Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Games Entertainment

Perspectives On Games And Violence 72

Posted by simoniker from the everything's-not-lost dept.
Thanks to GameSpy for their column discussing the recent news stories linking games and violence, which provides a considered perspective on stories of sniping, neglect, and sadness, suggesting that "...it makes great news to juxtapose crimes and violent games. Sadly, it appears that 'great news' coverage too often comes from making an emotional connection for the reader/listener/viewer. Not one based on facts, but emotions." There's another article on games and violence at GamerDad.com, also trying to answer this most difficult of questions: "I see [the media] blaming a hobby I love. But they could blame almost anything. But I think that no matter what they blamed, what [the perpetrators] did still wouldn't make any sense whatsoever."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Perspectives On Games And Violence More

Perspectives On Games And Violence

Comments Filter:
  • Take a good look at the Columbine videos. Those Klebold and Harris learned how to handle those weapons from video games. They learned how to not be afraid of the weapons. They became desensitized to the weapons and the gore which they inflicted upon the students and teachers at Columbine.

    Perhaps it wasn't the games that set them off (more like multiple swirlies and wedgies in front of girls), but the violent video games they played gave them the tools to perform their carnage.

    If it didn't work so well
    • "but the violent video games they played gave them the tools to perform their carnage."

      How do you get real guns after you play violent video games? Am I missing some bonus levels or something ?
    • I have to argue against this... I play a *ton* of gorey, realistic first person shooters (35 hours a week?), and I am still sensitive to violence. I close my eyes during senseless violence like the scene in trainspotting where what's-his-name throws a beer mug over the balcony so it hurts someone just to start a fight. The difference is.. shooting someone in counter-strike has a purpose (defusing the bomb! saving hostages!), and senseless violence is well.. senseless. It's not like in (many) video games yo

      • Re:It's about giving kids the tools (Score:4, Insightful)

        by psyco484 ( 555249 ) on Friday September 05, 2003 @12:16AM (#6876692)
        Ok, dude, seriously, step outside for a while. 35 hours a week!? I enjoy playing games immensly, but damn dude! That's 5 hours a day every day 365 days a year!

        Ok, but aside from that, I'm arguing for your general point, but also against what you actually posted. First off, the original poster is way off base, and I think I've seen him particularly making the same outrageous comments repeatedly (I didn't check though). It's not about rewards for killing, it's essentially simulation. It's a fantasy outlet for a lot of people

        Games do not give kids the tools to kill. Neglect, humiliation, and familiarity with violence in real life give kids the tools to kill. No amount of counter strike, doom, quake, etc. is going to make me knowledgable enough to pick up an automatic rifle and blast people. The fact is that in this particular case, these kids had plentiful access to guns, they were familiar with how to fire them, and had a lot of experience with them. I'm not saying guns cause violence, that's about as silly (maybe slightly less) as saying video games cause violence. Look, if kids are neglected, abused, humiliated, ridiculed, looked down upon, and otherwise made to feel worthless about themselves and everything around them, then obviously they aren't going to hold life too highly.

        Everyone is so ready to jump to point the blame, that we miss the fact that these kids were depressed, suicidal, angry as hell, and they just didn't give a damn about anything. Their parents obviously failed to raise them in such a way that they would value life. The school system failed in that these kids were continually ridiculed, and the school didn't prevent it. The kids had mental disorders causing them to think it was a good, and just, idea to go into the school and kill people that humiliated them, and others they felt were likely the same way. It's vengence plain and simple. The kids were reported racists on top of that. I'm sorry, but hatred doesn't just crop up, it's a learned trait.

        I think you would have a hard time arguing that a culture that glorifies war, vengence, and has a long history of hatred isn't bound to raise some blood-thirsty, vengeful, hateful people. That aside, I think you'd be hard pressed to argue that if the kids didn't know how to use the weapon it wouldn't have happend so easily. Kids shouldn't have guns. If that's what it has to come down to, I'm all for it. If a 12 year old can't go hunting legally with his father in the name of less youth shootings, I'm all for it.

        All of this comes down to curbing a problem. There is no way to eliminate gun violence completely. There is no way to pin point which kids are going to snap and kill their school, shoot trucks on the highway, or plan out elaborate terrorist style massacres. But if you have a group of kids who have shown signs of mental illness, who are constantly harassed by their peers, or neglected by their parents or community, then you probably have an idea who to try to help instead of further shun. No single thing will fix the problem, no single thing is to blame, individuals are responsible for individual actions, but they're also impacted by their environment.

        As far as video games in the military...ummm, the military has better ways to "desensitize" it's troops, if that's what you want to call it. Put a group of people in a scenario where if they hesitate on pulling the trigger they may be dead in an instant, and they're going to pull that trigger as many times as it takes to make sure the threat is eliminated. The military doesn't need video games to desensitize people, they just need to put them in a life or death situation, and the desire to live, at whatever costs, will prevail.

        Sadly stuff like this seems to have to happen before people realize there might be a problem with the way our society functions. It takes tragedy to make us realize we're screwing up, and to come up with ways to fix the problem. But that's an entirely different topic.

        • As far as video games in the military..

          The military says that they use video games for two reasons:
          1) improve teamwork
          2) expose them to situations which could be life-threatening and/or expensive if performed in a real training exercise (especially useful for vehicle simulations, like landing stalled and/or damaged aircraft)

          Whether or not you choose to believe the military is a personal issue. As for desensitizing people, watch some real footage of boot camp or SEAL training. They're far more concerned t
          • The easiest way to get someone to be ok with killing someone else is to put them or someone they're concerned about in danger

            ...and the one you are most concerned about is: you - normally. I totally agree with you. Think of countries that have mandatory military service. Military training just cannot desensitize you, because you will leave the military after 12 month (or 2 years, YMMV). They can't "create a killer" since you will be part of the society after that. Some societies may be strange, but I dou
    • "Those Klebold and Harris learned how to handle those weapons from video games"

      I would guess that they learned how to handle those weapons by actually owning those weapons. Dumbass.

    • Those Klebold and Harris learned how to handle those weapons from video games.

      I disagree, video games teach you nearly zero about how to actually handle a firearm. I am pretty skilled when it comes to FPS type games, but I am a horrible shot with real guns. The two are totally different experiences. Even realistic games where there is "recoil" do not match real life firing. The weight of the gun, the effect gravity has on your shot, the way recoil totally throws off your aim, as well as the noise and smo

    • Re:It's about giving kids the tools (Score:4, Insightful)

      by NanoGator ( 522640 ) on Thursday September 04, 2003 @11:18PM (#6876354) Homepage Journal
      "Those Klebold and Harris learned how to handle those weapons from video games."

      That is one of the most retarded comments I've ever heard.

      *Sigh* well I might as well feed the "interesting" troll here.

      1.) There are major, and I do mean major differences between pointing a gun with a mouse in an easy-to-use arcade scenario and holding a gun. Saying that FPS shooters improved these kids' abilities is like saying the Jetsons taught me how to live in the future.

      2.) If something like Quake is such a strong training tool, then how come none of them tried to rocket jump? Okay, silly comment, but consider how many of the other things you learn from these games that are just completely impractical in a real world situation.

      3.) Why is it so hard to believe these kids didn't train on paintball guns? I mean if they were into guns that badly, it's really hard to imagine they'd limit it to Doom.

      "They became desensitized to the weapons and the gore which they inflicted upon the students and teachers at Columbine."

      Again, another completely retarded statement. Movies and video games (especially) do not accurately portray gore. Take a real life photo of a dead man hit in the face with a shotgun and a photo of the best make-up effect one could show in a movie and anybody'll notice the difference right away. Despite all of the violent movies and games I've played over my 25 years, Rotten.com (site that shows dead bodies) still shocks me to the point of wanting to puke. There are so many levels of detail that make-up artists don't go through.

      Yah know, I just reread what I've written and what you said, and calling you a troll and saying things you've said are retarded is harsh. And I do apologize for that. I think that was more of a message to everybody I've heard (particularly in the media) who has said basically the same thing you have. They're so intent on trying to prove this that they aren't really thinking aboout it.

      Believe me, if these games could make people into better killers, the Army would have been using them for years. And no, don't point me at that Go Army game. That's an attempt to get people to enlist.
      • I'll definitely agree with you that video game gore and real life gore are not close in degree, however, you don't see real life gore until *after* you've pulled the trigger. Seeing gore in video games day in, day out, has the possibility to warp your mind to thinking "Hey, this isn't that bad, I can handle this!". I knew people in college that could play video games like Bond, Doom, Quake, etc, all day, but got sick the first time they went out hunting. Why? Real life violence and the taking of a life
        • " If anything, I sometimes wish they would make the gore MORE realistic so maybe it WOULD gross kids out."

          Robocop and Full Metal Jacket sure scred the hell out of me as a kid. Well Robocop didn't exactly scare me in a "eeek keep the lights on!" kinda way. It scared me in a "man, I dont ever want to be around guns" way.

          So yep, I can see your point. :)
    • ...violent video games they played gave them the tools to perform their carnage.

      So we should do something about all those Driver's Ed teachers since they gave all the DUI manslaughters the tools to perform their carnage? Oh oh oh, let's go after tobacco farmers for all the second-hand smoke deaths! And then, and then, uh...pharmaceutical companies for all the overdoses...um...

      GTRacer
      - Responsible for my own actions. Are you for yours?

    • Take a good look at the Columbine videos. Those Klebold and Harris learned how to handle those weapons from video games. They learned how to not be afraid of the weapons. They became desensitized to the weapons and the gore which they inflicted upon the students and teachers at Columbine

      OK, so if video games are supposed to be so highly capable of desensitizing people, why are you advocating that people watch the videos from Columbine, which, as actual recordings of actual violence, should have a much mor
    • Last time I checked, the actual tools used were GUNS. Unless the grainy video of the shootings that I've seen somehow managed to blur out them hurling CDs at hapless classmates Tron-style.

  • The link is the other direction (Score:4, Interesting)

    by Acidic_Diarrhea ( 641390 ) on Thursday September 04, 2003 @09:44PM (#6875708) Homepage Journal
    Video games, movies, and music are all a reflection of human civilization. I don't think humans have gotten more violent, looking back at the Crusades and the constant wars the Romans fought. We should consider the fact that humans were violent before video games. Obviously, video games that are created by people will reflect this. So the real question is why are humans violent?

    In the past, we had to be in order to survive. To an extent and for some people, that is still true. The next step in evolution of our society would be to remove this rather negative mark on our characters. And then, we could all gather round the N7 and play some Animal Crossing 3.

  • Always a cause 'a posteriori' (Score:3, Insightful)

    by ptaff ( 165113 ) on Thursday September 04, 2003 @09:54PM (#6875756) Homepage
    How many murders today are attributed to the murderer? Video games, insanity, sad infancy, television and lots of other "causes" are presented to us as the real murderers.

    A kid commits a violent crime. Now, in our society, it can't be the kid's fault (they're so cute and innocent) - and we must find someone or something guilty. Look at the past of this kid. What's (even in little doses) abnormal? ahHA! he plays Quake. We found a murderer, the child is thereby "innocent", everybody's happy.

    The sad thing is that this principle applies to adults too. There are not any more murderers left, only bad luck, bad circumstances, bad influences.

    Responsability is the keyword here, man.

  • OF course they are going to blame video games! (Score:3, Insightful)

    by BrookHarty ( 9119 ) on Thursday September 04, 2003 @10:07PM (#6875819) Journal
    Two Tennessee tennagers have pleaded guilty to charges of reckless homicide, reckless endangerment, and aggravated assault because, last June, they thought it would be fun to fire a high caliber rifle at the highway. They killed one motorist and wounded two others. They claimed they got the idea from the game Grand Theft Auto III.

    Of course they will blame video games, better than the death sentence. The legal system is full of "Pass the Buck" excuses.

  • It isn't age appropriate. (Score:4, Interesting)

    by Sheetrock ( 152993 ) on Thursday September 04, 2003 @10:50PM (#6876200) Homepage Journal
    The types of video games kids get their hands on nowadays amount to a pornography of violence. I don't know how we've made the leap so quickly from Pong to Postal, but I've come around to see the point of people who call games like Grand Theft Auto 3 and Doom "murder simulators".

    It doesn't seem to matter that there's a sticker on the front of the box that says M; 13 year olds are playing this stuff, and one can see with MMORPGs that the lines between fantasy and real life are dangerously blurred for people much older than that. The industry has been warned to clean things up, and has promised to do so, but this mental sugar keeps getting dumped to the shelves because it costs less to package violence than plot (look at movies as an example.)

    Maybe the development of decent games like Myst should be subsidized; maybe the distribution of violent games should be hindered for the public good? I think we've moved well beyond establishing that violent or extremely compelling video games are a danger to some individuals and the people around them: now is the time for research into potential solutions.

    • It's been said over and over again: A little parenting goes a long way. If parents don't want their kids to play M-rated videogames, they can more than likely stop them. Giving children a strong moral foundation early on could keep them from being interested a little longer, too. That being said, I disagree with the hypothesis that these games are teaching kids how to murder. But, guess what: Even if they WERE it would still be a pretty simple first amendment issue in that the developers have the right
    • I think we've moved well beyond establishing that violent or extremely compelling video games are a danger to some individuals and the people around them: now is the time for research into potential solutions.

      Potential solution: prevent that individual (rather than all individuals) from being exposed to anything that might cause them to become dangerous. The usual place for people who are this susceptible to outside influence is a padded room or an otherwise controlled environment.

      In the case of age-appr
    • You mention movies, and I'm curious, why are violent movies so much less dangerous than violent videogames? I have seen films that involve killing that seem much much more callous and cold toward the loss of human life than many videogames.

      I remember seeing Con Air for the first time a couple of years ago, long after it had been out and probably long after it had been on network tellevision. In that film there are more than a couple of scenes where a person's death (remember a person played by a real li
    • I was gonna mod, but I figured it'd be better to respond. I think you misunderstand who's playing games [slashdot.org] and what the role of knowledge is in society. I also think that you are unaware, or to be generous, forgetful of the history of gaming. This is important because the evolution of gaming is still going on. And without historical knowledge of this medium and it's comparative similarities with other kinds of technology, you have no choice but to call games "murder simulators". You don't know any better.
      • Sorry about the lack of formatting in the previous post... I guess that kinda steals the thunder from the argument, huh?

        Dammit. Well, here it is formatted this time.

        I was gonna mod, but I figured it'd be better to respond. I think you misunderstand who's playing games [slashdot.org] and what the role of knowledge is in society. I also think that you are unaware, or to be generous, forgetful of the history of gaming. This is important because the evolution of gaming is still going on. And without historical knowledg
        • I was going to mod too, but decided to reply to several articles in here. :-)

          I agree that violence, or more specifically, conflict, is an essential in the games we make. I also agree that there is no proof of a direct cause-effect relationship between game violence and crimes. I have seen, however, a few people who get very worked up over games. I don't know what else may have been in their lives or if they were already basically this way, but when playing violent, immersive games, they did become drug

          • Wow. That's some of the most intersting stuff I've read recently. I'm serious. That's great info to know. The groups and how they respond to the games seem like a good starting point if one wanted to conduct a serious long term study of how violence in games affects a player. I can think of two more critical areas of study very easily. Look at how gamers who prefer to play alone respond to a violent game versus gamers who like to play in clans or on teams, what have you.

            It would also be interesting t
    • "It doesn't seem to matter that there's a sticker on the front of the box that says M; 13 year olds are playing this stuff"
      The ratings are there for a reason, so why are the parents those ratings are there for still letting their 13-year-olds play these titles?

  • Eh I can't wrap my mind around this (Score:4, Interesting)

    by Anonvmous Coward ( 589068 ) on Thursday September 04, 2003 @11:26PM (#6876400)
    I just watched LOTR 2 last night. There's a scene in it where a child must pick up a sword to defend himself. This is fiction, but from what I understand from history there were times on this planet where kids did have to worry for their lives. Did they have incidents like these?

    I remember when Doom was blamed for Columbine. I read the journal that got that line of thought going. Nope, it didn't cause it. It was an outlet for them. To be perfectly frank, I think if those kids had played more Doom, then more of their anger would have melted away. Who knows? Enough activities like that (laser tag?) might have prevented them from carrying it out.

    It's really hard for me to accept that video games cause violence while I and many others were raised on them. I've never raised my fists in anger. My friends and I never started fights. Never did the "stand toe to toe with you because I'm a bad dude" maneuver. None of us live in rage or anger.

    As interested as we were in these games, you'd think we'd have been anything like those kids that shot up Columbine. None of us even had an interest in guns.
  • "Bowling for Columbine" is a great documentary that looks at gun violence in the US. It briefly examines the impact that violent video games has on gun violence. I think the arguement is that some of the violent video games come from Japan, but the murder rate (with a gun) is less than 100 deaths a year there. The murder rate (with a gun) in the US is more than 10,000 deaths a year.

    The point is you can blame it on video games or on bowling...which is where Klebold and Harris were before they went to schoo

  • The argument isn't binary (Score:3, Insightful)

    by KNicolson ( 147698 ) on Thursday September 04, 2003 @11:43PM (#6876509) Homepage
    Reading most of the for and against posts here and in the linked articles, both sides hold very binary views of the issues: it's either "The killers might have played the game, so therefore anyone who plays the game may very well kill someone", or the "I've been playing it for X years and I've not gone on a homicidal spree". Proper scientific studies seem to suggest there might be a weak causal link between games and violence, but rather than discuss the real issues, we only hear the two polarly opposed absolutes.

    If it were another subject, like, say "Smoking can cause cancer", viewpoints like "Even one breath of second hand smoke will kill you!" or "My grampa puffed 20 a day and he's still a healthy 95" would be instantly dismissed as intellectually naive. Why do people seem to think this lack of deductive reasoning is acceptable to defend or condemn the issues surrounding a much more complex proposition?

  • The reaction to the reaction (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Mike Hawk ( 687615 ) on Friday September 05, 2003 @01:50AM (#6877045) Journal
    Hi Mike Hawk here again to take a deep breath and not tow the party line.

    I'm not concerned about violent video games today. I'm not even concerned about violence.

    So the point of this post then...
    What I am concerned about is our (slashdot, gamespy, the video game industry) response. IMMEDIATELY everyone has come out to say that no way video games had a part in this. My problem is, while instinct goes along way, we are not studying this enough for a possible correlation. I mean, if a kid shoots a truck to complete a goal in GTA:VC, then grabs his buddy and goes outside and shoots at trucks, noone considers it even within the realm of possibility than there was some slight connection?
    But then again, I'm not saying that post hoc ergo proctor hoc either. I'd just like an intelligent discussion on the issue rather than knee-jerk from both sides as we traditionally get here.
    I'd also like to see a serious independent study on the issue. I'd like to see how the brain reacts during and after playing the most violent games over an extended period. An increase in emotional release during gameplay is good; an extended tendancy toward release after play has ended and the real world has begun could be bad.

    What are my solutions? I'd don't pretend to offer any. Do I think we should ban them altogether? Hell no, this is America dag nab it. Do I think we could restrict purchase to those over 18 as we do pornography? Thats again a little knee-jerk for me at this point, though there is no downside to anyone but the Entertainment Software Association and its members. (Keep your "slippery slope" and 1st amendment arguements to yourself, we already do this with porn in America and there have been no conclusive studies about that either.) Can we do nothing? I guess, until it is your kid (or you) that takes it in the chest.

    I'd just like more real knowledge and less instinct running around here.
    • I'd also like to see a serious independent study on the issue. I'd like to see how the brain reacts during and after playing the most violent games over an extended period. An increase in emotional release during gameplay is good; an extended tendancy toward release after play has ended and the real world has begun could be bad.

      Numerous studies have been done over the years (it's not like this is a new issue at all). Each time someone decides to write an article on it, at best they look up the studies tha
      • That post could definitely use a summary and some links.

        I of course have heard about such studies, but never an independent one funded by someone with nothing to prove.
        I want a LONG term study. Follow some young people from early adolesence until adulthood. Let them play games as they are normally inclined to do. Run all the brain tests one does for alcoholism, schizophrenia, etc both while they are playing, after the stop, and periodically at random and compare to the control group. Do that many times
        • The biggest problem is that a scientific study has to not only start with a hypothesis, but also prove that hypothesis to be taken seriously. Therefore, if you have a true long term study and your hypothesis is that games reduce inhibitions, and you find that your hypothesis was wrong, you have to either start another study with the hypothesis that games do not reduce inhibitions or accept that your study failed and try something completely different.

          With so many people focused on violence in games creatin
          • I'd like to add, the last link looks at 70 games, from 7 systems (10 games per system), and the PC is found to be the least violent of the systems looked at (N64, GameBoy Color, GBA, PS1, PS2, DreamCast, and PC). The PC also had the best gender diversity and 'girl-friendly score', and the worst racial diversity. The 10 games chosen were the top 10 for each system from January to May 2001, with the GBA games being the top 10 from May to June 2001 (because it was released in May 2001).

            A little searching foun
  • I see [the media] blaming a hobby I love. Yeah I too love to blow people into tiny bits [online]and scream: j00 5vxx0r!, but that doesn't mean I walk around town with a loaded shotgun and a chainsaw under my coat, harvesting my hate towards mankind....I swear!

  • Evening news (Score:2, Interesting)

    by weicco ( 645927 )
    Shooting pixelimages at screen.. I just don't know how that compares to killing real people on streets. But what I have discovered that TV is sending pretty violent news stories at evening when kids are eating and watching TV. There are often very nasty pictures about war victims, people that has been shot and things like that. But all this is "old news", better to blame video/computer games, more viewers for "news" :)

  • there is a causal link between games and real life (Score:3, Insightful)

    by BobTheLawyer ( 692026 ) on Friday September 05, 2003 @03:02AM (#6877298)
    but the media has it the wrong way round.

    It stands to reason that people who fantasise about violence will play violent computer games, just as they'll watch violent films. So it's unsurprising that the Columbine killers played DOOM, but that absolutely doesn't mean DOOM caused them to killers.

    Of course common-sense arguments starting "it stands to reason" are often wrong, particulary in this area... anyone know of any research in this area?
  • I can't believe most are missing the whole point, if a kid goes and and shoots/mutilates/mames another human being, then the kid is f'd up, plain and simple.
    Parents should take responsibility for their apparent lack of moral guidence in that child's upbringing. Yes parents, ehtics is also required reading! You can blame all the videos/games/newsoftoday that you want, but it comes down to the kids having a balanced knowledge of right and wrong. If the kid goes and does a killing spree, I think it is safe t
  • Although I totally disagree with the "Doom made me do it" argument that these *criminals* continually spout off, and I am always sad to hear about these kinds of incidents, I don't think that this kind of coverage is a bad thing at all. It creates a whole bunch of free media coverage for games, and it makes them "cool" and "bad" for kids. It's also good for jounalists because they get more headlines. What is the problem? We (game players) all know this is crazy, so why do we care that the media brings a who
    • There is no such thing as bad publicity, and I'm sure than incidents like this actually increase sales of the games in question. So why are we complaining?

      Errr... as a result of repeated media coverage blaming video games (esp. Counter Strike) for kiddie rampages, the laws in Germany for juvenile protection (regarding movies, videos and games) were "updated" and made stricter. So, no child under the age of 18 can - legally - purchase a copy of C&C Generals. While I agree that children should be prote
      • OK yeah. That *is* a bad thing then, espically if u live in Germany. But that's not really what most of the hubbub is about, is it? I also wonder how much effect this actually has on sales. I mean, does that mean that there are lots kids in Germany that are under 18 and want a copy of C&C and have to go without. Or is this the kind of law that is easily circumvented (like the legal drinking age in the UK, for example). If it is then it's possible that this kind of restriction causes a rise in sales (alt
        • I also wonder how much effect this actually has on sales

          Depends - are we talking "sales" or "edonkey-downloads" here? :) Legally, if you are 18, you can not purchase the game. The dealer has to check your ID, otherwise he commits a crime and can be fined (a lot! of money). I must admit that C&C Generals is not a good example, since it also landed on the index - EA can not place ads for it, and you can't order it over the internet (well, there IS a C&C Generals, but this is a special version for t
          • "Plead guilty and say you played computer games. That will shift most of the blame."

            And now we get down to what's really going on :)

            On a more serious note everything that you say about C&C in germany sounds pretty harsh. Still I don't see how it will stop kids getting the games via piracy (as you mention) and via their older brothers/sisters/friends/relatives just going into shops and purchasing it for them.

            With regard to sales, if kids in Germany are anything like kids in the UK then having the 'b
      • And, of course, guns kill people, not games.

        Not to pick nits, but guns don't kill people. Guns just sit there. Someone has to pick them up and pull the trigger before the person dies.
        • guns don't kill people. Guns just sit there

          Yes, you are right. The point of that sentence was that even if you wanted to shoot someone, you need a gun for that. No gun - no victim. But gun control is another debate ;)

          Not true, of course, for the abduct-rape-chain crimes mentioned :(
          • I think it was Chris Rock that said 'just make bullets very expensive, if a bullet costs $5000 and someone gets shot 5 times, he probably deserved it'.

            Of course, this is pretty similar to the whole gun control debate in the first place. If guns are illegal, they simply become more expensive for criminals, but they're still available to those that really want them, just like I could easily buy marijuana or cocaine if I wanted to, even though it's illegal here. In fact, when I was a teenager illegal drugs we
            • I think it was Chris Rock that said 'just make bullets very expensive, if a bullet costs $5000 and someone gets shot 5 times, he probably deserved it'.

              Well, that's one solution... except that people get killed using things besides guns. I doubt Laci Peterson was the victim of a .44... Also, I like to target practice every now and then, so what would I do? Use paintball guns? I'd prefer to be prepared for the day when owning a gun is determined to be illegal, and I need to start defending myself against t
  • ... and I'll probably keep saying until I die (at which point, others will likely say it in my place): Every disease has a patient.

    How many people in the world are homicidal psychopaths? Seriously, think about the percentages. There's six billion people out there. If even .01% of them are the type of person who goes for eating someone's intestines while that person is still living, that's still 600000 seriously warped individuals, enough to make a moderately sized city full.

    So of course there are incre
  • Since we are talking about perspectives, heres one for you:
    What about if we found out the kids in columbine didnt played games or heard heavy music at all?(for any reason)
    What about if their parent lawyers planted the "evidence" that was found on the web? to turn the blame on someone (something) else?
    Would it make any difference
    Who is to blame then?
    Their parents? because they didnt know what their teenager kids were really up to?
    Who is to blame then?
    Do you feel the need to blame someone?.

Slashdot Top Deals

Every nonzero finite dimensional inner product space has an orthonormal basis. It makes sense, when you don't think about it.

Close