Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Games Entertainment Your Rights Online

GTA Blamed for Columbine-style Massacre Planning 120

Posted by Zonk from the mario-blamed-for-senseless-mushroom-death dept.
bippy writes "A Miami attorney claims that a teen accused of plotting a massacre used GTA to prepare for the attack, RedAssedBaboon reports. Attorney Jack Thompson is the same guy who is trying to link the murder of Stefan Pakeerah last year to Manhunt. Pakeerah was beaten to death with a claw hammer by a friend who, Thompson claims, was inspired by Manhunt. The uproar surrounding the case led to the game being pulled from many British store shelves and Prime Minister Tony Blair looking into a link between violence and video games. It looks like Thompson has found himself a niche." Update: 10/10 19:25 GMT by T : Peter Endean writes "It might be worth noting that in fact in the case of the murder linked to Manhunt, it was the victim who owned the game."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

GTA Blamed for Columbine-style Massacre Planning More

GTA Blamed for Columbine-style Massacre Planning

Comments Filter:

  • The irony was (Score:5, Informative)

    by DrSkwid ( 118965 ) on Sunday October 10, 2004 @02:53PM (#10487156) Journal
    It was the victim who owned manhunt, not the murderer!

    http://www.theregister.co.uk/2004/08/04/manhunt_mu rder_claim/ [theregister.co.uk]

  • At first I read the title as:
    "GTA Blames for Columbine-style Massacre Planning"

    Thoughts rushed through my head widldly of Rock Star Games suing someone related to Columbine-style massacre planning for copyright infringement. Suddenly, it made me feel all giddy and righteous inside.

    Someday, someday. Someday we'll win the war on terrorists stealing ideas from games.

    - shazow
  • I've played both GTA games and not ONE of them had a goal in the game to mow down cops in any of the levels. This is just silly. I hate it when these tight-assed lawyers are making ridiculous claims about Rockstar without even playing the game!
    • Which 'both' do you speak of? There have been like 5 (1, London, 2, 3, VC)

    • Re:GTA does NOT promote killing cops (Score:4, Informative)

      by clu76 ( 620823 ) on Sunday October 10, 2004 @03:09PM (#10487247) Homepage
      That's wrong. I just beat Vice City 30 minutes ago. And there is a Malibu Club mission where you have to bust Cam Jones out of a police station. I doubt there is any possible way of beating that mission with out killing, at bare minimum, half a dozen cops.

      And for the record, killing real life cops is evil. Support the police. Su-su-suport the police.
      • Sure there is--grab the cop uniform so you can sneak in, and then run the hell out. In fact I tried and failed at that mission many times before I realized that blasting your way through is nigh-impossible.
        • I suppose that's about *this* much morally better than killing cops - breaking into a police station trying to impersonate a cop. Incidentally, in real life, that really doesn't work that well.
          • When you say "this", are you holding your hands really far apart? Or are you insinuating that breaking into a police station and impersonating an officer of the law is slightly better than killing 6+ cops?

            Either you really respect the uniform or you have no regard for human life.
            • You can do so much damage impersonating a police officer; as the storyline requires, you can free criminals, and you can seriously mess with the system of justice. My personal philosophy is Patrick Henry-esque in that life under screwed-up conditions, such as perverted justice through a rogue Executive, is worse than no life at all, and that the life of society is worth more than an individual human life (this is just about the only way to justify war). In the grand scheme of things, you'll do almost as muc
      • And for the record, killing real life cops is evil. Support the police. Su-su-suport the police.

        It's no more evil than killing anyone else. Su-su-support human life. Period.
        • > [Killing a cop is] no more evil than killing anyone else

          Absolutely. Just like killing someone of another race should be no "more illegal" than killing someone of the same race. Getting higher sentencing for "hate crimes" is B.S., just as it is for being a "cop killer."

          Killing is completely wrong regardless of what age, race, profession the victim (or murderer -- soldiers count most of the time, IMO) is. The only thing that should affect judgement is how many they killed & if they've done it (o

    • wrong (Score:5, Informative)

      by Nf1nk ( 443791 ) <nf1nk@NOSpAM.yahoo.com> on Sunday October 10, 2004 @03:15PM (#10487282) Homepage
      GTA 1 ,the original top down game that started it all, had a misssion to blow up a police staion with a car bomb. Also in GTA 1 when you went on a "KILL FRENZY!" you didn't have to kill specific folks any folks would do incuding cops. GTA 3 had a mission to kill an (oddly animated) undercover cop named Tanner, by lobbing grenades through his window. Vice city has a mission where you lure two cops into a garage to stealthier uniforms, presumably by killing them.
      But you are right odds are the lawyers never played the game.
    • " I hate it when these tight-assed lawyers are making ridiculous claims about Rockstar without even playing the game!"

      Wanna know what bugs me? I've been gaming since the early 90's. I've played the heck out of every 'bad game' out there. Mortal Kombat, GTA, Quake, Doom, you name it. According to all the Kile's Moms out there, I should be totally desensitized to violence. Wrong. 9-11 shocked me. Rotten.com shocks me. Somebody on Slashdot once related a story about how his wife knew somebody w
      • Wanna know what bugs me? I've been gaming since the early 90's. I've played the heck out of every 'bad game' out there. Mortal Kombat, GTA, Quake, Doom, you name it. According to all the Kile's Moms out there, I should be totally desensitized to violence. Wrong.

        Same for me.

        They just look for a scapegoat instead of saying that the guy is a just fscking retard.

        Kids that do get influenced by computer games are mentally unstable and should not play games, but be in therapy.
      • A half-funny/half-sad response from the other side, yet supporting...

        I've never been one to play action games -- give me Tetris over GTA any day. Although I bought my first action game, GTAVC coincidentally, about a month ago. I've always wanted to see gruesome stuff & wanted to kill people. I just didn't (still don't) have the guts to do it. That whole "life in jail" thing works as a pretty good deterrent for me. I act very properly, but inside, I'm very evil. I have the traditional Ma & Pa
    • From the linked article:

      "The technique of killing civilians and then first-responders when they get there is the primary scenario to win in all the Grand Theft Auto games," he said. "They are killing simulators actually used by gangs."

      Hmmm.... I don't know about being the "primary scenario to win" in the GTA games... Usually killing civilians and then mowing down the responding cops is just a way to blow off steam :)

      There's actualy "missions" that have "goals" that you need to play to actually win th

  • What's so special about police? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Sunday October 10, 2004 @03:02PM (#10487208)
    What's so special about cops and why only in videogames?

    Eric Clapton sang about "I shot the sheriff".

    Cops are killed in movies and television shows all the time and have been for some six or seven decades at the very least.

    Cops are killed in books all the time.

    All sorts of people are killed in all sorts of movies, music, books, television shows, plays and even VIDEO GAMES.

    ** Why is it okay to kill cops in any media EXCEPT videogames/interactive media?
    ** Why is it okay to kill everyone else BUT cops in interactive media?

    It's not like police are some high and mighty upper class that rises above the rest of the world in importance simply becuase of the authority they wieild over citizens.
    • Part of the difference is that in books/TV/movies, you're watching it happen as a spectator. In a game, you're actually doing the shooting.

      Not that I think this case has any merit, but there is a difference.

      Cheers
    • It's not. But you need to look at the vertical integration of media. Viacom owns radio, TV, and film properties out the wazoo, for example. That integration isn't as fully realized when it comes to computer games (NBC / Vivendi-Universal being the only really big example) so it's a convenient target. Eventually, as mergers continue, these targets will be too risky; and then they'll move on to something else.

    • Re:What's so special about police? (Score:5, Interesting)

      by TheLoneDanger ( 611268 ) on Sunday October 10, 2004 @05:30PM (#10487981)
      It's not like police are some high and mighty upper class that rises above the rest of the world in importance simply becuase of the authority they wieild over citizens.

      Ahh... but you see that is where you are wrong. Disobeying or attacking/killing police is particularly useful to use as an example of videogames making kids anti-social (whether or not it holds any merit). This is because police represent clear AUTHORITY figures, which adults are also expected to respect. Since many older adults believe that only children (and immature adults) play games, the idea that a game for children not only allows you but requires you to defy authority figures (police and by extension, them) allows them to go "tut, tut. That is what is wrong with the youth of today, no respect for authority."

      Part of it is also the implicit degree of approval of the child for the act. For example, when watching a TV show showing cops getting killed, if the child were to express his approval for the act, it would not go well at all with many people. Similarly, if you buy many CDs with many examples of singing about killing cops, this would also reflect poorly, because you CHOOSE to listen about cops being killed. When they see a kid playing a game, because the kid chooses his actions in the game, it seems as if he is clearly agreeing with the act. Otherwise why do it? Indeed as has been pointed out above, it is possible to get through the mission WITHOUT killing cops (fighting them makes the mission ludicrously difficult). If you have the choice (not everyone will figure out how to do it without fighting) and choose to attack cops, that reflects poorly. Personally, while forcing the player into that kind of a situation makes observers uncomfortable, I think most players should be smart enough to know the difference between fantasy and reality and see the mission as simply another set of obstacles to overcome.

    • Re:What's so special about police? (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Zangief ( 461457 ) on Sunday October 10, 2004 @10:41PM (#10489743) Homepage Journal
      Don't forget that books, music, movies, and television shows were already blamed fot violence and decadence of the society. Idiots already failed at proving any relation, so they moved to the next target.

      The bottom line is, that people are responsible for their own actions. Any attempt to blame something else for your own actions, is just some cheap lawyer trick.

      • The bottom line is, that people are responsible for their own actions. Any attempt to blame something else for your own actions, is just some cheap lawyer trick.

        Now if only we can persuade the public about this we might finally start to shift away from this completely rediculous compensation / blame culture. Its rampant in the US and becoming an issue in the UK as well now. Working in a UK college (16-19 year olds primarily), its quite noticeable that most of them seem to try to blame everything else

    • Eric Clapton sang about "I shot the sheriff".

      Actually, that was Bob Marley. The Eric Clapton version is a cover.

      Doesn't change the point of your post though.
    • It's not like police are some high and mighty upper class that rises above the rest of the world in importance simply becuase of the authority they wieild over citizens.

      Police Officers don't wield authority over citizens... they wield it over criminals.
      • That's not 100% true. There are many circumstances where police are used to direct ordinary citizens and you are required by law to obey their direction.

        Directing traffic is one example. Police posted as guards (near a crime scene, or accident for instance) is annother.

        I'm no police officer or student of the law, but I suspect there are more examples I can't think of.
        • I figured someone would say this. In the circumstances you've provided, the officers are not wielding any type of authority that couldn't be wielded by a person who is not an officer. That being said, the officer only has the authority to do something if a driver doesn't pay attention to traffic laws and therefore becomes a criminal. The police officer in this situation is an extension of the law by performing a duty. The law keeps the people from running stop signs, not the officer. If a person obeys
          • > If a person obeys all laws, police officers can do nothing to him or her.

            Unless you are falsely accused of a crime, remotely suspected, or the victim of a corrupt bureaucrat. Then they can seize everything you own never to be seen again & put you in jail for at least a full night. Granted, that isn't as comman as many self-annointed victims would like you to believe, but it happens.
    • Ah ! But he didn't shoot the deputy. That's the difference !
    • The fact that we are even discussing the 'implications' of a Cop force and its impact on society should lead you to answer your own question, 'whats so special?'

      The answer: When you live in a Police State, you will worship Police.

  • Such bullshit (Score:4, Informative)

    by Ondo ( 187980 ) on Sunday October 10, 2004 @03:05PM (#10487223)
    There may be a link between violence and games - I don't think so, but it doesn't seem certain. Regardless, this lawyer is lying, and making obvious lies. I don't get it - how the hell does he expect to get away with this? A lot of people have played GTA, and they all know "that the tactic of luring police to a scene and then killing them" is, in fact, NOT "key to succeeding in Grand Theft Auto." What does he get out of telling such obvious lies?
    • "What does he get out of telling such obvious lies?"

      Fame? Fortune? His name in newspapers all over the world?

    • Actually - strictly speaking, it is true.

      There is one mission in Vice City where you and Lance must lure 2 Police-men into a Garage to kill them, take their uniforms, and their patrol car.

      It is not possible to complete Vice City without completing this mission.

      Not that I'm defending this dillhole lawyer - but one cannot just dismiss out of hand a simple fact such as this one.

      • Re:Such bullshit (Score:3, Insightful)

        by Anonymous Coward
        Actually they don't show it, just the garage door closing then you coming out in a police uniform. Maybe they just tied up the cops and locked them in the garage?
    • this lawyer is lying, and making obvious lies. I don't get it - how the hell does he expect to get away with this?

      You're new to the concept of lawyers then?
    • There is a link between violence and videogames in my opinion; the latter is an outlet for the former.

  • Crank (Score:5, Informative)

    by Anonymous Coward on Sunday October 10, 2004 @03:10PM (#10487259)

    Pakeerah was beaten to death with a claw hammer by a friend who, Thompson claims, was inspired by Manhunt.

    Yeah, and everybody seems to overlook one fact: the "damning evidence" that the police found the game in the kid's bedroom was, in fact, found in the victim's bedroom.

    That wasn't the first time Thompson has been involved in cases like this; he's a well-known crank who foists himself on the families of victims and convinces them that the games are to blame. In one case, he tried to persue a case against the wishes of the victim's family. He's also harrassed people and had restraining orders taken out against him. He's a crank of the highest order [tripod.com]. You want to know why you hear so many stories about "evil games"? It's him and people like him.

    • Re:Crank (Score:1, Funny)

      by Anonymous Coward
      I think the more important question, that everyone is failing to ask, is "what kind of stupid name is Peekarah"?

      I mean, if you name your kid some wierd shit like that, you're just lining up him to be teased, taunted, tortured and maybe someday - killed. (What is he, a tiny yellow orange-dotted anime character that three year old kids collect?).
      • > I think the more important question, that everyone is failing to ask, is "what kind of stupid name is Peekarah"?

        As trollish as it sounds, you are absolutely right. That's just like wearing a "kick me" sign that can't be removed (until you're 18 & can change your name legally).
    • They're friends: they could have played Manhunt together. Still, not damning evidence against video games.

    • Re:Crank (Score:2, Insightful)

      by Maserati ( 8679 )
      And if Pakeerah had been a big Scarface fan maybe he'd have been killed with a chainsaw or a grenade launcher. Nothing to see here folks, just another clueless lawyer shilling for publicity.

    • Re:Crank (Score:2, Insightful)

      by iainl ( 136759 )
      Irrespective of that particular piece of "damning evidence", I'm more swayed by the actual Police coming out and saying that there is NO, repeat NO link between the game and the murder, and that said media are a bunch of fecking liars for claiming otherwise (note - "fecking liars" may not have been the exact choice of words used in the statement. However, its pretty close to that).

      The poor kid was killed as part of a mugging that went wrong. The mugging was planned in order to get cash to pay the perpertra

  • dont (Score:2, Insightful)

    by drfrog ( 145882 )
    blame the tool blame the carpenter!!!

    using this logic the boxcutters company that built the ones used in 9/11 would be charged as well

  • So... (Score:5, Funny)

    by Dark Lord Seth ( 584963 ) on Sunday October 10, 2004 @03:19PM (#10487306) Journal

    If I print out the Patriot Act and beat someone to death with it...

  • Nice Friend (Score:2, Funny)

    by jherekc ( 460597 )
    All I can say is that the murderer was obviously *not that much of a friend* if he killed his so called "friend"
  • Then he's a serial killer because he had no motive. Also, from what I understand, most postal workers aren't big video game fanatics. Ever hear of "going postal?"
    • Yes, actually, I live in the town, a couple blocks away, from the post office where the man went on a killing spree.
    • I was just thinking something like that.

      Okay, there are basically three kinds of murders/murderers.

      There's the basic one when a person turns violent and kills someone out of rage, like barfights, or finding X in bed with Y. This is almost always second degree murder, although sometimes the anger turns into some sort of seething hatred and a murder is actually planned. Basically, you want to hurt the person, and hurt them to death.

      Then there the other motives for murder...they're blackmailing you, you're

      • Then there are the loons, the serial killers. People who murder people for no apparent reason.

        Actually, true serial killers do have a motive. According to "The A-Z Encyclopedia of Serial Killers" by Harold Schechter and David Everitt (ISBN 0-671-53791-1), serial killings tend to be of a sexual nature, where within the murderer a lust for blood, gore and death builds up to a climax, at which point the serial killer "ejaculates" (sometimes litterally) by killing a victim. After the murder, there is a cool-do

  • the crusades! (Score:3, Funny)

    by focitrixilous P ( 690813 ) on Sunday October 10, 2004 @04:41PM (#10487731) Journal
    Turns out the crusades happened before violent media even existed, and lots of people died!
    • Turns out the crusades happened before violent media even existed, and lots of people died!

      That's it! Let's outlaw religions!!!!

      About the only thing I learned in GTA3 and GTAVC is how to speak with a bad cuban accent ("I'm RReeco, you the man wit de big cojones?")

  • some truths (Score:5, Insightful)

    by TheAxeMaster ( 762000 ) on Sunday October 10, 2004 @05:17PM (#10487901)
    Ok the kid's claim is bullshit anyway, and we all know that. He's trying to pawn off responsibility, and the claim probably came from his parents or some shit anyway.

    Fact 1: The game has an MA rating, so any kid under 17 or 18 is not able to buy it (ideally). So how could he even get such a game? Well in all probability his parent's bought it for him, so even if this was some derranged world where his claim was true, it's the fault and responsibility of the parents for knowing what this kid is playing and making sure he isn't playing things he's not supposed to.

    Fact 2: The average age of a video game player is 28. You cannot tell a 28 year old what they can or can't play, so they can't get rid of these games. It's not our fault that stores and parents don't enforce the rating system, it's their responsibility.
    • ...and the claim probably came from his parents or some shit anyway.

      From his crazy lawyer. Jack Thompson, A/K/A "BatJack", apparently because he used to make public appearances in a Batman costume. Some of BatJack's prior hits here [reason.com]...

  • it never ceases to amaze me how ignorant people are, people who obviously know nothing of psychology attribute a positive correlation between violent behavior and playing violent video games as proof that playing such games CAUSES violent behavior. The problem is that they don't even think to consider that people who have violent tendencies could be drawn to violent video games, a much more straight-forward and likely conclusion. Even considering that such games, and this goes for any other media, contribut

  • in other news... (Score:5, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward on Sunday October 10, 2004 @06:07PM (#10488213)
    Pac-man Blamed for Obesity

  • It should be pointed out (Score:3, Informative)

    by fr0dicus ( 641320 ) on Sunday October 10, 2004 @06:44PM (#10488439) Journal
    That Blair didn't find any fault with anyone in the Manhunt case either, thanks to ELSPA and some common sense.

  • Civilian and Police Kills not Central to GTA (Score:3, Informative)

    by homeobocks ( 744469 ) on Sunday October 10, 2004 @07:02PM (#10488545)

    The article shows that Jack Thompson says:

    The technique of killing civilians and then first-responders when they get there is the primary scenario to win in all the Grand Theft Auto games[.]

    I've played the newer GTA games, and critical to winning the game is to avoid killing civilians or police, as the police will come down harder on you if you do. Mr. Thompson may have a valid point in linking video games to violence, but this outright lie undermines his credibility.

    • Mr. Thompson may have a valid point in linking video games to violence, but this outright lie undermines his credibility.

      He has no valid point. He has only lies.
      Videogames cause violence, cartoons cause violence, movies cause violence, comix cause violence, etc. If they did, every videogame testing department in the world would be overflowing with blood, wouldn't they?

      You know what causes violence? VIOLENCE!

      Getting slapped around by your family, by bigger kids at school. Watching daddy beat the snot out

  • Studies have shown ... (Score:5, Interesting)

    by clovis ( 4684 ) on Sunday October 10, 2004 @07:37PM (#10488740)
    All kinds of BS, and people tend to quote those studies that verify their existing beliefs. I have this same problem, of course, but I did see a study done on children that surprised me with its originality.
    Basically what they did was monitor several classrooms of children (a variety of age groupings) and recorded all physical interactions (shoving, head-bonking, grabbing, etc). Then they showed movies to the class depicting violent activities. They continued recording the physical interactions and what they found was that only a few of the children were affected. Most kids experienced no change in behavior, but some kids had a large increase in attacks on others. The ones who increased their atacks were children who it later turned out were already diagnosed as disturbed children.

    The study was somewhat more complex than as I describe it, but the conclusion they drew was not what they had expected to find. The conclusion was that viewing depictions of violent behaviors did not affect healthy children, but that it did affect disturbed children, and it affected them badly.

    So what do we do? How can we regulate a product that causes no harm to healthy people?

    We have the same problem with drugs: most people can do recreational drugs from time to time without harm; they can regulate their usage and have sense enough to not drive doing while doing LSD and meth. The same can be said for alcohol - some people become destructive when allowed to drink alcohol.

    It appears that the percentage of people in our population who cannot drink is small enough that we can tolerate the side effects of those who cannot handle it. On the other hand, it may be that the number of people who can use heroin or cocaine responsibly without becoming lost to it (and there are those) is small enough that there is a significant danger to society from the side effects. Imagine what life would be like if every fifth person at work was coming off a 2-week meth run.

    There are patchwork solutions in place. For example, it may surprise you to learn that convicted murderers in the United States are forbidden from owning guns - even after they've completed their prison sentence!
    Another solution is that we don't allow children to purchase or operate dangerous products such as alcohol, guns, automobiles, and voting machines even though many children do have the skills and judgement to use these products.

    So we ask ourselves are violent video games dangerous in that they may affect unhealthy people in such significant numbers that society is endangered? It seems unlikely to me to be a problem, but it has been shown that it's bad for some people such as the disturbed children above.

    What bothers me about kill-games is what makes it different from watching killing on TV. You're actually practicing the very thing that we don't want you to do - going through the motions over and over. No prob with healthy people (I must not be one because although World of Warcraft has no effect on be besides exhaustion, Counterstrike leaves me with a very itchy trigger finger)

    So, our compromise in these cases is to prevent the acquisition of these products until the children are of an age where their judgement has matured to dampen their urges (I want to kill the teacher, but then the police will then kill me if I do that).

  • did they check the medicine cabinet (Score:2, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward
    Officer 1: "Lieutenant, I searched the house, it appears to be clean. The only suspicious article I found was the boys prescription to prozac in the medicine cabinet. As many of us know, prozac has been found to cause psychotic and suicidal tendencies"

    Lieutenant: "Officer Downing, may I remind you that the media is waiting in the front yard. Check the game console and stop wasting time"

    Officer 1: "yes sir! hmmm, Looks like he was a fan of Mario Cart."

    Officer 2: "Sir, his little sister has a copy of Gr

  • misdirection of blame (Score:4, Insightful)

    by forkboy ( 8644 ) on Sunday October 10, 2004 @08:01PM (#10488875) Homepage
    This kind of shit has been happening ever since kids starting playing games that involve some degree of violence. Remember the big Dungeons and Dragons scare in the early 80s? People were blaming their fucked up kids' violence on that rather than their own horrible parenting / child's mental illness.

    No one wants to admit that the problem might lie with someone they can't sue.
    • Remember the big Dungeons and Dragons scare in the early 80s? The early 80s you say? Last summer or something here in Sweden. Two kids found a mans head in a river, some days after, one newspaper made up that the man in question was playing Vampire: The Masquerade and immedietely blamed RPGs, and the rest of the media followed suite. It wasn't a nice time to be an active RPG player...

  • Logically (Score:2, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward
    in the case of the murder linked to Manhunt, it was the victim who owned the game.

    One can thus conclude that he must have really sucked at it.

  • there is a link between violence and videogames -- violence and TV, movies, everything your heart desires! And let's also assume that the link is direct and much stronger than it seems, right now, to be.

    Well, what the fuck are you going to do about it? I still think the principle behind Amendment Numero Uno is superior to whatever kind of inducement people may find in forms of communication.

    There are case law exceptions to freedom of speech, of course, and direct inducement of others to kill, or conspir

  • Why does it have to be blamed on something? (Score:3, Funny)

    by bernardos70 ( 613587 ) on Sunday October 10, 2004 @09:05PM (#10489157)
    Chris Rock said it best "What happened to 'crazy?' What, you can't be crazy no more?"

  • Retribution? (Score:2, Funny)

    by MerliSYD ( 819177 )
    Since the teenager apparently stole the idea/drew inspiration to plot a mass murder, Rockstar Games should counter-sue the teenager for theft of intellectual property and breech of copyright.

  • Contact info (Score:3, Informative)

    by Lord_Dweomer ( 648696 ) on Monday October 11, 2004 @02:39AM (#10490740) Homepage
    I'm sure we all love this guy and are very concerned about violent video games. This is why you should visit his website [stopkill.com] every chance [stopkill.com] you get [stopkill.com].

    Or, if you prefer a more direct approach, he can be reached via phone at: 305-666-4366 or by email at jackpeace@comcast.net.

    And finally, if you really feel like you need to meet him and tell him how much you agree with what he preaches, feel free to visit him at his office located at:

    1172 South Dixie Hwy., Suite 111
    Coral Gables, FL 33146

  • Lack of Fear (Score:3, Insightful)

    by mrshowtime ( 562809 ) on Monday October 11, 2004 @03:25AM (#10490907)
    The problem with kids today, is not that they are playing violently realistic videogames, it is that total and utter lack of fear. Nobody today beats their kids anymore, and I'm not talking about abuse. I am the person who I am today because when I was bad, my ass got beat. I was beat by the nuns, the brothers of the sacred heart, my mom and dad, uncles, etc. I deserved to get beat, and it put the fear of God into me. It takes a cold blooded person to pick up a CLAW HAMMER and beat someone to death. The lack of fear, or consequences is one of main contributing factors to this murder, not GTA. I have to also put the blame on the parents. A lot of parents today are "ghosts" and you can't let your kid run free without any checks or balances and expect him/her to not turn out maligned. Still, it takes a ruthless bastard to kill someone with a friggin' hammer.
    • Not really one good swing done in anger and you could easily cause enough damage to the skull or cause a hematoma that would kill the person. Now corporal punishment beyond a certain age(when a sense of right and wrong has been developed)is just a recipe for severly misplaced rage which would lead to a "ruthless bastard" who could kill without remorse.
    • I totally agree that there is a lack of fear, and that kids are tending to be under-disciplined, but I'm not entirely sure if the two are so tightly related.

      While fear of consequence for actions is important in the vast majority of poor behavior, I think that really sociopathic behavior can't be averted just with fear of punishment. I think fundamentally those peoples' lack of fear comes from a lack of self worth, from whatever, probably mostly from alienation. It's probably often the case that it's the
  • WTF? This is STILL going on? People still can't take responsibility for their own actions or for doing a lousy job (if they're doing it at all) at raising their kids?

    Fine. Maybe I'll go out and kill a few people here and there and blame it on the history books I read in school. Maybe build a nuke and let it go off (disclaimer to Homeland Security...I'm not really going to do this...I'm just making a point) because I read about it and saw it on TV.

    I know I'm preaching to the choir right now, but every
  • The victim may have owned the game But the victim got owned all the same!

  • In related news..... (Score:1, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward
    The board game chess has been blamed for the attempt on King James's life. "I can't believe it's legal to buy and sell this game", said one scotland yard official. "It's a regicide simulator, often requiring the player to mow down those protecting the King as well."
  • I haven't RTFA but what I'm tired of is parents that don't accept that perhaps their parenting (or lack of it) was in some way responsible for the things their offspring do to other people. Or ... maybe their kids were just MENTALLY DEFECTIVE from the outset. Millions of children and adults play video games (violent or otherwise) without experiencing the slightest desire to commit real violence upon someone else's person. In my case, playing first-person shooters actually provides a considerable release
  • It's sad to see the morality police trying to use any excuse possible to control content they don't approve of. Using the logic of these misguided individuals, the next trend will be for kids to start making big balls out of everything, imitating Katamari Damacy.

Slashdot Top Deals

Understanding is always the understanding of a smaller problem in relation to a bigger problem. -- P.D. Ouspensky

Close