go on killing rampages, it would have been an epidemic about 20 years ago.
Funny quote from one of the linked articles: (Score:2, Insightful)
Uhh... yeah. Incredible real-life shooting skills from Halo? Since when has playing Halo given anyone any skills other than being good at playing Halo? Thompson is trying so hard to link his "video games are really just real life murder training programs" to incidents of violence that he'll ignore anything grounded in reality. Does he have a brother named Thomson?
Geez, it's like the Dungeons and Dragons scare all over again.
Bullying... (Score:5, Insightful)
Lovett also was the target of teasing. The classmates said he had been mocked for his bow-legged and stooped gait and his clothes.
My guess would be that over 75% of teenagers play or have played 'violent' video games at some point or another. I'm guessing but it feels more or less right. That's probably millions-- tens of millions-- of video game players in the US and across the developed world. Are they all potential killers? Of course not. To argue so would involve twisting statistics around in a 'war on drugs' fashion-- maintaining that marijuana is a 'gateway' drug, which simply isn't true. Very few users of marijuana go on to do harder drugs. But many that do harder drugs have smoked pot (and continue to do so), which is what alarmist conservative organizations, in a thorough betrayal of libertarian roots, emphasize in order to restrain civil liberties.
But there is simply not enough of a correlation to warrant limits on video games (a form of free speech IMHO anyway) even *if* in specific cases a causal argument *might* be made. The point is that you can't do sociology by anecdote only. By all rights, statistically, toasters [google.ca] are probably deadlier than video games anyway.
Given the utter lack of *any* systematic correlation between playing video games and engaging in violent, anti-social behaviour, perhaps we should look at other possible causes, Like the bullying and teasing which goes on in every schoolyard, every day, hmmm? I am convinced that the solace this kid found in video games was a result of being called a 'fag' constantly, of being beaten up for lacking social grace, for failure to heed the intricate, consumerist protocol of North American teenhood. Any 'obsession' with video games was a symptom and NOT the problem.
Bah, sheer sensationalism and a refusal to look at root causes-- of course this seems to be a recurrent theme these days.
Reminds me of that Onion article--Columbine Jocks Safely Resume Bullying [theonion.com]. It's a sad indicator of the state of our civlization when we learn nothing from tragedy, but that's another topic entirely.
iopha
How about the news media itself? (rant) (Score:5, Insightful)
How about removing the beam from their own eyes?
Modern news media (and especially the American ones) are flooded with violence.
There is a key difference here though: People, even young children, understand that films, computer games etc. are fiction. News media, on the other hand, is treated as fact, no matter how distorted the picture is.
People are lead to believe that violence is constantly increasing (even when it's not), that their neighborhoods are unsafe, and that a prowler, burglar or hoodlum could be waiting for them at any minute.
Excessive violence in news reporting leads to excessive fear. Fear in turn, leads to violence.
Blame the media is a popular game.. but they still don't get nearly enough criticism, and you can wonder why..
Re:warriors of freedom (Score:3, Insightful)
Civilian casualties happen. That's a part of war. The US has gone a long way in improving how it operates to minimize civilian deaths. They don't go on huge killing sprees killing lots of innocent people. We try to get them to surrender before we attack through PsyOps. And I googled the US army's website quickly, and I couldn't find the phrase Warrior of Freedom on it.
There are no thought crimes... (Score:5, Insightful)
I sat around and thought about the merits of snipering from a tower vs. armed assualt complete with smoke and infared goggles. I remember thinking about it in detail planning every little thing I could think of, researching ammo types, max lethal range for certain easily available rifles etc.
Now granted my knowledge of firearms came alot from Video Games, but not any more than from Tom Clancy books and the History Channel. In fact since this was pre-CS I'd say most of my knowledge came from the History channel, especially some wonderful documentaries they aired on assasinations, that thought me the merits of the AK-47/74.
Now the difference between me and these guys is a simple one. I probably did as much planning as they did if not more. In fact I dare say I fantasized about it. But I stopped just short of collecting weapons and making the large leap between "I'll think about killing half my school" and "I'm going to kill half my school".
Why is this? The answer to that question is the fundamental issue here. I'm am not violent by nature. I tend to avoid fights even though I'm 6' 2" 230lbs. The fights I've been in, I've tended to reign in my punches at the last minute because I don't like hurting people.
I shudder to think what I'd be like if I had a violent personality. I can bet I'd be a lot more dangerous than these guys, more effecient anyway.
And thats what it comes down to basically. Not video-games or media in general. Having the knowledge to do something isn't the same as doing it. Despite what the media keeps telling everyone. There is something else that makes you violent or not. I wish people would stop looking for easy answers.
Re:does it matter? (Score:5, Insightful)
Think of how they portayed killing in the basement scene in the first matrix, how 'COOL' was that; a computer hacker/nerd in sunnies and a trenchcoat, with a hot female in latex blasting away numerous innocent people without even flinching - with the propellerheads soundtrack pumping.
How many people play violent video games and imagine that the people they are shooting are real? Or use the simulated violence to release agression? What happens when life becomes too much and they SNAP and decide to do something about their situation - get revenge on all those motherfuckers in the coolest way you know, bust into school in trenchcoats with semi automatics and spray it with bullets - fantasy becomes reality.
I'm divided on the issue, as I don't think any sane person would snap like this and bring something patently evil into action, but what about the nutcases that do - have videogames and movies made killing SO cool that it appeals more than anything else? Should we start -constantly- portraying killing and violence as negative, highlighting the consequences and making these actions TABOO in our society, rather than revering them on Screen and in Play?
This kid was stupid long before this (Score:5, Insightful)
"Oaklyn teenagers also say he also practiced martial arts and had compiled a list of his enemies since elementary school. [news-leader.com]"
Any 'link' between this incident and video games, or the other popular theory, The Matrix, is mere hand waving by the media.
I'd expect most teens that have played video games have played at least some that involve "blowing something up", or shooting something. All but the most bland edutainment games, and openended games (SimCity, etc) involve some sort of destruction.
Could Frogger be linked to massive roadkill on the highways?
Could SimCity be linked to corrupt politics and poor city managament?
Could Bewitched [bewitched.net] be linked to a rise in adult witchcraft?
Damn, these guys are stupid. But it does sell newspapers.
Re:My take on videogame violence. (Score:1, Insightful)
So we can be desensitised to sensational journalism?
Re:My take on videogame violence. (Score:2, Insightful)
I have seen it in people who delve into Martial arts. They tried to be someone else entirely. Someone with power. I have seen it with some wilderness guys, trying to get away from a life they hated. These kids just got too much into something they, with their lives and personalities, shouldn't. Violent games can be a good tool of stress relief. And it can be a dangerous obsession for neglected and troubled youths.
Sounds like they liked the Matrix too much and had no grounding in a favorable reality and had no way to cope.
Re:Funny quote from one of the linked articles: (Score:4, Insightful)
I had never picked up a gun until several years ago, and when I did I found I was actually quite good at it on the first day. I attribute that to, at least in part, years of video games playing. There is a reason that the military is starting to use video games as training devices for their troops, they do help you with certain skills involved in combat situations.
While I agree that this guy is a moron, and that there is certainly a lot of the physical aspect of gun training that video games will not help you with, I do not think you can completely discount the training aspects of video game use.
Re:does it matter? (Score:5, Insightful)
Exactly. Or as statisticians like to say Correlation does not mean causality. Classical example is as the number of priests in a city increases, so do the number of drunks. Well, the correlation between priests and drunks was confounded with the population size increasing, thus the number of group X of just about anything is going to increase.
Re:My take on videogame violence. (Score:3, Insightful)
I think that every person in the world (and especially the developed world) should do just that. I have. I also observed a dramatic change in my friends when they saw me get hit by a SUV going 45 mph while crossing the street (at a crosswalk) after having just said goodbye to them. I didn't die, but it gave them a better grasp of life.
Re:Japan and Judas Priest (Score:1, Insightful)
Here or in Japan.
They're caused by domestic disputes, mostly, followed by drug deals, or what have you.
Our murder rate soars over theirs for a number of reasons, but as you point out, NOT because our media is more violent.
Why doesn't anyone point out the real obvious culprit in these Columbine-style cases? Bullying.
Re:does it matter? (Score:5, Insightful)
We don't ban cars because one or two idiots a year decide to deliberately crash into another person. And we don't ban movies that make speeding look cool, even though it kills far more people every day than even the most paranoid would claim videogames have in the past 31 years.
Re:Bullying... (Score:4, Insightful)
Yes, but it's one thing to be bullied on an aspect you can change (clothes, hairstyle, BO due to lack of showering) - and another to be picked on because of something you cannot change.
Of course, it's also one of the most common practices. Anything that makes a target is fair game, and the more pronounced the better.
Still, it is not so much a question of "what" is being picked on, as "why." And most "why's" are not a good enough reason to make somebody's life a living hell. I would know, I was infamously unpopular (everybody knew me well enough to shun me) in High School.
It's also a cycle. I never had a chance to become more popular in school, so I was never ever to develop overly many friends and greater social habits. After HS, things changed a lot though, as I escaped my isolated reputation and built a better one. Hell, I've even got laid a few times, and I'm a sysadmin/programmer.
I'll always carry a certain inherant distrust/wariness of others - and I especially find the opposite sex better for friendship, I'm still not great with "the guys" - but it could have been worse.
I never blew any heads off, though I will admit that the feeling of helplessness made any possible retribution slightly attractive. Perhaps what these kids need to learn is that "High School does not last forever." You can't make them popular as getting rid of bullies does not remove the seclusion/isolation issues, but you can give them hope for the future (I hope).
Re:My take on videogame violence. (Score:3, Insightful)
Relating this to the video games, a person who is so muted to the presence of violence (but lacking a corresponding presence of consequences of violences) may think themselves to be innured against violence. I.e., they may claim that because they are not shocked or suprised by violence, that they are less excited by it. However, our fear is not childrens' reactions to violence (which would be the parallel to the nudist example), but instead their proclivity towards violence. Basically, if we remove the internal connection of "violence by nature harms someone", replacing it with "violence doesn't hurt anyone", we may create children who have no real understanding of the damage inflicted by violence. We may, in short, end up with Columbine kids.
Now keep in mind, I'm not advocating a removal of violent video games. I just finished playing a few minutes of Vice City, and I'm happy to have enjoyed it. However, I'm old enough that I know the difference, in the same way that I'm old enough to distinguish pornographic sex from real sex, or to distinguish cartoon science from real science. A seven year old, however, cannot really do this [often]. What should we do? My answer is parenting: take a bit of personal accountability for your children. The problem, though, is that parents are more concerned these days with limiting the child's exposure, as opposed to preparing them emotionally to interpret these fictional situations. We need parents to teach kids to deal with virtual violence, sex and the ilk.
Re:does it matter? (Score:5, Insightful)
Rant About Logic and News Coverage (Score:3, Insightful)
1. The majority of the comments here tend to solidify around the logic that this story and the source of it are idiotic and baseless. Now this isn't commentary coming from random sources. This is commentary coming from somewhat intelligent, well-articulated people with some degree of expertise or interest in games and technology. These kind of opinions would seem to be the most logical ones to comment on this aspect of the story.
2. These opinions will never be treated seriously by the mainstream press. These are the voices that get ignored or mocked by the Bill O'Reliey's and Fox News Channels of the world. The media always seems willing to go to the Jack Thompsons of the world for quotes and perspectives, but always seem hesitant to find the kind of views you would see of
So it leaves me to wonder why this happens. Time and time again, the media is willing to go for the off-the-wall source to make a story stand out, rather than seeking out the opinions of
Re:Who is to blame? (Score:2, Insightful)
Now, I'm going to be modded down because a significant portion of Slashdotters were harassed in school. But the fact is that a healthy human individual can survive any teasing without the need to physically harm or kill anyone. It may be tough, but no one sane thinks violence like this will solve it. You have to have taken a jump off the edge to think murder is the answer.
Someone, about now, is thinking "well the teasing pushed them over the edge". No, frankly, it didn't. The teasing may have been terrible, but unless it involved murder, then the answer cannot be murder. The bully knocked you down? It sucks, I'm sure. Go to the fucking gym and do some exercise or learn martial arts or something instead of just fuming about it in the room. These kids took all their rage, and instead of focusing it on something useful or helpful (i.e. something healthy), they bottled it up and refused to deal with it. Eventually, it built up until they snapped, and came to believe violence was the key.
Look, I'm not saying the teasing wasn't wrong. It was: its always wrong to hurt someone unfairly. Life, however, is unfair by nature. No one, ever, with the exception of Hindus and some Buddhists have claimed otherwise. It sucks to get bullied. It sucks to be short, or scrawy or have acne or be ugly. But how much can you blame the unfairness of the world before you start trying to take control of your life? If you're weak, exercise (this applies to both the body and the mind). If you're ugly, develop your personality or something. If you're awkward, take some lessons (people went to Catillian to learn manners, poise, posture and pronunciation for years and still do today, including the USA).
Life's hard for all of us, and the only thing we can do is take responsibility for our own actions and stop winging about how unfair the world is.
Re:does it matter? (Score:5, Insightful)
Until one of us shows actual evidence that the theory is correct it's all just a pissing contest as to whose argument _sounds_ better. As far as I'm concerned the only thing that keeps these "violent media causes violence" theories going is that they offer a simple explanation for violence in the society, and a simple solution. People have a strong desire for explanations and solutions... more so than their desire for truth.
Ongoing War (Score:2, Insightful)
Funny how the biggest opponents of personal responsibily are the ones who financially benefit the most when they can convince others that individuals are not resposible for their actions. Having about milked the tabacco industry to its full potential, trial lawyers have moved on to fast food, and it's a matter of time before the game companies are crushed under the weight of lawsuits as well. This absurdity will continue until people decide they've had enough and that individuals are solely to blame for the choices they make.
Re: like i've said a thousand times... (Score:3, Insightful)
Violent games will have an effect on people, but only those people who don't have the mindset to know that it has no bearing on real life. It's the same reason pyschologically that films, and music, and even a conversation with a bad friend can have same effect on people who aren't mentally mature enough to know what morals apply and why.
But, this is no reason to ban these games, or the films, that the majority of people can enjoy in a harmless way. When was the last time someone banned say soccer for the effect it has on some supporters in the UK, when the majority of people can get on and just watch it and enjoy it (though personally I wish they would band it, but that's just me being bitter about the morons...)
I think I'm going to decide to kill some people, and call my team of killers the Counter-Strike team just cos it's a cool name. I mean... come on!!!!
I wish we'd get a little less overblown reaction from the people who are so uptight they think they can stop people who are going to kill just by banning something they either played, or watched, or listened to. Naming yourself after one of these things is *not* proof that it was even remotely a cause.
Re:does it matter? (Score:5, Insightful)
So here we have a parent who owned a lot of guns. I don't mean one or two -- I mean a LOT (you saw the photos on TV). He was a gun "collector". AND he failed to lock them up properly so that there was no possible way for his children to get at them. Not only did the kid get the guns but he also managed to get the ammo. Great parenting.
Of course being a gun nut doesn't make you a bad parenting. But being a gun nut with a bunch of guns that your chidren can access and having a child that would happily steal those weapons, plan a mass murder and then being to embark on said mass murder with friends by his side and the stolen weapons is as sure a sign of "fucked up parenting" as I've *ever* seen.
In one sentence the father dismissed his son's interest in weapons but admitted he (the father) had an arsenel of weapons and ammo in his house. In the very next sentence, he laid blame not at himself for raising the kid that way or showing any regret that he made the weapons so readily accessible... but instead, he blamed "the gothic belief" (whatever the fuck THAT is) and "videogames".
A parent with their head up their ass that severely about something as obvious as that is also a parent that probably failed to notice a lot of other things or act on them. Things like their child being withdrawn, sad, depressed, being picked on incessently, being beaten up, being confused, being hurt, being lonely, being suicidal, being homocidal, being delusional and everything else.
Like I say. Shitty parenting.
At least they arent blaiming weed (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:warriors of freedom (Score:5, Insightful)
The PsyOps thing is a bunch of crap. It's not even directed at the civilians. Why do civilians need to surrender? They aren't fighting anyone!
A long way? Compared to dropping atomic bombs on civilains yes but you just cause you've travelled a long way from that does not mean you've reached an ideal destination.
Your bombing raids in Afghanistan killed more people than 911. You continued use of cluster bombing in Iraq has also killed innocent people. You still refuse to ban landmines and may have even used them in Iraq (you were at least planning to). Despite medical evidence suggesting that they may be harmful for years to come you have pumped both Afghanistan and Iraq full of depleted uranium. You've shot innocent protestors and taken out 'targets of oppotunity' (shoot first, ask later).
Yeah, war is ugly. Would be nice to avoid it but there is no need to make it uglier.
Re:Guns kill not games (Score:3, Insightful)
So what what (Score:5, Insightful)
Comics code all over again (Score:3, Insightful)
Yep, its the old causation vs. correlation fallacy.
America has already been through this when Dr. Frederick Wertham (a popular quack-ish psychologist from the 50's) wrote a book arguing that comics caused all sorts of deviant behavoir. This killed the comic industry by turning it into kid's stuff, more or less. More info here. [mogozuzu.com] Better details here. [sideroad.com]
I think this is the favorite meme for hack journalists. If a kid goes psycho then make sure to print how he dressed, what music he listened to, and what games he plays and start the witch-hunt! I was very surprised to see that almost 1/3rd of a AP/Reuters article was about these things and not what actually happened.
I doubt a "Comics Code Authority" self-censorship will take place again, but the kneejerk mentality is still there with some people. Hopefully we've learned something in the fifty or so years since the Comics Code was created.
Re:does it matter? (yes) (Score:3, Insightful)
It's surprising how often sceptics about the link between portrayals of violence and the actuality of copycat violence often shelter behind demands for unusual levels of evidence. In ordinary life, people tend to judge that when there is a striking similarity between the individual characteristics of what first of all one person does in public or shows to the public, and then what other people do shortly afterwards, it _is_ evidence of copying -- absent something that would reasonably account for the similarity even if the activities were independently conceived. What else is fashion?
Copycat violence has been well known at least for a couple of hundred years -- an early example followed Goethe's book 'Sufferings of Werther' that was followed for a time by a wave of similar-pattern romantic pistol suicides among disappointed young men. There are many much more recent examples where striking similarity between the characteristics of the prototype or image, and then of the violence that followed after it, make the inference of copying overwhelmingly probable.
The way that many people nevertheless resist accepting that this kind of copying is a fact indicates that there is something specifically causing that resistance -- and in some cases I suspect the cause of that resistance is probably $$$$.
Re:does it matter? (Score:4, Insightful)
I would guess very few, mentally disturbed individuals. There were people who read the Bible and then go on a killing rampage - should we stop people from reading the Bible?
Or use the simulated violence to release agression?
As opposed to using actual violence? Is this bad?
Why not blame CNN - after all they show pictures of real death and mayhem.
Re:Books? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:does it matter? (Score:5, Insightful)
Warning: The following contains something besides a knee-jerk reaction against weapons; if you are unable to stomach this sort of thing, please skip to the next post.
In this article [nbc10.com], it's mentioned that the weapons, not all of which apparently came from one source, had been locked in a big case in the back of the closet
And from this article [philly.com], Police said they had recovered two .30-30 rifles, a shotgun,
two handguns, two swords, knives, and 2,000 rounds of ammunition
And, in this article: The firearms belonged to Ronald Lovett. He received his first rifle in 1958 when he was 11 and collected more over the years for target shooting, he said. Matt wasn't interested in guns in the least and never fired one, Ronald Lovett said. When he was born, that was when we locked the stuff away, and most of it has not been touched in 19 years. Ronald Lovett said he kept the handguns in a lockbox and stored the other firearms in a closet in the family's apartment, over a row of stores. Police also recovered 2,000 rounds of ammunition, which Lovett said were 20 and 30 years old.
One of the pistols, if not more, was a replica civil war era cap and ball pistol.
If you are deluded enough by the hysterical liberal mass media to consider this an arsenal, then you are completely and totally hopeless, please line up with the rest of the lemmings. The weapons were stored in a approved, safe fashion; the kid showed no sign whatsoever of being a gun nut, never even having fired a weapon when he was obviously aware that they existed.
The articles do indicate a type of person who would be likely to snap, however; predicting that the person would snap in this fashion would be a little bit difficult, don't you think?
Blame the Game and We'll all be Safe (Score:5, Insightful)
Yup, it was the Matrix and that video game all right. Ban them and we'll all be able to sleep well at night.
The schools that tolerated harassment of students of a nature that would get an adult fired from almost any workplace had NOTHING to do with it. The pathetic social support system in the USA, and the general lack of good low-cost mental health programs had NOTHING to do with it. It's the games.
If an a8+ goes nuts, dad might be in trouble (Score:3, Insightful)
Like any tool that can cause damage, owning a gun requires a certain amount of responsibility. In fact, most of it is spelled out in the law. If dad didn't abide by those laws, than the very well may find himself in court.
Re:does it matter? (Score:2, Insightful)
You know, I *own* weapons. I've used many a firearm in my life. But if I raised a child that would want to steal them and go on a rampage that *IS* my fault, regardless of the age. Is the father suddenly absolved of responsibility for the first 18 years of the kids life that lead up to what he did in the middle of that 18th year? Of course not.
The status of the weapons as antiques has little to do with this. That they were NOT locked up properly and that the parent didn't know his child enough to say, at some point "wow, I should really double check how I have these things stored what with my kid as depressed and psycho as he is" is the issue. You are responsible for your weapons and keeping them locked up safely. Period.
I think it's funny that you call me liberal in my opinions for saying the parent should be held resopnsible for the weapons he owns and the child he's raised. Those are reather conservative concepts. A liberal would blame everything but the parents and use this as a jumping off point to insist government should raise our kids for us.
As for predicting a person that would snap... you can almost always tell someone who is going to do that. Or at least, lean toward it. After 18 years of living with your child and raising them, the only way you could walk away saying "he was a normal boy with no problems" is if you were a distant, neglectful parent.
It's people like this guy that give gun owners a bad name.
You know, I wouldn't have a problem with the whole thing if the father had at least shown some remorse at having been the source of the weapons. Instead, he brushes it all aside and blames things like videogames?! That's where I call him out. That shows how oblivious he is to the world his son lives in.
It's the Dad's fault? (Score:3, Insightful)
To say that he's young, and doesn't understand the consequences of what he's doing, is to insult the intelligence of others his age.
Blame his father for being a bad parent if you want. I will blame the kid for taking the weapons and threatening others.
Blaming his dad is just another form of the same reasoning that blames the video game.
Outcalling (Score:3, Insightful)
> The weapons were locked in a closet
I must agree with the other posters who commented that if this kid had never fired a gun, he should not have had access to them. If he didn't break the lock to get them (he didn't), then they weren't secured properly. Securing firearms is the complete and sole responsibility of the owner of those firearms. Period.
> The majority of the (whoo scary) 2000 rounds of ammunition were a few 500 boxes of ancient target rounds.
Spin point one: twenty to thirty years old does not qualify as "ancient" in any sane sense, and thirty year old rounds still fire correctly in most cases. Spin point two: what difference does it make how old they were? Are you implying that being shot by a thirty year old bullet pack would somehow be less injurious than a new round? Also, the guns and ammo were fitted to each other. I'd frankly be less worried if the son had grabbed an old gun and new bullets, since they're less likely to be compatible. If the guns were antiques, why did he keep period ammunition? If he had to keep ammo for the gun, why did he keep it with the gun? Rule one for keeping people from using your firearms without your say-so is to separate your stores of ammo from the weapon. Again, this is very irresponsible gun ownership.
> The "kid" was 18, a legal adult.
Irrelevant. His guns, his responsiblity. Nobody thinks he should be charged with conspiracy to commit assault, they think he should be charged with criminal negligence. The "kid"'s age does not change that.
> Blaming the parent without knowing the full facts is just as idiotic as blaming video games.
I agree. However, there are enough facts available in this case to pass judgement.
Virg
Re:does it matter? (Score:2, Insightful)
I do think that the failure rate on that 30 year old ammo would have been pretty high- fortunately they never fired a shot so we won't find out.
Re:does it matter? (Score:3, Insightful)
Remember that study that went out in the 1960's that said that Hats Cause Hair Loss?
It was because balding men tended to wear hats more than men with hair.
Perhaps kids with violent tendencies tend to like violent video games? Naww. One gains more political capital by banning violent video games.
Re:does it matter? (Score:5, Insightful)
Don't be so quick on the trigger. The post to which you're replying made no suggestion of removing freedom.
Exposing immature or incompetent people to portrayals of violence is not a good idea. Exposing older kids to portrayals of violence without placing them in a proper context is not a good idea. But that bit of gatekeeping is the job or parents, teachers, and other caretakers, not of state censors.
Interesting reading from Lt. Col Dave Grossman [killology.com], a West Point psychology and Military Science professor. (I disagree with his proposed solutions, which involve legislation and litigation, but his data on the problem is pretty solid):
So will Quake turn you into a monster? By itself, no. If there are other factors pushing you towards violence, it can be a strong influence. And it is conditioning you towards an acceptance of violence; be aware of that, be mindful of what's going on in your brain (always good advice) and be sure to balance it out with counter-influences.
Re:Blame the Game and We'll all be Safe (Score:4, Insightful)
Speeches of the President (Score:2, Insightful)
sounds more like they have been listening to Bush's speeches than playing video games.
quote from son "not like the stuff on the news" (Score:2, Insightful)
He's right - the one image I remember most vividly and probably always will was that of a man on his knees, clearly begging for his life ( there was no sound ) as he was shot through the head in a summary execution. Was this in some computer game ? no it was on a six o'clock news report of troubles in Africa ! At no point did anyone say shooting someone in the head is a bad thing because it's assumed we all know. Children don't but then they're insignificant to news network demographics.
We dramatise and sensationalise exactly the same behaviour in reality that which we condemn in non-reality because bad news is big money. Have we seen lots of tv coverage about how the fact that we are still fighting injustice and crimes against humanity is a sad reflection on our ability to evolve ? Has the need to fight terrorism been portrayed as a sad reflection on our ability to live together ? No we portray it in a glorified, gung ho, us against them manner with lots of shows about how efficiently we can kill people these days.
Worse still we now have the epidemic of Reality TV shows which seem to be immune to any kind of censorship. My son has asked me on more than one occasion if this is real because it's so extreme he thinks it can't possibly be so, now tell me which is the more scary !
No doubt recreational activites such as computer games can contribute to the mindset that allows someone to go out and kill but I'd be willing to bet that other aspects of our lives that we willingly accept do also.
The Swiss have 3 times as many guns as people and computer games are freely available yet their incidence of armed crime is virtually nil !
Re:does it matter? (Score:2, Insightful)
Paraphrased: "If a kid is that messed up then there's no telling what could make him snap. One day it might be our music. The next day maybe getting his burger order wrong at a fast food joint is what does it."
Videogames *probably* have some small effect. But labeling them as a cause is absurd.