Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Games

Video Game Industry Starting To Feel Heat On Gun Massacres 1006

Posted by samzenpus
from the put-down-the-controller dept.
An anonymous reader writes "While much of the scrutiny following the lone gunman-perpetrated massacres at Aurora, CO and Newtown, CT has fallen on the National Rifle Association and its lobbying efforts against gun control, the shooters in both of the aforementioned incidents seemed to have been encouraged by violence in movies and video games. The New York Daily News' Mike Lupica reported last week that investigators of the Newtown case found a huge spreadsheet in the Lanza home where 20-year old Adam Lanza had methodically charted hundreds of past gun massacres, including the number of people killed and the make and model of weapons used. A Connecticut policeman told Lupica 'it sounded like a doctoral thesis, that was the quality of the research', and added, '[Mass killers such as Lanza] don't believe this was just a spreadsheet. They believe it was a score sheet. This was the work of a video gamer'. In response, the Entertainment Software Association and other lobbyists representing the video game industry have ramped up their Washington lobbying efforts. While still tiny in dollar terms next to the NRA's warchest, this effort seemed to help derail a proposal to fund a Justice Department study of the effects of video games on gun violence, offered as an amendment on the gun control bill by a Republican senator. A spokesman summarized the ESA's position: 'Extensive research has already been conducted and found no connection between media and real-life violence.'"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Video Game Industry Starting To Feel Heat On Gun Massacres

Comments Filter:
  • by eldavojohn (898314) * <eldavojohn.gmail@com> on Monday March 25, 2013 @11:44AM (#43271529) Journal

    The New York Daily News' Mike Lupica reported last week that investigators of the Newtown case found a huge spreadsheet in the Lanza home where 20-year old Adam Lanza had methodically charted hundreds of past gun massacres, including the number of people killed and the make and model of weapons used.

    Okay, so far none of this has anything to do with video games -- does it? Anyone with their mind set and with extreme determination to accomplish the goal would do the above. Hell, this sounds more like the fantasy football people at my office than the gamers.

    A Connecticut policeman told Lupica 'it sounded like a doctoral thesis, that was the quality of the research'

    So we should ban doctoral theses? We should halt all research? Yeah, if someone is incredibly determined to do something, they're going to make a science out of it and conduct super extensive research. This is true of anything from baseball card collecting to weightlifting to money management to drug dealing. Name a thing. Anything. Now imagine what someone would do if they took it to an extreme level. Yeah, that's what's going on here.

    '[Mass killers such as Lanza] don't believe this was just a spreadsheet. They believe it was a score sheet. This was the work of a video gamer'.

    You lost me. This is absolute bullshit. Statements that have more to do with a single person's determination suddenly linked to video games in what should be viewed as illogical stupidity. Oddly this statement can work for anything, weightlifters view their personal records and recorded journals as score sheets. Baseball card collectors view their completed sets and insert sets as score sheets. Farmers that are trying to get the most out of their fields look at their yields like score sheets. I mean, what about sports where you have actual score sheets and stats? Why are we not saying this was the work of an NFL running back or a second degree Taekwondo black-belt?

    He did outside research to carry out an incredibly difficult task? Sounds more like your average software documentation than your average video gamer -- time to protect people from research and documentation.

    Christ if you want to talk about restricting and banning things, look at the actual tools that he actually used to succeed in carrying out this horrible crime. Where is the logic that violent video games were instrumental in this horrible attack? Where is the link between his research and video games? Because it's a score sheet? Ridiculous!

    • by night_flyer (453866) on Monday March 25, 2013 @11:50AM (#43271623) Homepage

      "if you want to talk about restricting and banning things, look at the actual tools that he actually used to succeed in carrying out this horrible crime."

      Ah yes, you don't like your inanimate object blamed, so you want to push the blame off on some other inanimate object.

      How about we just blame the person?

      • by Anonymous Coward on Monday March 25, 2013 @11:59AM (#43271795)

        Or we could, you know, recognize that firearms are a significant force multiplier that make pulling off massacres like this far more trivial than they would be without these weapons.

        • by Anarke_Incarnate (733529) on Monday March 25, 2013 @12:05PM (#43271893)

          That's a load of crap. The original argument stands. The risks involved in a "mass shooting" are small compared to the legal uses of such tools. If someone wants to commit harm, they will. Bombs, fire, etc. You can't legislate away crazy.

          • by hedwards (940851) on Monday March 25, 2013 @12:24PM (#43272263)

            And if we took reasonable precautions like background checks and limited magazine size to no more than 10 rounds, it would greatly inconvenience people that want to do this.

            Just because you're an idiot, doesn't make it any less reasonable to introduce moderate gun regulations. But, then again, the Australians banned people from owning guns privately who didn't have a reason, self defense wasn't an acceptable reason, and they haven't had a single mass murder in all those years.

            The reality here is that doing nothing because criminals would just break the law is a really, really stupid policy. The more inconvenient it is to commit the crime, the more opportunities there are for law enforcement to discover the plot and the more likely it is that the plot will just crumble on it's own.

              • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

                by hedwards (940851)

                Those crimes were 11 and 13 years ago respectively, meanwhile, it's been what, a few months since our last mass murder. Yes, I apparently misspoke, but only a RWNJ would consider a 11 year track record to not illustrate the point that firearm regulations don't work.

            • by Anarke_Incarnate (733529) on Monday March 25, 2013 @01:15PM (#43273059)

              That's stupid rhetoric that serves no purpose. The "Reasonable" background checks are a registry to be kept for indeterminate periods of time, and as the confiscations in New Orleans showed during the aftermath of Katrina, our rights are in danger when there is a registry. How would you like to have a "Reasonable" set of privacy on the internet, where everything you do is cataloged and kept with your username which also happens to be your real name with home address for anyone to search?

              Australia also did not have as many guns, the density, the crime, the drug issue that we in the US have. Why not talk about Mexico and their "Reasonable" restrictions on civilian ownership. Boy, that is a paradise...

            • by CanHasDIY (1672858) on Monday March 25, 2013 @02:52PM (#43274405) Homepage Journal

              And if we took reasonable precautions

              That word doesn't mean what you think it means; "reasonable" is a purely subjective term, and thus what's reasonable to one person may be outright insane to another. Therefore, making laws based on "what's reasonable" makes about as much sense as laws based on popular opinion (i.e., none whatsoever)

              ...like background checks

              OK, they already do background checks. What's not reasonable about the current process? What changes to the current process are you referring to as "reasonable?" "Like background checks" doesn't tell me shit about what you intend, and seems intentionally vague - thus, an unreasonable proposition by itself.

              limited magazine size to no more than 10 rounds

              Again, what's reasonable about that, or rather, what's unreasonable about larger magazines? Can you provide research that proves beyond a reasonable doubt that infringing the right of the citizens in this manner will have a measurably positive effect on society? What about the military and law enforcement, will they be held to the 10 round standard as well? As the recent episode with Chris Dorner taught us, even the venerable LEOs can be capable of going on killing rampages, so wouldn't it stand to reason their magazine capacity be curtailed as well? Again, your suggestion is far too vague in scope to be considered within "reasonable" spec.

              Just because you're an idiot...

              Attempts at marginalization via childish insults do nothing to assist your efforts, and in fact retard them. Keep that in mind.

              doesn't make it any less reasonable to introduce moderate gun regulations.

              Define "moderate regulations." Specifically.

              the Australians banned people from owning guns privately who didn't have a reason, self defense wasn't an acceptable reason, and they haven't had a single mass murder in all those years.

              Funny, you must get your news from somewhere other than, you know, news sources:

              In 2002 -- five years after enacting its gun ban -- the Australian Bureau of Criminology acknowledged there is no correlation between gun control and the use of firearms in violent crime. In fact, the percent of murders committed with a firearm was the highest it had ever been in 2006 (16.3 percent)

              And that's not even mentioning the other issues Aussies have had to deal with since the gun ban:

              - In 2006, assault rose 49.2 percent and robbery 6.2 percent.

              - Rape cases increased 29.9 percent.

              - Some dickhead broke into a girls house and strapped a (turned out to be fake) bomb around her neck. [nbcnews.com]

              - Overall, Australia's violent crime rate rose 42.2 percent since the ban was enacted.

              So yea, less "mass killings," but shitloads more rape, robbery, and assault. Doesn't seem like that one belongs in the "win" column, now does it?

              The reality here is that doing nothing because criminals would just break the law is a really, really stupid policy.

              Perhaps... but equally-if-not-more stupid is the idea that we must place further restrictions on the Constitutional rights of citizens because a certain subset of those citizens who are ignorant pussies, scared of their own shadows, scream "OMG, Something(TM) must be done!" Bonus points if you shrill some nonsense about doing it "For The Children(TM)."

              The more inconvenient it is to commit the crime, the more opportunities there are for law enforcement to discover the plot and the more likely it is that the plot will just crumble on it's own.

              A better argument for the dissolution of the First Amendment, I have not heard.

        • by LordLimecat (1103839) on Monday March 25, 2013 @12:09PM (#43271947)

          Ah, OK, we'll protect the first amendment by gutting the second.

        • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

          by night_flyer (453866)

          3000+ people were killed by people using box cutters

        • If we are going to put "force multiplier" into the equation, then we must also account for "force division".

          Why do we have gun free zones again? Why do we go to such lengths to ensure that no law abiding citizen in a gun free zone can possibly fight back when confronted by a gun man? It's almost like we are cooperating with the gun men.

          "You want to shoot up a bunch of people? That's bad, but hey! If you're intent on killing people, we'll just get hundreds of people massed together, where they can't defe

      • by eldavojohn (898314) * <eldavojohn.gmail@com> on Monday March 25, 2013 @12:00PM (#43271809) Journal

        "if you want to talk about restricting and banning things, look at the actual tools that he actually used to succeed in carrying out this horrible crime."

        Ah yes, you don't like your inanimate object blamed, so you want to push the blame off on some other inanimate object.

        How about we just blame the person?

        Wrong. It's about banning speech. If you could show me that the game disc it was printed on had cadmium [wikipedia.org] on it and that it flaked off and was dangerous to human health, I would advocate banning that particular game disc. If you can prove an inanimate object is the reason people are dying, I'll go along with your ideas on restricting it. What I will not agree to is banning books, movies, music, software or anything that represents an "idea" just because you're afraid of those ideas. If I buy a game and download it online, there is no inanimate object. It's information.

        Yeah if all game discs could explode and send a piece of metal or lead into someone's chest, I would be interested in heavily restricting the sale of it. Your apples to oranges comparison of "inanimate objects" could also apply to nuclear weapons, C4, ricin, etc. Have fun living in that society! Comparing guns to information just shows that people don't understand the first amendment's importance as being a civil right and are all for only the second amendment that was written when guns were muskets. You can have all the muskets you want at the level of technology that was present when the second amendment came into effect.

      • by PhxBlue (562201) on Monday March 25, 2013 @12:02PM (#43271845) Homepage Journal

        When someone goes into a school and kills 20 children with copies of "Grand Theft Auto," call me.

      • Or how about (Score:5, Insightful)

        by rsilvergun (571051) on Monday March 25, 2013 @12:09PM (#43271939)
        we blame the lack of mental health services? I don't particularly care about gun control one way or another, but I am tired of people ignoring root causes. In every one of these shootings there have been signs of schizophrenia. Schizophrenia has been shown to be a brain chemistry problem. Fixing it is very, very, very expensive. Even the guy from Aurora (who's dad had lots of money) would be pressed. You need a lot of very specific treatment. So we waste time talking about violent games and guns and anything else but actually paying to identify and treat these people because that would take tax money, and as we all know we're perpetually Taxed To The Max (TM).
      • by AntEater (16627) on Monday March 25, 2013 @12:27PM (#43272293) Homepage

        The individual who committed the crime is definitely where the blame ultimately lies. What people are looking for isn't merely the blame but some cause that can then be legislated away so that this type of thing can be prevented in the future. I don't believe it'll ever be effectively done but I think that is the ultimate motivation. Our society tends to like to find "things" to blame (guns, music, games, etc) rather than addressing some of the social, family and personal issues that lead to horrible actions like this. Banning things is an easier task and creates the illusion of "doing something" about it.

        • True, but you also have to be realistic about the risk you take by allowing a population with a known percentage of people who will likely carry out extreme acts. You will never eliminate this. You have to balance the needs and desires of the 98% (for example) who won't abuse the privilege of, say, owning a rifle with the 2% who will shoot someone. The damage caused by that 2% may be acceptable to society as a whole even though the individual victims would disagree. Now we don't allow people to casually

      • by BergZ (1680594)
        I think pretty much everyone already does blame "the person" in tragedies like this. That's why (if he was still alive) "the person" would be convicted and imprisoned.
        Nobody has ever suggested putting his gun on trial. Nobody has ever suggested imprisoning his gun.
        The culpability for the shooting has always been on "the person".

        What some people, like myself, have noticed is that there are other people out there who are like "the person". They have similar mental disorders and they also have access to si
    • by fustakrakich (1673220) on Monday March 25, 2013 @11:53AM (#43271679) Journal

      It's not about guns and violence. It's a thinly veiled attempt at widening censorship in general and making it acceptable. Seeing that such propaganda itself is so effective, it's hard to doubt that video games do have an effect on people from that standpoint. The solution is to strengthen resistance to propaganda, something that needs to be done from infancy onward.

      • Censor what? (Score:4, Informative)

        by rsilvergun (571051) on Monday March 25, 2013 @12:13PM (#43272049)
        Do you watch the news in America? All economic discussion regardless of who does it is from a corporate/conservative standpoint of low taxes, few regulations and minimal government intervention (except for bailouts). Yeah, there's some liberal bias in social issues. But what the hell does that matter in the real world. In economics there is no dissenting opinion. What in Gods name do they need to censor? They already have control over everything that matters. If I control your economy I control you. You're not free unless your economically secure.
    • by fuzzyfuzzyfungus (1223518) on Monday March 25, 2013 @12:13PM (#43272059) Journal

      "A Connecticut policeman told Lupica 'it sounded like a doctoral thesis, that was the quality of the research'"

      Has Officer Donut ever seen a doctoral thesis? You'd have to be going to a pretty shitty school if you can get a PhD for going all OCD on the media clippings file and copying down a spreadsheet full of kill stats...

    • by dcollins117 (1267462) on Monday March 25, 2013 @12:36PM (#43272479)

      It's really quite a stretch to observe that Lanza entered data in a spreadsheet and conclude that videos games are even partially to blame for the mass shooting. The only link between a spreadsheet and a video game is that they are both applications that run on a computer.

      Makes you wonder what is really going on here; whose agenda is being furthered by making such a connection and calling it "news."

    • by poetmatt (793785) on Monday March 25, 2013 @12:49PM (#43272693) Journal

      the reason is the same as it's always been. Video Games are basically an innocent cause here but now that the NRA has thrown them under a bus to attempt to save their own skin, politicians are just following along. It's just politics at the expense of everything else everywhere. It's intellectually dishonest and lazy, but that's exactly why they do it.

  • by SSpade (549608) on Monday March 25, 2013 @11:49AM (#43271609) Homepage

    ... spreadsheets kill people.

    Ban Excel!

  • We need a mirror (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Rufus Firefly (2379458) on Monday March 25, 2013 @11:51AM (#43271639)
    Because the only ones to blame is our collective self. Violent media--TV shows, movies, video games, death metal, etc.--are an expression of our society's extreme unfocused anger, not the cause. Silly politicians and your simple solutions to complex problems.
  • by tutufan (2857787) on Monday March 25, 2013 @11:55AM (#43271721)

    ...but at least I can keep them from being virtually killed by virtual guns.

  • Media coverage (Score:5, Interesting)

    by thepike (1781582) on Monday March 25, 2013 @11:56AM (#43271737)
    If we're going to blame some form of popular media, it should be the news media, in my opinion. Sure, you can argue that maybe video games desensitize people to violence and (apparently) allow people to keep score (ban Parcheesi too, or cribbage), but I would say that the constant coverage of killers and whatnot on the news is what makes it worse. I have no evidence to back this up, but it certainly gives people ideas about what to do or how to do it, as well as showing them that if they do this sort of thing they're going to live on in news coverage long after they're dead. If these are, as often portrayed, lost souls reaching out for something (in a very inappropriate way), what better way to go than to emblazon your name across all news outlets?
    • by geek (5680) on Monday March 25, 2013 @12:09PM (#43271949) Homepage

      Lanza killed a lot of young children. It's the sort of thing the news media eats up because 1) it involves children which immediately gets the attention of every parent int he country and 2) Lanza had serious emotional issues (and psychological ones too).

      It's the type of story no one can ignore and let's face a sad reality. Most people are fucking drama queens. That's why Oprah is successful, why Jerry Springer and Maury Povitch have TV shows. That's why The Young and the Restless has been on TV for 40 friggin years and produced over 10,000 episodes. People or nosey pricks that need to get involved in everything.

      Kids see this and realize "Hey, I can get tons of attention by doing the same thing!" Video games aren't directly to blame. Bad, no, piss poor parenting is to blame. Video games have just made kids a hell of a lot better at it. They now know how to frag large groups of people because they do it on CoD and Halo. It's like free training for emotional disturbed people.

      The solution isn't easy. You have to first make sure that these kids are being found and helped before they become killers. In almost every case people describe the killers as sweet kids pushed too far by home, school and life stresses. If you know a kid like this fucking help them! In addition to this, start cracking down hard on the little fuckers that are bullying in school. I knew plenty of these assholes growing up. Most of them are now rich and successful because they learned bullying pays off. They climbed the corporate ladder being the pricks their parents raised them to be.

      The problems are societal. It's not the guns killing people. It's society eating itself. People blaming it on any one thing need to go fuck themselves. They are part of the problem.

      • It isn't training. (Score:5, Insightful)

        by neoshroom (324937) on Monday March 25, 2013 @01:07PM (#43272961)
        >They now know how to frag large groups of people because they do it on CoD and Halo. It's like free training for emotional disturbed people.

        You can't rocket jump in real life. Video games are not realistic. Firing a gun in a video game is nothing like firing a gun in real life. Guns are crude, noisy, horrible, low-tech devices. No matter how much you play a video game, it isn't going to do much for your real-life accuracy. At most, video games can be a form of mental preparation, desensitization or even glorification, but very rarely an actual teaching tool.
  • Blame something! (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Monday March 25, 2013 @11:57AM (#43271749)

    This is another knee jerk reaction to these recent mass shootings.

    NONE of these shooting would have been prevented with ANY of the legislation that is being proposed by lawmakers. Assault weapons ban, large magazine capacity, even extending background checks to cover the mentally ill. Take a look at every mass shooting we've had recently, and then take a look at all the proposed legislation. Ask yourself: What in these bills would have prevented any of these from happening?

    Assault weapons ban: Wouldn't have stopped any of them as all the proposed legislation would grandfather in existing owners.

    Large magazine ban: Would also grandfather them in.

    Mental health checks: These weapons were stolen from legitimate users or bought legally. You MIGHT have gotten Aurora stopped. But even then, there's a whole lot of "what if's" in that scenario.

    No gun control advocate wants to face the harsh reality: In a free and open society, sometimes bad people do bad things, and there's nothing you can do to stop them until it's too late.

  • by night_flyer (453866) on Monday March 25, 2013 @11:57AM (#43271759) Homepage

    How many laws did Lanza break before even firing a shot in Sandyhook?

    he murdered his mother, stole her guns, used guns in the commission of a crime, premeditated the murder, had guns on school property, and broke into school property, yet he was not apprehended for any of those crimes.

  • by concealment (2447304) on Monday March 25, 2013 @12:00PM (#43271811) Homepage Journal

    People don't know the cause of school shootings, so they're trying to chip away at the methods used to achieve them. Banning guns, video games, heavy metal, etc. all fit into this in that people perceive these as being contributing factors to why people shoot up schools.

    But what makes them want to shoot up schools? I'd say there are two issues here:

    1. Mental health, especially undiagnosed mental health issues. In this society, all you can do if someone has issues is either pay for them to get treatment, or start a process that's going to get them confined in mental institutions.

    2. Media coverage, because if you shoot up a school and get a high enough kill count, you're going to be on the front page of CNN etc. for weeks.

    In this society we have an ugly tendency to assume that methods and not inner motivations, including ability and mental health, are important. We think that memorizing facts is more important than having mental ability; we look at whether people are obedient to social norms rather than whether what they're doing is right.

    These types of situations suggest our society has some pathological need to avoid looking at our motivations. Perhaps we're afraid we'll find nothing but making money, watching TV, and eating Taco Bell.

    I hope not.

    • > 2. Media coverage, because if you shoot up a school and get a high enough kill count, you're going to be on the front page of CNN etc. for weeks.

      The media has no one to blame but themselves because they continue to ignore the wisdom of Charlie Brooker's brilliant commentary and psychiatrists such as Dr Park Dietz; they would rather profit from sensationalism instead of acting with integrity.

      Charlie Brooker's Newswipe 25/03/09
      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PezlFNTGWv4 [youtube.com]

  • by j00r0m4nc3r (959816) on Monday March 25, 2013 @12:00PM (#43271817)
    This was the work of a video gamer

    Fuck you. Your detective work is the work of an imbecile.
  • Smart cop? (Score:5, Funny)

    by vvaduva (859950) on Monday March 25, 2013 @12:07PM (#43271909)

    I think I have a problem with a cop's ability to judge the quality of research as "PhD quality."

  • by PolygamousRanchKid (1290638) on Monday March 25, 2013 @12:07PM (#43271911)

    . . . and somehow, they didn't go around tearing hair out, gouging eyes or putting someone's head in a vice.

    Because they knew that was TV, and it wasn't a grand idea to try it out on your kid sister.

    If video games cause a kid to go postal, there is something else wrong with the kid.

  • by Bill_the_Engineer (772575) on Monday March 25, 2013 @12:14PM (#43272063)

    We don't want to do anything that may jeopardize our political career by limiting access to firearms, so let's start blaming video games and violent movies. Never mind the fact that this media is available globally and the US seems the be the only country having a sizable problem with firearm related violence or that the firearms flowed freely for so long that we will never be able to "put the toothpaste back into the tube".

    Nothing like pretending we are going to solve all our problems legislatively to keep us in office.

    • by loufoque (1400831)

      You're saying this as if it would be a good thing to prevent people from building or owning certain things.

  • by AllenABQ (987944) on Monday March 25, 2013 @12:17PM (#43272123)
    For anyone old enough to remember. D&D was maligned in its glory days as an sinister force that warped its players into becoming suicidal/homicidal recluses unable to distinguish reality from fantasy. There were even "true crime" novels written about people who played the game, and it turned them into murderous psychopaths. This was all total bullshit, of course. Having played numerous RPGs with pen and paper and then later going on to study acting, the very thing these games were maligned for was a grossly simplified (and more rule-based) version of what any theater major would do on a daily basis in a university actor training program. I can't recall an abundance of actors that went on mass killing sprees, even when performing in shows like "Annie Get Your Gun".
  • by bennini (800479) on Monday March 25, 2013 @12:18PM (#43272149) Homepage
    It blows my mind that anyone (especially American lawmakers) would seriously consider banning video games before banning guns.
    • by log0n (18224)

      If the only tool you have is a hammer [gun], everything starts to look like a nail [something you should shoot].

    • by FunPika (1551249)
      It is simple, a very sizable chunk of voters will give a shit if their precious guns are taken away, very few will give a shit if "those new-fangled video games for kids" are taken away. Given another sizable chunk of voters who want to "protect the children" and are likely dumb enough to be convinced that taking the later away will do as much as the former to protect the children, what do you think a politician who is interested in having a job beyond their next election do?
  • by gosand (234100) on Monday March 25, 2013 @12:43PM (#43272575)

    I don't *blame* the gaming industry any more than the gun industry or the entertainment industry for these shootings.
    If it wasn't an AR-15 it would have been a rifle or shotgun or something else. If there were no guns, obviously shootings wouldn't happen but violence would still exist. But that isn't the world we live in, and we make violence "easy". And before that little switch in your brain flips and you think for a second that I am saying we should ban or take away ANYTHING (guns, video games, movies) then you are 100% wrong. More laws are not the answer and are far from it.

    What I think needs to change is our attitudes towards violence. OUR attitude. EVERYONE has a part to play in this, and it has to be voluntary. The NRA needs to get their heads out of their asses and realize that providing access to any type of firearm with no restrictions or checks will make it much easier for everyone to have guns - and that includes people who really shouldn't have them. (and yes, I know that determining WHO that is would be nearly impossible). But we have to try. Movies/TV/Entertainment companies (including video gaming industry) needs to understand that they DO glorify violence. We are inundated with violence, from FPS games to movies to TV shows. I don't watch any of them, but there are entire series of TV shows around horribly violent acts (CSI, etc). If you can step back for a second and look at it all holistically - it is very saddening.

    I think that Jon Stewart and the Daily Show said it well when they said we have to change our attitude and culture around guns. They likened it to smoking. The message has to change, the overall general attitude towards things. Think about these trials that occur, like the Jodi Arias trial. It was a horrible murder, but let's be honest - in this country and world it happens a lot. But there are shows that are dedicated to follow the trial, to examine it, to discuss it in such desensitizing detail that it is sickening. I really don't get the whole obsession that people have with violence. It's why I quit watching the local news. Over time, I think that it really starts to alter your way of thinking about the world. If any of you have kids, especially boys, then there are nerf guns and foam swords and killing this and that, good guys vs bad guys... again, nothing new. But that can't be our only message that they see, and it is harder and harder to shield them from that. My own kids had to go through a "shooter" drill at school, and that is how they learned about the Newtown shootings. They are in K and 2nd grade!

    What I would really like to see is the video gaming industry to take some kind of responsibility for this - not because they are at fault, but because it is the right thing to do. And not by slapping ratings on games, or limiting sales to minors, or anything like that. But by really taking an internal look at what they are producing and self-regulate it. They have the power to influence through what they do, and I think the message being sent is a very harmful one.

  • by Mozai (3547) on Monday March 25, 2013 @01:17PM (#43273097) Homepage

    "They believe it was a score sheet. This was the work of a video gamer."

    What? No; gamers use unlockable achievements. You know who uses spreadsheets? Accountants. This was the work of an accountant.

  • by Meeni (1815694) on Monday March 25, 2013 @02:23PM (#43274053)

    Its always about video games. Video games this, video games that. But what about TV?

    I have kids, and honestly, the content of most young programs are just shocking, when you think twice about it. They have removed all sexual innuendo because that would make fundamentalist Christians choke on their breakfast, but the thing is full of ninjas slicing one another with blades of all sort, beating up, etc. Violence is always the solution to pretty much every problem thrown at the characters.

    And if we just consider Hollywood production and its love affair with gun and explosions...

    But then, it must be the video games fault. Mmmkay.

Don't sweat it -- it's only ones and zeros. -- P. Skelly

Working...