Connecticut Group Wants Your Violent Videogames — To Destroy Them 449
DavidGilbert99 writes with this excerpt from IB Times: "The Sandy Hook shooting once again raised the debate about how much power violent videogames wield over teenagers. Following proclamations from the National Rifle Association and the establishment of a study by the National Academy of Sciences to investigate the psychological effects of violent games on children, a group in Connecticut is now having its say Southington, a town 30 miles from where the shooting took place, is offering gift tokens in exchange for violent videogames, as well as other violent media such as DVDs or videos. The group, called SouthingtonSOS, said in a statement: 'There is ample evidence that violent video games, along with violent media of all kinds, including TV and movies portraying story after story showing a continuous stream of violence and killing, has contributed to increasing aggressiveness, fear, anxiety and is desensitizing our children to acts of violence including bullying.'" And Yes, they plan to destroy the traded-in games. (Note: Beware the obnoxious auto-playing video ad with sound; adjust volume accordingly.)
Re:Before people fly off the hook here.. (Score:5, Informative)
Prohibition started with old biddies moral panicing about alcohol. You sound like an old biddy trying to reframe criticism of their behavior.
One Little Problem with "Increasing" Crime Idea. (Score:5, Informative)
Folks might want to check the crime stats before making blanket statements about "increasing" levels of violent crime due to video games or access to computers. The Internet era has turned into the safest era since violent crimes shot up in the mid-70's, and rates of homicides and property crimes are at their lowest point since the 60's.
Used to be Rock and Roll, now video games. (Score:2, Informative)
Whatever the generation in power didn't grow up with becomes the Bogeyman. In the 60s through the 80s it was that Devil music Rock And Roll. In the 90s it was Rap. Now it's Violent video games. After violent video games I'm sure it'll be something else to blame for the problems in society.
People just have bad memories and think when They Grew Up, it was some golden age. Nope.. no societal problems in the 50s or 60s. No Sirrr-ee.
Re:Haw (Score:5, Informative)
Not sure about student athletes, but there was the recent case of Jovan Belcher, a professional football player who killed his girlfriend, drove to the team headquarters, and killed himself in front of his head coach and GM. Also relevant is that the jocks are much more likely to be involved in assaults, rapes, vehicular homicides, and other violent acts other than shooting up a school.
George Carlin had this one right: ""They say it's the quiet ones you have to watch. Yeah, and while you're watching a quiet one, a noisy one will kill ya!"
Re:Haw (Score:5, Informative)
When's the last time you saw somebody who was a student athlete shoot up a school or movie theater?
Sports are charged with testosterone, true, but they also teach people how to lose gracefully and that losing is a part of life. I'd trust some football-playing hothead who says what's on his mind and cools down minutes after a rage much more than some silent, coddled, brooding nerd-loser who chooses to mass-murder out of anger at their own weakness and defeatism.
So in short, you accuse athletes of being bullies and brutes, but it turns out that the dumb louts actually manage their emotions better than you do.
-- Ethanol-fueled
No, student athletes don't shoot up movie theaters, they just rape girls and brag about it to their friends [huff.to]. Then the school community covers it up for them because in redneck America highschool football "stars" are the darlings of town.
Re:"Ample Evidence" (Score:4, Informative)
The NRA is correct wrt firearms ... (Score:5, Informative)
The NRA is full of memeber who ahve no wish to actual confront this issue.
With respect to firearms you have things absolutely backwards. Unlike with video games, the NRA is well informed and has the facts on their side regarding firearms.
... and a serious look at the that data about gun control. Something they stop wanting about 15 years ago when the data very clearly shows a decrease in killing when guns are severly restricted.
You are mistaken. The data actually shows no correlation. There are regions in the US with severe restrictions where the murder rate is low and there are regions with lax firearms regulations where the murder rate is low. Its not the presence or absence of firearms itself that leads to a low murder rate, there are some other factors that do so. More likely it has something to do with education and poverty. Lets look at Switzerland where many households have real assault rifles (fully automatic), high capacity magazines and 300 rounds of ammunition in their home. One difference between the Swiss and the US is that the Swiss did receive proper training and keep the weapon and ammunition locked up.
.22 calibre, basically anything with a full or partial copper jacket. The NRA helped rewrite the legislation so it applied only to the teflon coated ammunition notorious for penetrating body armor. Again naive gun control types got all hysterical over plastic guns and drafted legislation to outlaw everything without some number of ounces of steel. The problem here is that many firearms that are perfectly detectable in metal detectors are using metal alloys that are not technically steel. The NRA helped rewrite this legislation so that it only banned firearms that were not detectable in the metal detectors of the day.
You want more real data? Hunting related accidents dropped dramatically after hunter safety classes became required in the US in order to get a hunting license. Anyone who has had such a class can testify that the majority of the class is basic firearms safety. 1/3 of firearms deaths are accidents. Many of these deaths could probably be prevented by requiring firearms owners to take a safety class before they get their first gun, much like hunters are required to take their safety class before they get their first license.
As far as the NRA goes with respect to reasonable legislation. They have helped write some. When naive gun control types got all hysterical over cop-killer bullets these folks drafted legislation that would outlaw all ammunition with some sort of coating. This would have outlawed nearly all ammunition over
Similarly the "assault weapon" bans are also largely hysteria. There is no difference in capability between the so called "assault weapons" and normal semiauto hunting rifles. Both fire the same ammunition and when a hunting magazine (5 round max) is inserted into the "assault weapon" it fire no more rounds and no faster than the hunting rifle. On the flip side when a military magazine (say 30 round capacity) is put into the hunting rifle it has the same capability as the "assault weapon" with such a magazine. The only differences between the "assault weapon" and the semiauto hunting rifle are cosmetic, appearance not function.
NRA members and many firearms owners understand this. That is why the last time an "assault weapon" ban was passed firearms owning republicans, democrats and independents who had no interest in buying an "assault weapon" threw out many of the politicians who voted for the ban. They rightfully feared that their regular semiauto hunting and sporting rifles and shotguns were in danger of being banned next. It happened in various European countries. The original "assault weapon" ban legislation in the US specifically listed certain firearms designs that did not include regular hunting and sporting firearms but this legislation also allowed the Secretary of the Treasury (oversees Alcohol Tobacco