An anonymous reader writes "California Rep. Joe Baca has proposed a bill which would mandate placing health warning labels on any video game rated T (13+) or higher by the ESRB. The Video Game Health Labeling Act of 2009 would require a cigarette pack-like label that reads, 'WARNING: Excessive exposure to violent video games and other violent media has been linked to aggressive behavior.'"
Joe Baca is generally a problem. He was influential in getting new regulations passed to make it easier for lower-income families to get loans, and now his district is one of the highest, if not the highest, foreclosure rates in the nation. He has steered PAC money to his sons' election attempts when the use of that money explicitly conflicted with the guidelines for their use. His election to head of the Congressional Hispanic Caucus was a public one when the Caucus is supposed to hold private votes. When Rep. Loretta Sanchez -- also a Democrat, Hispanic, and from the same state -- pointed this out and called for a new, secret ballot, he called her a whore.
Even for a Washington politician, Baca is quite capable of some low deeds.
Following the little warning, it should read, Warning: this link has been established with biased experiments and insufficient data, as well as lack of scientific analysis. Experiments have pointed both ways (yet we have cherry picked this one) and to this day, many dolts firmly believe that correlation implies causation. You can however have faith in the fact that if your children are young enough, they may be as stupid as the chain of idiots who have wasted your tax money on this crap. This entails that, like lemmings, without proper guidance/responsibility, they will most likely attempt (and fail) to pick up a hooker and shoot her in the face to avoid paying the fees, following an uninterrupted session of GTA. If they get closer to success than desired, no matter how hilarious it may be, it is YOUR responsibility, not the source of this media.
The real irony is that the violent cartoons our parents (read the 40-60 year old generation that are our world's decision makers today) watched as kids didn't seem to corrupt them too badly. They turned out 'all right' by their own standards apparently. Heck, I'm still quite a few years from 40 and still played cops and robbers, watched "violent" roadrunner cartoons, and pretended to "shoot" people with my finger in elementary school. All things that supposedly that are "harmful" yet i'm a productive member of society, don't do drugs, have a steady job, good education...and so on.
Or maybe they're turning all the kids today into pussies.
Actually the roadrunner and coyote cartoons of even the 70's were censored from what I remember in the late 60's. I was watching them with my kids in the early 80's (I'm almost 52) and surprised when some of the scenes I remember were trimmed out.
You can however have faith in the fact that if your children are young enough, they may be as stupid as the chain of idiots who have wasted your tax money on this crap. This entails that, like lemmings, they will most likely find an enriching career within the U.S. senate
Following the little warning, it should read, Warning: this link has been established with biased experiments and insufficient data, as well as lack of scientific analysis. Experiments have pointed both ways (yet we have cherry picked this one) and to this day, many dolts firmly believe that correlation implies causation.
You're obviously biased one way, and that's fine. Furthermore, it may be confusing cause and effect, something people haven't don't seem to have put much thought into. I have no doubt that psychopaths will enjoy violent video games.
That said, can you cite the studies you reference? I'm very curious.
Actually the results of studies linking video games and aggression have been posted on Slashdot (you can find a lot of studies wit Google). Also I'm not biased, I clearly said it pointed both ways and I obviously mentioned that there is a chance that a child that is too young will imitate what is seen on any media. Also, I speak from personal experience (both with knowledge of psychology/statistics and my own observations). One thing I have noticed is that the "aggression" in video games is caused by loosing. When football fans show violence, it's not because violent media has a direct play in it, it's because the ref made a bad call, or some player made a dumb move.
I took your advice and googled it, and the first hit which came up was from the American Psychological Association:
I want to counter what you wrote with what the APA says.
You wrote: "Experiments have pointed both ways"
The APA says:
Myth 1. Violent video game research has yielded very mixed results.
Facts: Some studies have yielded nonsignificant video game effects, just as some smoking studies failed to find a significant link to lung cancer. But when one combines all relevant empirical studies using meta-analytic techniques, five separate effects emerge with considerable consistency. Violent video games are significantly associated with: increased aggressive behavior, thoughts, and affect; increased physiological arousal; and decreased prosocial (helping) behavior. Average effect sizes for experimental studies (which help establish causality) and correlational studies (which allow examination of serious violent behavior) appear comparable (Anderson & Bushman, 2001).
You wrote: "many dolts firmly believe that correlation implies causation"
The APA says:
Myth 5. Correlational studies are irrelevant.
Facts: The overly simplistic mantra, "Correlation is not causation," is useful when teaching introductory students the risks in too-readily drawing causal conclusions from a simple empirical correlation between two measured variables. However, correlational studies are routinely used in modern science to test theories that are inherently causal. Whole scientific fields are based on correlational data (e.g., astronomy). Well conducted correlational studies provide opportunities for theory falsification. They allow examination of serious acts of aggression that would be unethical to study in experimental contexts. They allow for statistical controls of plausible alternative explanations.
You wrote: "the 'aggression' in video games is caused by loosing"
The APA says:
Myth 10. Arousal, not violent content, accounts for video game induced increases in aggression.
Facts: Arousal cannot explain the results of most correlational studies because the measured aggression did not occur immediately after the violent video games were played. Furthermore, several experimental studies have controlled potential arousal effects, and still yielded more aggression by those who played the violent game.
You wrote: "this link has been established with biased experiments and insufficient data" And then you also wrote: "I'm not biased". In other words, you're completely objective, but anyone who disagrees with you is biased?
I'm completely willing to accept that there are studies which refute a theory that you hate. But you need to pony up those studies and explain to me why the APA disagrees with you so strongly. It seems to me that you are in the weaker position, especially given these psychological facts:
1. Humans ape behavior that they see other humans perform (modeling).
2. Humans will perform a behavior more often if they are rewarded for it.
3. Violent video games ever more closely approximate humans performing violence on humans and reward players
Something else to point out is this type of warning label wouldn't affect online sales. Physical retail stores will start looking like death dealers though. Parents will see the labels as proof that it causes violence and warm up parents to idea that banning games is good.
The problem is, that cigarettes (not pure tobacco. cigarettes!) are more addictive than heroin. That's no joke. Look it up. Most people think it's just a light drug, because of the weak effects it has, compared to other drugs. But it's just that cigarettes have an extremely bad addictiveness/effect ration, because of the 600+ substances that intentionally got added to the tobacco, to make it impossible for you to stop.
I say there's no right more fundamental, that the right to do with your own body as you please. But the second most important rule of a society is, to do no harm to others. And that's exactly what making tobacco so addictive, while keeping quiet is. It's tricking you into dependence on their product. So we should forbid that exact behavior. And punish the one who decided it in exactly one of two ways (in that order): A) Expel them, and disallow them any direct or indirect relationship to this country, while explaining very clearly what is non-acceptable behavior in this society. That way he has to deliberately continue despite knowing that we don't want it, to reach... B) If that does not help: Get your agents to shoot them.
Plain, simple, fair.
Unfortunately the government, and companies like that, are largely the same thing nowadays. So the government are the people that should be punished by (A), or (B) if really necessary.
Dead on. Mod that up, it sums up pretty much the whole problem we have at hand.
Is it only me, or is pretty much the only entity who could be held responsible for kids turning out badly are by default above any doubt and out of obligation? Maybe it's time to start spinning ourselves. We need a nice catch phrase. How about "What happened to parenting?"?
Why isn't anyone even considering the possibility? Why did nobody ever look at the parents of kids going completely insane and blowing their brains out (and/or some other brains)? Is there some unwritten law that you must not blame parents for bad parenting when their kids turn out antisocial?
While there are many things I'd hold a parent responsible for, unfortunately we haven't identified the parenting method that leads to school shootings.
Until we have done so and teach the avoidance measures necessary, I find it premature to hold parents responsible when a child goes off the deep end that far.
Much like straight suicide, often these kids are already receiving professional help; but again sometimes like suicide there's no obvious sign they're going to commit a spree killing before they do so and the 20/20 hindsight investigation happens.
For example, I've long had an arsenal 'under my bed', but despite my profession I've never shot anybody. Yet on the news, obtaining of arms is considered one of the signs. The possession was also considered a risk factor for suicide in one of the anti-suicide classes I attended. My response was 'A gun is a vector, a tool, of suicide, not a risk. You might as well check to see if somebody owns rope, a knife, or has sleeping pills.
I blame the rise of spree killings on a number of factors - first is that we've gone from local reporting to national, even world reporting. How many incidents would have been reported in the 1950s? Consider that school shootings are not even an annual event, and back then we had half the population. Second would be opportunity. It was much rarer to have access to a completely disarmed target area back then. For example, a school shooting DID occur - in 1956, by Charles Whitman [wikipedia.org]. He killed 14, wounded 32. He faced suppressive fire from civilians, forcing him to keep his head down, limiting his opportunities to kill more. How much worse could he have been if he'd attempted that at Virginia Tech, in the year 2007? After all, Whitman was a trained marine. Third would be the possible link to prescribed anti-depressants. Whitman had some sort of brain tumor.
Finally, I'll end with the note that despite our violent movies and violent video games, that most violent offenders don't play video games, and the rate of violent crime in minors has been dropping.
That warning might make sense, if if it were true that video games actually caused aggressive behaviour. As it stands, there has been no conclusive proof that video games actually do cause aggressive behaviour, and thus this label is actually just a deceptive, nanny state tactic.
Playstation Home has worse content/comments (thanks to the human players) then some GTA stories. Yeah, the ESRB can say "online experience may change", but case in point - its not rated T, yet contains bad content. Just proof that the labels, censorship, and this BS bill really can't stop every little thing kids get exposed to, but come on - can you really expect kids to not be drawn to something so censored from their lives? Hell I know I did everything I could to find a playboy back in the day...
I think that's the crux of the matter. The comparison the cigarette labels is misleading. In that case, there has been an incontrovertible link between smoking and various diseases - even the tobacco industry now admits this. The link between violent video games and violent behavior is far more tenuous, supported somewhat by some anecdotal evidence, and strongly disputed by many behavioral scientists. I've got no problem with the label per se, IF it's accurate.
It's also not as if putting labels on cigarette packets saying "smoking this is going to harm your health" encourages people to start smoking. Kids, on the other hand, are pretty much guaranteed to want products with "no, kids, it's not for you" on the label a lot more than if the label were blank. The "Parental advisory: explicit lyrics" sticker on UK CDs is pretty much a standard marketing tool for the record labels, and has been since about three seconds after some fool invented it.
Did anyone ever wonder why all those kids going on a shooting spree did it at their school? Never at, say, a mall, where the potential amount of victims is usually way higher? Why didn't anyone ever ponder that?
Discussing such things is almost as taboo as talking about how the 9/11 terrorists weren't "cowards" as Bush suggests.
Its quite obvious that social dynamics at school were much more to blame for the various school shootings than video gaming. However, as a wise man once said, the winners write the history books and in this case, the shooters are dead, and the survivors get to be ignorant of the reasons for the violence (often by choice).
Then why doesn't anyone say it? It is blatantly obvious. And even if correlation != causation, it would at the very least put those that claim video games are somehow linked to the shootings into the position that they have to explain how linking games to the shooting is valid while linking school problems to them is not. All kids on a killing spree had violent games on their PCs? If this is a valid reason to blame video games, then blaming schools is at least as valid because all killing sprees happened at a school.
You cannot tell with any reasonable proof that they played some game before they went on their killing spree. But it's undenyable where they did it. Now, what is possibly stronger connected to it than the place where it is done? Is it simply rampage? Then why this invariable choice of target? What could be their goal? Fame? Hell, there's a LOT more surveillance cameras in other public places that contain a lot of potential random targets. A mall. A bank. A bus station. A sports arena.
It's also not a school. In every case that I know of, it was their school, the school that they went to or were expelled of. Anyone still wants to tell me this is by no means any indicator that this target was chosen deliberately?
I don't give a flying fuck about taboo, it's high time to call a spade a spade. Quit looking for a scapegoat and start working on the problem, or we get more rampages, more killings, more dead kids.
And while I hate playing that card: That next kid killed could be yours. Think about that.
I know it's not "comfortable" to think that maybe it's not "someone else" that we can shift the blame to but that we might have to look at ourselves for the problem, and thus the solution. Such a position isn't really endearing a politician to potential voters. It's much more pleasant to hear that he found a scapegoat and he's now going to do some "serious business" and "do something" for your kids.
But that's dangerous, people. Because it does not protect our kids. Essentially, it does, at best, nothing. At worst these games may be an outlet for potential gunmen that keeps them from snapping and going on a rampage. I'm not saying it is so, I say it may be so, I don't know. I only know one thing for sure: Using games as a scapegoat is not going to protect our kids. It may give us that fuzzy warm feeling we're doing something. But we're not. The problem remains, unaddressed and unsolved.
"Excessive exposure to violent video games and other violent media has been linked to aggressive behavior" Except that it hasn't been.
There have been some studies that have found linkages (the warning doesn't claim causality, it merely implies it), and others that haven't.
An even bigger problem is that a game can be rated T or higher (even as high as AO) without any violent content, so even assuming that a direct, substantial causal linkage was established between violent video games and aggressive behavior, the proposal -- to require the warning on all T or higher rated games -- would still be nonsense.
"WARNING: Excessive exposure to Congress and other politicians has been linked to all types of ill shit, including but not limited to: sexual harassment, infidelity, wanton abuse of taxpayers' money, and just being an all-around douche."
I haven't followed the research enough so I could be completely wrong but isn't the reason why cigarettes can have the Surgeon General's health warning on them because the statement has been clinically proven. Has there been any consensus on video game violence and violence in teens.
Psychologists have shown that, in fact, there is virtually no connection between playing violent video games and increased violence, so the Congressman from California has it exactly wrong:
Surprise, surprise! People who may already exhibit signs of anger or aggression may be drawn to such games. The games don't cause the anger or aggression. Such people may also be at greater risk for showing increased anger or aggression.
That's from a psychologist. Why can't the lawmakers figure it out?
I'm lobbying to get a mandatory message printed on all cell phones, that reads: "WARNING: cell phone usage has been linked to the collapse of honeybee populations".
The American Medical Association urged the FDA to tattoo a warning label on the forehead of all elected federal officials that states 'Listening to this individuals' logic has been linked to violent and aggressive behavior towards others.'
WARNING: Excessive exposure to warning labels and messages may make you less likely to pay attention to them, and prevent use of brain from exercising common sense and personal responsibility.
If they insist that such warnings be placed on the entrances to religious institutions (like churches, mosques and synagogues) then I might think this idea is more than just political gainsaying.
"WARNING: Excessive exposure to news coverage of the war in Iraq may lead to aggressive behavior!"
"WARNING: Excessive exposure to politician's speeches may lead to nausea and vomiting!"
And of course the ever popular "WARNING: Excessive exposure to XXX DVD's may cause carpal tunnel and other Repetitive Stress Injuries!"
A multitude of studies have linked cigarettes and lung cancer -- how many valid scientific studies have proven a causal relationship between video games and violence?
... that the relationship might be reversed, and that it's developmentally aggressive tendencies that DRAW PEOPLE TOWARD the violent games in the first place? The games aren't CAUSING the aggressiveness, they're a REFLECTION of it.
face. palm. (Score:5, Insightful)
Just when I thought maybe elected officials could earn some modicum of respect. Well done, Joe.
Re:face. palm. (Score:4, Funny)
Just when I thought maybe elected officials could earn some modicum of respect.
But did you really think about that? Sorry, I'm not convinced.
Parent
Warning Labels for Congressmen (Score:5, Funny)
Labels could include:
And for the bonus round:
Q: What do you call 1,000 politicians buried up to their necks in sand?
A: Not enough sand.
Parent
Re:Warning: Power Corrupts (Score:5, Insightful)
Warning: Absolute Power Corrupts Absolutely
Warning: Power attracts the corruptable.
Parent
Re:Warning: Power Corrupts (Score:4, Insightful)
Warning: Absolute Power Corrupts Absolutely
Warning: Power attracts the corruptable.
"When the power of love overcomes the love of power, the world will know peace."
- Jimi Hendrix
Parent
Re:Warning Labels for Congressmen (Score:5, Funny)
I'd already be satisfied with "Warning: Subjects in politicians speech can appear better than they are".
Uhh... I smell an idea for a political satire webpage. Imagine this, politician speeches with appropriate warning labels.
Parent
Re:face. palm. (Score:5, Insightful)
I say let them do it.
They did it with music (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parental_Advisory) and the sales sky rocketed.
"This would sharpen you up and make you ready for a bit of the old ultra-violence"
Parent
Re:face. palm. (Score:5, Informative)
Joe Baca is generally a problem. He was influential in getting new regulations passed to make it easier for lower-income families to get loans, and now his district is one of the highest, if not the highest, foreclosure rates in the nation. He has steered PAC money to his sons' election attempts when the use of that money explicitly conflicted with the guidelines for their use. His election to head of the Congressional Hispanic Caucus was a public one when the Caucus is supposed to hold private votes. When Rep. Loretta Sanchez -- also a Democrat, Hispanic, and from the same state -- pointed this out and called for a new, secret ballot, he called her a whore.
Even for a Washington politician, Baca is quite capable of some low deeds.
Parent
2nd warning label following the initial (Score:5, Insightful)
Following the little warning, it should read, Warning: this link has been established with biased experiments and insufficient data, as well as lack of scientific analysis. Experiments have pointed both ways (yet we have cherry picked this one) and to this day, many dolts firmly believe that correlation implies causation. You can however have faith in the fact that if your children are young enough, they may be as stupid as the chain of idiots who have wasted your tax money on this crap. This entails that, like lemmings, without proper guidance/responsibility, they will most likely attempt (and fail) to pick up a hooker and shoot her in the face to avoid paying the fees, following an uninterrupted session of GTA. If they get closer to success than desired, no matter how hilarious it may be, it is YOUR responsibility, not the source of this media.
Parent
Re:2nd warning label following the initial (Score:5, Insightful)
The real irony is that the violent cartoons our parents (read the 40-60 year old generation that are our world's decision makers today) watched as kids didn't seem to corrupt them too badly. They turned out 'all right' by their own standards apparently. Heck, I'm still quite a few years from 40 and still played cops and robbers, watched "violent" roadrunner cartoons, and pretended to "shoot" people with my finger in elementary school. All things that supposedly that are "harmful" yet i'm a productive member of society, don't do drugs, have a steady job, good education...and so on.
Or maybe they're turning all the kids today into pussies.
Parent
Re:2nd warning label following the initial (Score:4, Informative)
Actually the roadrunner and coyote cartoons of even the 70's were censored from what I remember in the late 60's. I was watching them with my kids in the early 80's (I'm almost 52) and surprised when some of the scenes I remember were trimmed out.
[John]
Parent
Re:2nd warning label following the initial (Score:4, Funny)
You can however have faith in the fact that if your children are young enough, they may be as stupid as the chain of idiots who have wasted your tax money on this crap. This entails that, like lemmings, they will most likely find an enriching career within the U.S. senate
There, fixed it for you.
Parent
Re:2nd warning label following the initial (Score:4, Interesting)
Following the little warning, it should read, Warning: this link has been established with biased experiments and insufficient data, as well as lack of scientific analysis. Experiments have pointed both ways (yet we have cherry picked this one) and to this day, many dolts firmly believe that correlation implies causation.
You're obviously biased one way, and that's fine. Furthermore, it may be confusing cause and effect, something people haven't don't seem to have put much thought into. I have no doubt that psychopaths will enjoy violent video games.
That said, can you cite the studies you reference? I'm very curious.
Parent
The APA (Score:4, Informative)
Actually the results of studies linking video games and aggression have been posted on Slashdot (you can find a lot of studies wit Google). Also I'm not biased, I clearly said it pointed both ways and I obviously mentioned that there is a chance that a child that is too young will imitate what is seen on any media. Also, I speak from personal experience (both with knowledge of psychology/statistics and my own observations). One thing I have noticed is that the "aggression" in video games is caused by loosing. When football fans show violence, it's not because violent media has a direct play in it, it's because the ref made a bad call, or some player made a dumb move.
I took your advice and googled it, and the first hit which came up was from the American Psychological Association:
http://www.apa.org/science/psa/sb-anderson.html [apa.org]
I want to counter what you wrote with what the APA says.
You wrote: "Experiments have pointed both ways"
The APA says:
Myth 1. Violent video game research has yielded very mixed results.
Facts: Some studies have yielded nonsignificant video game effects, just as some smoking studies failed to find a significant link to lung cancer. But when one combines all relevant empirical studies using meta-analytic techniques, five separate effects emerge with considerable consistency. Violent video games are significantly associated with: increased aggressive behavior, thoughts, and affect; increased physiological arousal; and decreased prosocial (helping) behavior. Average effect sizes for experimental studies (which help establish causality) and correlational studies (which allow examination of serious violent behavior) appear comparable (Anderson & Bushman, 2001).
You wrote: "many dolts firmly believe that correlation implies causation"
The APA says:
Myth 5. Correlational studies are irrelevant.
Facts: The overly simplistic mantra, "Correlation is not causation," is useful when teaching introductory students the risks in too-readily drawing causal conclusions from a simple empirical correlation between two measured variables. However, correlational studies are routinely used in modern science to test theories that are inherently causal. Whole scientific fields are based on correlational data (e.g., astronomy). Well conducted correlational studies provide opportunities for theory falsification. They allow examination of serious acts of aggression that would be unethical to study in experimental contexts. They allow for statistical controls of plausible alternative explanations.
You wrote: "the 'aggression' in video games is caused by loosing"
The APA says:
Myth 10. Arousal, not violent content, accounts for video game induced increases in aggression.
Facts: Arousal cannot explain the results of most correlational studies because the measured aggression did not occur immediately after the violent video games were played. Furthermore, several experimental studies have controlled potential arousal effects, and still yielded more aggression by those who played the violent game.
You wrote: "this link has been established with biased experiments and insufficient data" And then you also wrote: "I'm not biased". In other words, you're completely objective, but anyone who disagrees with you is biased?
I'm completely willing to accept that there are studies which refute a theory that you hate. But you need to pony up those studies and explain to me why the APA disagrees with you so strongly. It seems to me that you are in the weaker position, especially given these psychological facts:
1. Humans ape behavior that they see other humans perform (modeling).
2. Humans will perform a behavior more often if they are rewarded for it.
3. Violent video games ever more closely approximate humans performing violence on humans and reward players
Parent
Re:face. palm. (Score:4, Insightful)
Something else to point out is this type of warning label wouldn't affect online sales. Physical retail stores will start looking like death dealers though. Parents will see the labels as proof that it causes violence and warm up parents to idea that banning games is good.
Parent
Re:face. palm. (Score:5, Insightful)
The problem is, that cigarettes (not pure tobacco. cigarettes!) are more addictive than heroin. That's no joke. Look it up. Most people think it's just a light drug, because of the weak effects it has, compared to other drugs. But it's just that cigarettes have an extremely bad addictiveness/effect ration, because of the 600+ substances that intentionally got added to the tobacco, to make it impossible for you to stop.
I say there's no right more fundamental, that the right to do with your own body as you please. But the second most important rule of a society is, to do no harm to others. And that's exactly what making tobacco so addictive, while keeping quiet is. It's tricking you into dependence on their product. So we should forbid that exact behavior. And punish the one who decided it in exactly one of two ways (in that order): A) Expel them, and disallow them any direct or indirect relationship to this country, while explaining very clearly what is non-acceptable behavior in this society. That way he has to deliberately continue despite knowing that we don't want it, to reach... B) If that does not help: Get your agents to shoot them.
Plain, simple, fair.
Unfortunately the government, and companies like that, are largely the same thing nowadays. So the government are the people that should be punished by (A), or (B) if really necessary.
Parent
Label the kids? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Label the kids? (Score:5, Funny)
That later go on to become officials.
Parent
Re:Label the kids? (Score:5, Insightful)
Dead on. Mod that up, it sums up pretty much the whole problem we have at hand.
Is it only me, or is pretty much the only entity who could be held responsible for kids turning out badly are by default above any doubt and out of obligation? Maybe it's time to start spinning ourselves. We need a nice catch phrase. How about "What happened to parenting?"?
Why isn't anyone even considering the possibility? Why did nobody ever look at the parents of kids going completely insane and blowing their brains out (and/or some other brains)? Is there some unwritten law that you must not blame parents for bad parenting when their kids turn out antisocial?
Why, I ask?
Parent
Re:Label the kids? (Score:5, Interesting)
While there are many things I'd hold a parent responsible for, unfortunately we haven't identified the parenting method that leads to school shootings.
Until we have done so and teach the avoidance measures necessary, I find it premature to hold parents responsible when a child goes off the deep end that far.
Much like straight suicide, often these kids are already receiving professional help; but again sometimes like suicide there's no obvious sign they're going to commit a spree killing before they do so and the 20/20 hindsight investigation happens.
For example, I've long had an arsenal 'under my bed', but despite my profession I've never shot anybody. Yet on the news, obtaining of arms is considered one of the signs. The possession was also considered a risk factor for suicide in one of the anti-suicide classes I attended. My response was 'A gun is a vector, a tool, of suicide, not a risk. You might as well check to see if somebody owns rope, a knife, or has sleeping pills.
I blame the rise of spree killings on a number of factors - first is that we've gone from local reporting to national, even world reporting. How many incidents would have been reported in the 1950s? Consider that school shootings are not even an annual event, and back then we had half the population. Second would be opportunity. It was much rarer to have access to a completely disarmed target area back then. For example, a school shooting DID occur - in 1956, by Charles Whitman [wikipedia.org]. He killed 14, wounded 32. He faced suppressive fire from civilians, forcing him to keep his head down, limiting his opportunities to kill more. How much worse could he have been if he'd attempted that at Virginia Tech, in the year 2007? After all, Whitman was a trained marine. Third would be the possible link to prescribed anti-depressants. Whitman had some sort of brain tumor.
Finally, I'll end with the note that despite our violent movies and violent video games, that most violent offenders don't play video games, and the rate of violent crime in minors has been dropping.
Parent
Hmm... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Hmm... (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Re:Hmm... (Score:5, Funny)
Well he is the ScrewMaster ...
Parent
Re:Hmm... (Score:5, Informative)
I think that's the crux of the matter. The comparison the cigarette labels is misleading. In that case, there has been an incontrovertible link between smoking and various diseases - even the tobacco industry now admits this. The link between violent video games and violent behavior is far more tenuous, supported somewhat by some anecdotal evidence, and strongly disputed by many behavioral scientists. I've got no problem with the label per se, IF it's accurate.
Parent
Re:Hmm... (Score:5, Insightful)
It's also not as if putting labels on cigarette packets saying "smoking this is going to harm your health" encourages people to start smoking. Kids, on the other hand, are pretty much guaranteed to want products with "no, kids, it's not for you" on the label a lot more than if the label were blank. The "Parental advisory: explicit lyrics" sticker on UK CDs is pretty much a standard marketing tool for the record labels, and has been since about three seconds after some fool invented it.
Parent
Re:Hmm... (Score:5, Insightful)
Discussing such things is almost as taboo as talking about how the 9/11 terrorists weren't "cowards" as Bush suggests.
Its quite obvious that social dynamics at school were much more to blame for the various school shootings than video gaming. However, as a wise man once said, the winners write the history books and in this case, the shooters are dead, and the survivors get to be ignorant of the reasons for the violence (often by choice).
Parent
Re:Hmm... (Score:5, Insightful)
Then why doesn't anyone say it? It is blatantly obvious. And even if correlation != causation, it would at the very least put those that claim video games are somehow linked to the shootings into the position that they have to explain how linking games to the shooting is valid while linking school problems to them is not. All kids on a killing spree had violent games on their PCs? If this is a valid reason to blame video games, then blaming schools is at least as valid because all killing sprees happened at a school.
You cannot tell with any reasonable proof that they played some game before they went on their killing spree. But it's undenyable where they did it. Now, what is possibly stronger connected to it than the place where it is done? Is it simply rampage? Then why this invariable choice of target? What could be their goal? Fame? Hell, there's a LOT more surveillance cameras in other public places that contain a lot of potential random targets. A mall. A bank. A bus station. A sports arena.
It's also not a school. In every case that I know of, it was their school, the school that they went to or were expelled of. Anyone still wants to tell me this is by no means any indicator that this target was chosen deliberately?
I don't give a flying fuck about taboo, it's high time to call a spade a spade. Quit looking for a scapegoat and start working on the problem, or we get more rampages, more killings, more dead kids.
And while I hate playing that card: That next kid killed could be yours. Think about that.
I know it's not "comfortable" to think that maybe it's not "someone else" that we can shift the blame to but that we might have to look at ourselves for the problem, and thus the solution. Such a position isn't really endearing a politician to potential voters. It's much more pleasant to hear that he found a scapegoat and he's now going to do some "serious business" and "do something" for your kids.
But that's dangerous, people. Because it does not protect our kids. Essentially, it does, at best, nothing. At worst these games may be an outlet for potential gunmen that keeps them from snapping and going on a rampage. I'm not saying it is so, I say it may be so, I don't know. I only know one thing for sure: Using games as a scapegoat is not going to protect our kids. It may give us that fuzzy warm feeling we're doing something. But we're not. The problem remains, unaddressed and unsolved.
Parent
No (Score:5, Informative)
Re:No (Score:4, Insightful)
There have been some studies that have found linkages (the warning doesn't claim causality, it merely implies it), and others that haven't.
An even bigger problem is that a game can be rated T or higher (even as high as AO) without any violent content, so even assuming that a direct, substantial causal linkage was established between violent video games and aggressive behavior, the proposal -- to require the warning on all T or higher rated games -- would still be nonsense.
Parent
Re:No (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Re:No (Score:5, Funny)
"Excessive exposure to violent video games and other violent media has been linked to aggressive behavior" Except that it hasn't been.
Well, we'll just have to put a disclaimer on the disclaimer
"Warning: the above warning is somewhere between misleading and complete bullshit."
Parent
Citation needed (Score:3, Interesting)
Oblig. XKCD (Score:3, Funny)
Wikipedian Protester [xkcd.com].
Except this is exactly wrong... (Score:5, Informative)
Psychologists have shown that, in fact, there is virtually no connection between playing violent video games and increased violence, so the Congressman from California has it exactly wrong:
http://psychcentral.com/blog/archives/2008/05/17/the-link-between-video-games-and-violence/ [psychcentral.com]
I'm all for research supporting reasoned legislation, but in this case, it is ignorance and misconceptions supporting "feel good" government nannies.
--
Yes, the answer is no.
Kids were violent before they played the game (Score:5, Informative)
Thanks for the link. From your article:
Surprise, surprise! People who may already exhibit signs of anger or aggression may be drawn to such games. The games don't cause the anger or aggression. Such people may also be at greater risk for showing increased anger or aggression.
That's from a psychologist. Why can't the lawmakers figure it out?
Parent
Yeah? Well... (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm lobbying to get a mandatory message printed on all cell phones, that reads: "WARNING: cell phone usage has been linked to the collapse of honeybee populations".
In other health news (Score:3, Funny)
Warning labels (Score:5, Insightful)
WARNING: Excessive exposure to warning labels and messages may make you less likely to pay attention to them, and prevent use of brain from exercising common sense and personal responsibility.
Good idea if used for other things unpleasant (Score:4, Funny)
If they insist that such warnings be placed on the entrances to religious institutions (like churches, mosques and synagogues) then I might think this idea is more than just political gainsaying.
Joe's brother (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Joe's brother (Score:5, Funny)
Congressman Joe Baca's brother Chew [google.se] is known to be quite agressive.
Yeah ... and when he loses a video game he pulls his opponents arms off.
Parent
Warning? (Score:5, Funny)
WARNING: Excessive exposure to violent video games and other violent media has been linked to aggressive behavior
Citation needed.
How about a few more warning labels? (Score:4, Insightful)
"Joining the military may be hazardous to your health."
"Progress is the opposite of Congress."
"Paying your taxes subsidizes stupidity."
"Voting is an endorsement of the status quo."
Baka = stupid (Score:4, Funny)
How fitting that his name means "stupid" in Japanese...
If this succeeds... (Score:5, Funny)
Appropriate (Score:5, Informative)
The word "Baka" (romanization) in Japanese means "Idiot".
And other violent media (Score:5, Insightful)
...and other violent media...
Yep, so you go ahead and try to get the same message printed on all movies, too, and we'll see just how long you're representing California.
Other mandatory warning lables (Score:4, Funny)
"WARNING: Excessive exposure to politician's speeches may lead to nausea and vomiting!"
And of course the ever popular "WARNING: Excessive exposure to XXX DVD's may cause carpal tunnel and other Repetitive Stress Injuries!"
A multitude of studies have linked cigarettes and lung cancer -- how many valid scientific studies have proven a causal relationship between video games and violence?
It never occurs to these idiots... (Score:5, Insightful)
... that the relationship might be reversed, and that it's developmentally aggressive tendencies that DRAW PEOPLE TOWARD the violent games in the first place? The games aren't CAUSING the aggressiveness, they're a REFLECTION of it.
Oops! (Score:3, Funny)
Correlation does not mean causation. I guess I've been playing too many video games