New York Times profiles John Romero & John Carmack 332
whiteprints writes "The New York Times has a great article about John Romero and John Carmack. Talks about the school shooting connection
" It's getting on my nerves that so many people want
to connect Doom and Quake to the shootings, and aren't willing to
connect that simple fact that for millions of years, humans
were hunters. And this is the NYT so you need to login to
read the article.
Why do Americans need guns? (Score:1)
We don't trust our (corrupt) government, but we don't care to change it. We'd rather let it fester, and then engage in armed combat when the police state gets too far out of hand.
The same goes for crime; rather than improving our lame educational system, promoting the idea of humans as intrinsically valuable, and moving from punitive towards rehabilitative justice, we prefer to buy firearms and take care of ourselves.
It's just our way. Who are you to judge? Freakin' Socialist.
Re:millions of years? (Score:1)
Social Darwinism isn't science - it's pseudo-scientific babble that some people use to rationalise taking advantage of the weak.
And without any intention of Godwinating the thread, I'll add that the most prominent Social Darwinist this century was Hitler. A great deal of good this theory did his "master race".
Laws broken during the attack in Colorado (Score:1)
of crimes committed during the high school attack in Colorado.
Premeditated murder
Murder
Attempted murder
Aggravated assault
Assault with a deadly weapon
Assault and battery
Assault
Threatening and intimidating
Conspiracy to commit felony
Conspiracy to commit misdemeanor
Aiding and abetting
Providing firearm to minor
Providing handgun to minor
Possession of firearm by minor
Possession of handgun by minor
Possession of firearm by minor without federally
required permission slip from parent or guardian
Possession of NFA weapon (sawed off shotgun)
Possession of explosives
Possession of explosives by minor
Possession of explosives with malicious intent
Making of explosives
Placing of explosives
Use of explosives
Concealed carry without permit
Gun on school grounds
Another gun on school grounds
Yet another gun on school grounds
Possession of ammunition on school grounds
Obtaining guns and ammo through bogus means
Discharging firearm in city limits
Disturbing the peace
Committing a hate crime
Multiple counts of all of the above
Multiple torts (harm suffered that is subject to civil lawsuits;
Colorado prohibits lawyers from soliciting clients within 30 days
of an injury, out-of-state lawyers are reportedly already calling
relatives for potential clients.)
And of course, aggravating circumstances and anything a reasonable
Colorado prosecutor could no doubt add to this list. For instance,
Colorado law includes two to six years for the parents if they allowed
the boys to possess a firearm, knowing of substantial felony risk.
In the rush to enact more laws, we perhaps overlook the fact that
everything criminal about this heinous attack is already totally
illegal. If you want to fix the laws, it helps to know what they are.
We keep such information posted at our newly beefed-up website,
gunlaws.com.
It is also critical to realize that 6,000 kids brought weapons to school
in 1997 (according to the Dept. of Education), in complete violation of
the federal Gun-Free School Zones law -- calling for at least five years
in prison -- but the kids were just sent home. One of these was Kip
Kinkle, who came back the next day to commit most of the crimes listed
above.
Representatives in government are well aware that we barely enforce the
perfectly good laws we have. So what, you must wonder, is their motive
for instantly seeking more laws? What other agenda could they possibly
have, using this tragedy to stir up support?
Alan Korwin, Author
Bloomfield Press
12629 N. Tatum #440
Phoenix, AZ 85032
Fax 602-494-0679
http://www.gunlaws.com
1-800-707-4020
A bit of historical perspective... (Score:1)
As for killings at school, the worst incident was in the 1950's, when a school in Michigan was blown up, killing 130. The bomber was a MEMBER OF THE SCHOOL BOARD! Of course, there weren't any video games back then, so that doesn't count.
Hell, did anyone even consider blaming the little NAZI pukes themselves, instead of anyone and everyone who ever wrote a game they played, a song they listened to, or a comic book they read?
Hell, Charlie Manson went off the deep end (he said) because he listened to the Beatles. Funny, John, Paul, George, and Ringo never made me want to kill anyone.
Hmmm... (Score:1)
Quake et al. are flat-out useless for teaching marksmenship - the mechanism is completely different. It
But the handgun-based arcade games are a different story. Military pistol competitions involve a lot of rapid-fire and snapshooting with very short exposure times. Put me on one of these games, and I rawk. I'll typically clear the screen of baddies before my civvy friends have even registered a target. It freaks 'em out.
There is an exception. If the game requires a lot of shoot/no shoot decisions, I don't do as well. I'm not a cop, I'm (was) a soldier. If you're on a battlefield in front of me - and in pistol range - you're probably actively trying to kill me, so any target that moves suddenly into view (in the game) is likely to get plugged. Soldiers don't train the way cops do - the job is different - and most of the pistol shooter games have a law-enforcement theme to them and provide pretty stiff in-game penalties for plugging Aunt Maude.
The point about the gun feeling/sounding different between the game and RL I find doesn't apply. Military service pistols have the accuracy of a baseball, and
As for playing these games making you a better shot... I dunno. I think it's probably a lot easier to adapt to a light, quiet gun than to a heavy, noisy one. The only things I think the game teaches are to pick up targets quickly, engage them as fast as possible, and make fast shoot/no shoot evaluations (for some games)
None of these "lessons" seems to apply at Littleton
Chicken or the Egg? (Score:2)
Remember all the bruhuhah about "Video Nasties" back in the day?
The media are always looking for a scapegoat to take the flak they deserve. Blame it on society not the gamesmakers...
Re:School shootings and Quake (Score:2)
Nick
jrussell@scudc.scu.edu
Parents should be held liable. (Score:2)
Re:Chicken or the Egg? (Score:2)
Near all of them had never access to computers and/or video games. Human beings can be worse than any beast, and it obviously doesn't need DOOM or other ego-shooters to bring out unbelievable violence. War, killing and murder did not start with computer games, and it will not stop if games are forbidden.
Re:Shootings have gone down (Score:3)
A national and cultural decision. A tradeoff.
Trading what for what? Personal empowerment and civil liberty for the blood of children, effectively.
Is it worth it?
Who can say? Governments respect armed people. The US has a very accountable government, its citizens don't stand for authoritarianism at all. The blood price, however small, is terrible.
And what about the US stance on drugs- Is that confusing or what? Cross-purposes.
--MolochHorridus
No game I know of... (Score:4)
that "military expert" quoted... (Score:5)
Furthermore..."Though he'd never fired a gun before, the teen-ager hit eight people with eight bullets, five to the head and three to the upper torso." Bull. I'd like to know where it's been shown that Carneal had never fired a gun before. As someone who's fired perhaps 500 rounds through _real_ pistols, rifles, and shotguns in the past year, I can tell you it's not that easy. Especially not when you're full of adrenaline and your targets are moving. Either he was some sort of freakish shooting prodigy, or he'd had real practice - because I can also tell you that shooting in Doom/Quake is very little like shooting in RL. For one thing, your arms and hands don't get tired and start to shake in Doom...
Bill Clinton, "We must teach non-violence" (Score:5)
[clicks channel tuner]
"In other news today, President Bill Clinton announced that the bombing in Yugoslovia will intensify as we enter day 60 of NATO action in that troubled region of the world."
Is it any wonder that kids are confused?
Re:Coverage on CSPAN (Score:5)
(rant on)
Mainstream America is also ignoring the fact that their children are amongst the most vicious, self-center little animals on the face of the planet. Their "little darlings" will terrorize anyone whom they consider to be outside the norm.
If you any of the following applies(or applied) to you in high school, you have points against you:
Living well: the only just revenge. Take it from the poor, short, fat, late-blooming German immigrant farmer's math whiz son in an Irish/English area who graduated in the top 10% of class with two diplomas from a school where his mother drove bus and his aunt taught Chemistry. My grandmother taught me that if I didn't like my position in life, the only way to improve it is by getting more education. (And keep on soaking it up for the rest of your life!)
I went to my 20-year reunion and was surprised to see how things hadn't really changed back there except for those of us (we geeks) who'd left town for greener pastures (call it about a 40k/yr difference). Most of 'em were still drinking in the corner bar, watching sports, and wondering why they'd grown up to be just like their parents.
Oh yeah! Marry a geek too! Life is much more "interesting", profitable, varied, and entertaining.
(rant off)
Re:No game I know of... (Score:1)
Re:Shootings have gone down (Score:1)
Amen.
Do games make people violent? No, but . . . (Score:1)
That said, I don't think that glorifying violence helps matters either, whether in movies, TV, games, or whatnot. I think we're probably more desensitized to the violence we see than we realize. I think the reason that the effects aren't so obvious is that most of us, though, even the nerds and geeks, have real lives of some manner or another that ground us at least half-decently in reality. We can see the fantasy violence for what it is--fantasy--and for the most part we can filter out its impact. It's sort of like getting used to polluted air. We adapt to the unhealthy atmosphere and get desensitized to it, and for the most part feel no ill effects. For those who are already vulnerable, who are mentally disturbed to begin with or have other problems, the impact of the media violence may be a lot harsher, and it may exacerbate the uglier stirrings in them much more strongly than one who is healthier to start with.
I'm not saying that media violence causes real life violence. I'm just saying that it may make it worse for those already badly disturbed to begin with.
Re:Doom, Guns, Kids and Violance (Score:1)
By this definition the USA is the only democracy on earth. Other countries manage vocal and dynamic democratic processes without lax gun laws. Equating a democratic system of government with gun ownership is just asking for the problems afflicting America and no where else.
ciao
gi-francios
Media is the culprit (Score:1)
The attacks on video games and violent movies by the media is sadly ironic. These things are fantasies, and are seen as such. The far more damaging thing is the violence that the "news" media pumps into your homes and cars. Murders, rapes, and other atrocities right where you live, in "living color". Even worse, these things are hyped up as much as possible to get the maximum viewership possible. Real Blood. Real Death. Real close to home.
As an aside, considering that the chance of a kid dying in a car accident is a couple of orders greater than being killed in school, shouldn't we consider any parent who puts their child in a car to be committing murder?
-buffy
two scenarios: (Score:1)
You're at home late one night. Someone breaks into your house, someone who's much stronger than you, he has a nife, which he is certainly able to kill you with, and your family. What do you do?
You don't have a gun:
You try to dial 911 as he stabs you to death, or you try to run (that's if you have the time to do so), but to no avail.
You do have a gun:
You fire a shot, either a warning shot, or shoot the intruder. He flees, or is shot, you're safe.
Oh, did I mention, he may just have a gun? He's a criminal. Criminals break laws, including gun laws. If you have a gun, then maybe you at least are equally armed.
Hmmm.. How do people who don't believe in the ability to own a gun answer this?
In Canada, you can't even have pepper spray. Jeez, I suppose that a woman wouldn't want to protect herself from a would-be rapist... Might hurt the poor fellow's eyes.
FUD & Lawsuit (Score:1)
It seems we have a new source of FUD. Don't buy Linux because your kids'll play Quake or Doom!!! I sure hope that type of argument doesn't take hold in the media.
-Ben
Re:Maybe it's because.... (Score:2)
We are rebels who wear long hair, have body piercings and have our own cliquish subcultures. We like to code/game for long stretches through the night, kept awake by the caffeine in CocaCola.
Since the media has been so nice to draw the link between some Nazi-loving death-wishers and gamers. What kind of link will they take next? I fear they might say that because Linux advocates are so rebellious, they are more likely to play vid. games. So don't let your kids run Linux!!! They might get into trouble. Don't let me get started on Hacking. All those Linux Hackers out there might teach your kid to hack into the nuclear power plants or something...
-Ben Karas
Re:millions of years? (Score:1)
That's nothing more than someones "educated" guess based on "scientific" theory. Written history only goes back a few thousand years -- anything before that you have to take on faith, based on who and/or what you have chosen to believe.
In any case, "hunting for millions years" is ridiculous by nearly anyones estimation.
TedC
Re:The Real Problem: soccer balls (Score:1)
On the other side of the coin, we don't have too many problems in the U.S. with people getting trampled to death during soccer (a.k.a. "football") games. If soccer balls were illegal, these things wouldn't happen...
TedC
Re:no no no (Score:1)
Ah, well, that's not exactly what I had in mind.
My point was that people don't suddenly become violent when you put a gun in their hand; they had a problem before they picked up the gun. That's why gun control isn't very effective -- it tries to limit the consequences, but the real problem remains.
TedC
Re:millions of years? (Score:1)
Start logging in (as opposed to being an AC) or those of us who do won't take you seriously. :-)
TedC
Re:Oh, THAT TedC (Score:1)
BTW, I call myself 'TedC' because 'The TC-Linux GrooveMaster' is too much typing. :-)
TedC
A pattern (Score:2)
It seems that every time a school shooting makes it to national news (and the usual overhype), there are two or three followup shootings. Based on that, I would say that violent national news coverage/hype is a MUCH stronger contributor to school shootings than games. Of course, they won't be covering that in the news.
Re:An armed criminal fears less (Score:1)
NY Times should profile Hollywood movie execs (Score:2)
Re:You can't say video game violence has NO effect (Score:1)
There has to be a significant correlation before you can make an argument, one way or another, otherwise, you haven't got much to stand on.
Re:Flawed Reasoning is behind most of this. (Score:1)
The root of my argument though, was that it's easy to try to create a cause->effect relationship where there isn't one. Guns do not always lead to kids murdering, neither do video games, it's a lot of factors, which this lawsuit couldn't possibly address. Let's not forget that the foundation of American society is revolution. To quote Homer Simpson
"If I didn't have a gun, the King of England could just show up and start pushing you around, do you want that?"
If you live like that, constantly thinking about 'dying and killing' for freedom, it's not surprising that you'll do that same to improve your social standing
Re:Flawed Reasoning is behind most of this. (Score:1)
Re:You CAN say video game violence has NO effect (Score:1)
The foundation of science is that an experiment can be reproduced, independantly. Otherwise, it's fair to say that the hypothesis is false. I worked with drug testing in a psychiatric hospital, and it was the same approach. A number of DIFFERENT people have to have consistent results, before a drug can be discredited or credited.
Re:Forget Littleton, the burning issue of the day (Score:1)
Whoops. I'm thinking of Carmack. Scratch that. (Score:1)
Flawed Reasoning is behind most of this. (Score:2)
one factor can be responsible for an action. This is a falacy, logically speaking. They assume that
these kids are messed up BECAUSE of doom, when it would be scientifically impossible to show doom leads to killing, simply because a lot of people play doom, (some of us are even vegetarians) and don't like, or condone killing. This is a blatent attempt by politicans and lawyers to make some money, while ignoring the real problems. Guns.
Give a boy a fish, and you feed him for a day, Give him a gun, and he'll shoot up his high school.
Re:The Real Problem: The Guns (Score:1)
Here's my proposition: Strict background checks, AND a training course before you're allowed to own a gun. This includes a Gun Safety course. (I know the IRA has those but they are NOT mandatory). Then allow any law obiding citizen to take another course and license him/her self to carry a concealed weapon. No criminal would jump through those kind of hoops to get a gun.. they'd get themselves a black market weapon)
Criminals carry concealed weapons now.. and for them it would still be illegal. (as it is now anyways.. hell it's illegal for them to OWN a gun.. they still do). But something tells me that someone would NOT be as willing to comit a crime if he knows that anyone else in the room may have a weapon on them also.
If I was carring a concealed weapon (legally) and saw a someone picking off people I'd certainly intervene. It would only take a few news stories about Joe Citizen picking of a murderer before some of these guys would think twice. The ones that wouldn't care.. well those are the ones that even if we got rid of guns..they would have them anyways.
And as for those that say get rid of guns and no one would get killed by them.. sorry I've lived in Europe (1/2 my life).. and gee.. there still seems to be a crime problem there and people still get killed everyday. And guns, knives and other asorted weapons are used. So get off your soap box and look around.
Ex-Nt-User
Re:The Real Problem: The Guns (Score:1)
You're are right though in that no amount of legislation will prevent a kid from stealing a gun from his/her parents. However, I'm single now.. I don't right now own a gun.. I've certainly been considering getting one, and I for one have no intention of killing anyone.. or for that matter even comminting any sort of crime. But if I had children I wouldn't even CONSIDER having a gun around. It's called responsibility.. I wish more people had some.
As far as your second question. Crime level is directly propotional to economic suffering. I would hesitantly argue that the reason crime is that high there is not because people can own guns but because the economy/environment is poor and people see crime as a way to better their lives. (Notice I said "hasitantly argue" because I don't have any statistics to quote of the top of my head.. I've read/heard about it somewhere though..) The standard of living in the US is among the best in the world. So the majority of the population has no intent of comiting crimes, even if they carry a gun.
I've seen countless interviews with life long criminals that have themselves stated that when they saw an IRA sticker on a house window.. the skiped that house.. why? Mabey because they knew that the owner most likely had a gun and they were NOT willing to risk their own necks.
Ex-Nt-User
Re:The Real Problem: The Guns (Score:1)
I never claimed I would be a "crime buster" hell it would prolly be a 50/50 chance I'd get killed/wounded in the process..but that's besides the point. What I'd like to see is where you're geting your statistics.. or is it just of the top of your head?
Ex-Nt-User
Re: Teach responsibility.. don't take away choice (Score:1)
Well there is two ways of looking at this.. your view is that society should get rid of the "guns" thus there is no more need for responsibility. (Specifiaclly the responsibility of the person owning the gun). However that does NOT solve the problem.. only hides it. Are we to simply remove any object that someone may be irresponsible with?
Ok then let's get rid of cars.. and alcohol.. cause all of those irresponsible people that drive drunk. How about getting rid of TV's too.. 'cause some parents irresponsibly use them as babysitters.. oh wait knives too.. oh and fire..'cause some people are arsenists. Where do we draw the line?
I know I propably went a bit to far with these anologies, but I believe I made my point. You need laws that teach RESPONISBILITY and but not remove CHOICE.
You know it's easy to say, get rid of guns and the problem goes away.. but then something else will pop up.. and someone will convince us to get rid of video games.. and then somethuing else.. and then.. well I best leave you with a quote I saw somewhere:
When they took the fourth amendment,
I was quiet because I didn't deal drugs.
When they took the sixth amendment,
I was quiet because I was innocent.
When they took the second amendment,
I was quiet because I didn't own a gun.
Now they've taken the first amendment,
and I can say nothing about it.
-Ex-Nt-User
Re:My sugestion (Score:2)
A couple of years ago there was a story on the news about a cab driver (In NY?) that stoped a armed robber by using his car to pin him against a wall as he was tring to flee, in the process breaking the guys leg. The robber sued and WON! And that wasn't the only such case. If those are the reprecusions of being a good samaritan.. why would any one try to do something to prevent a crime?
Here's my question.. those kids got guns somewhere illegaly! It was ALREADY illegal for them to have those guns.. they got them anyways! How come? Because the current laws are NOT enforced. I was watching fox a couple of nights ago and they were discussing FBI crime statistics. Acording to those something like 2000+ kids were caught with guns. 6 were prosecuted. Anyone see a problem?.. what about the people that sold these kids the guns? 0 prosecuted. hmm?
I know someone is going to mention that some of these kids propably got the guns from their parents. My opinion: prosecute the parents. If you have kids and you leave your guns lieing around that just shows me you are to irresponsible to own it and your license should be revoked and a in the least a BIG fine slapped on your behind.
Mabey.. just mabey we should force people to take responsibility for their own actions. It's easy to say it's because of how our society is.. but don't forget that each one of us is part of that society.
Personaly, I don't own a gun but I have thought about purchasing one.. I'm still undecided.. but this is a liberty that I enjoy, the choice is mine. I do however know one thing.. if I owned a gun and I brought a child into this world the 1st thing I'd do is get rid of the gun. I think a lot of people forget about it.. you can get rid of a gun much easier then you can purchase one. I know that police stations in my area buy back guns.. and even if they didn't BUY them back they'd certainly happily take it back from you for free.
The key is: PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY
Ex-Nt-User
Doom, Guns, Kids and Violance (Score:5)
Q: Are violent games played by violent people?
A: Yes
Q: Do criminals use guns to kill people?
A: yes
This is how the media sees the whole situation.. they ask these two questions and then they try to convince everyone that "violent games + guns" breed murdurers. The only problem is that these same games are played by millions of other people who are NOT violent. And millions of guns are bought and used by people that DON'T commit crimes. But no one looks at those statistics not because they're NOT true.. but because they don't help them push their political agendas.
I'm sorry but I doubt that a 14-16 year old could afford a $2000 computer. An internet connection.. and ALL these violent games. Some where along the lines here the parents payed for some of that. So why are we blaming the games? Most likely the PARENTS bought those games. That's like blaming a gun because a parent bought a hand gun for their kid and the kid went out and killed someone. I'm not saing that games DO cause people to kill.. but even if they DID the parents are still at fault here.
In the case of the Colorado shootings (And I live about 30 min from Littleton) the kids were building and setting off pipe bombs in their BACK YARD.. hello? anyone? For crying out loud those two were practically asking to get stoped.
So now we have a bunch of "politicians" trying to make their names known by banning games, tv shows.. hell anything that they can point the finger at as the cause. The only "politician" that seems to have ANY common sense these days seems to be an ex-pro wrestler from minesota.
Ex-Nt-User
Asking the wrong question... (Score:5)
I think the correct question is, "Why did this happen at school?"
Why not a shopping mall? Why not a department store? If FPS games are really turning kids into violent, mindless killers, why are they particularly targeting their fellow students and not Joe Six-Pack on the street?
How does that saying go? "For every complex problem, there's a solution that's simple, neat, and wrong."
--
Re:School shootings and Quake (Score:1)
The mere fact that some of these kids played Quake-like games does not lead, even logically, to a conclusion that Quake-like games lead them to kill.
Of the millions of kids who play these games, how many have killed? Falling back on simple statistics, and not even bothering with common sense, it should be clear that your position doesn't hold water.
Re:I've said it before and I'll say it again.... (Score:1)
Details here [efa.org.au] - and protest rallies this Friday! (May 28th) [efa.org.au]
Danny.
Re:Chicken or the Egg? (Score:2)
Trying to make any correlation ("psycho killers are attracted to this stuff") frankly offends me. While I was in high-school playing (violent) video games, the children who later became violent criminals had no interest in them. They were more happily occupied torturing insects, small animals and other children, shoplifting and committing random acts of vandalism.
In fact, if you look at murders nationally, the majority falls outside of the Doom/Quake playing populace. You're more likely to find that where:
G is the # of people who play Doom/Quake.
Gm is the # of murders these gamers commit.
N is the # of people who don't play.
Nm is the # of murders committed by them.
That (Gm/G) is far lower than (Nm/N). One might even suggest from this that Id Software [idsoftware.com] promotes mental health. After all, if you don't like Doom, something must be wrong with you...
loose,loose situation (Score:1)
bullshit!
Re:loose,loose situation (Score:1)
explosives are something else. and i tend agree this is a simplistic view of the situation. one thing i notice that differs b/w US/AUS at schools is the vindictive nature of groups at schools. looks like those that dont fit in are really hassled in the states. in aus yr simply ignored.
rights & responsibilities (Score:1)
as for the 'festering - cause' (trying not to be too simplistic) i think of walking past local video shops 10,000Km from the US where u know that the majority of video cut-out posters with pistols, rifles and automatic weapons in the window are probably advertising a film from the united states.
i'm afraid yr popular culture (or those wanting to portray it) is one that glorifies violence and weapons.
News: Geeks don't have to act wierd! (Score:2)
If anything, there's a Christian Revival in Denver, expore that. You don't have to have wacko libertarian views to work with computers. Just accept that the politicians have it right, some of the time anyway.
I'd like to know what a 'llama' is though (Score:1)
Bah
Abnoxious Politicians (Score:2)
Re:Flawed Reasoning is behind most of this. (Score:1)
GOT ONE!!!
The real problem, IMHO, is the fact that US Culture is a JOKE, our cities are overcrowded and PAVED, people are raised by a glowing BOX and spoonfed the most meaningless junk ever. We emulate Hollywood LOSERS on TV.
People blabber about Europe having lower crime. In Europe, your family gets set up in a region and stays there. You don't to school and blow away all the friends of your FAMILY that you just had dinner with! People have centuries old customs, one of which is hospitality. In the US, that's gone.
A serious problem is that people think by starting up some military backed gun confiscation program we can stop the violence. Erm, don't even go there. Can you say 'resistance'? How 'bout 'armed'?
The REAL problem is that it's not going to stop, but as our media gets more sensationalized and we move from town to town more and more, we lose touch with everything that makes up a culture. Star Wars is the closest thing we have to culture. Nice. And our pres gets blowjobs at his desk. That's pretty American, people seemed to approve of that.
my 2 cents
-kabloie
Re:The problem with that argument (Score:2)
Just who exactly is sacrificing lives? Dirtbag criminal murderers, in my book.
It's not like we have chosen to sacrifice virgins by cutting their hearts out. It's criminals who are responible for murders, period.
Your question might be better phrased as, Why Oh Lord Why do people kill one another when it is STRICTLY FORBIDDEN right here in this book and that law and that statute, etc.
There is no right greater than that of self defense. From that stems the right to own a gun. What is the problem with that?
-kabloie
Re:Is Id liable? (Score:1)
Shouldn't Stephen King & his publisher(s) also be brought into the suit for this book?
Coverage on CSPAN (Score:5)
It seems like Congress almost "gets it" as far as this. They're talking mainly about after-school programs for the kids to have a place to go to after school. And, other such things.
It seems like the role of culture and games and such isn't seen as something that should be controlled, at least in these hearings. There was some talk of gun control and other such issues, however.
Hopefully, things won't progress to the point where they start trying to control popular culture due to the misdeeds of a few. Then again, laws like that go along the same lines as drug laws, and we have drug laws in this country which have contributed to the United States having more prisoners per capita than any other country except South Africa, yet our crime rate is sky-high. I think that a figure I saw shows that there are more heroin users per capita in Baltimore than in Amsterdam.
I think the biggest problem is that people are not willing to take responsibility for their actions. We need to do things that attack the problem at hand. Parents need to take more responsibility for their children. Parents need to talk to their children.
Feel-good approaches like trying to regulate popular culture, picking kids out that wear trenchcoats, etc., whatever it is, will only backfire.
Re:Coverage on CSPAN : reply from amsterdam (Score:1)
Shooters have passed the point of responsibility, they even passed the moment of self-reflection and self control. The problem is in the selves.
This year's shootings are the result of tens of years of mis-everything. Don't expect laws and repression to solve this.
Re:Forget Littleton, the burning issue of the day (Score:1)
Overrated hype-bandit.
food chain (Score:1)
Re:Asking the wrong question... (Score:2)
Millions of years? Millions of tears! (Score:2)
OTOH, by actually counting the Carbon 12/14 atoms instead of dealing with them en-masse, nothing is lost (well, three nothings, to be more exact). 5kyo or 5Myo? Your call. (-:
My own view is that it's got zippo to do with hunting instincts and lots to do with the erosion of family bonds. Put people in a mechanical system (daycare to school to factory/cubefarm to prison to cemetary, always lined up, always regimented, always forced "by circumstances", (until last one) always watch clock), where they've go nobody to turn to except others who also don't know and need help, and explosions like these are inevitable. Keep mums and dads always at work, children always separate at school, dilute the remaining time with television and sports, and what time is left for nurture? For building of character, stability, confidence, courage, reasoning, personality?
If you want instinct, subcultures like Goths etc might be an instinctive reaction against attempts to force each person to be one cabbage in a field of millions of identical cabbages - as Larsen's penguin cartoon put it, "I've just gotta be meeee!" Long live freedom, particularly of association and expression! It's what the USA was built on, and it's what is being stolen from you in the biggest chunks right now.
Re:Obnoxious Politicians (Score:2)
Not necessarily. We might have some upper middle classers become lower middle class folks for one generation, but better raised, better educated kids will do better in the long run. Think how far some of these kids would have gotten if they had encouragement and support from their parents!
It may not be solely the parent's job, but it is certainly the parent's responsibility. The parents chose to have the child; they must accept the responsibility that goes with it, even if that means not working 12 hour days to get a partnership, not going golfing on weekends, and not getting together with your buddies for beer.
Re:Obnoxious Politicians (Score:2)
With a lot of too-young parents, this happens -- the grandparents end up raising the grandkids because the parents are too immature and financially unprepared for the job. In this case, I don't doubt it shortens the grandparents' lifespans. At the very least, it robs them of their well-deserved "golden years" wherein they should be able to at least work for their own interests, and at best retire in luxury.
The other scenario, however, is when you have responsible parents, but the grandparents are involved, assisting the parents and adding to the education and experiences of the grandchildren. In this situation, not only is it extremely beneficial for the grandkids, it's good for the grandparents as well. The get the revitalization that comes with interacting with youth, without having to give up their own lives.
I have seen both situations personally, and the former is definitely cause for sadness. The latter, however, is cause for great joy.
My niece spends a lot of time with my father and has learned to be tolerant of and helpful to people with disabilities, has come to appreciate classical music, and has found a friend who is always willing to play a game or read a story.
My father, on the other hand, has found a friend who plays games he can understand, doesn't mind that he doesn't walk so fast, can always make him laugh. He enjoys sharing what he knows and enjoys with a new generation.
So yes, getting grandparents (and others) involved in the raising of children is an excellent idea and benefits everyone, but it does not and should not in any way reduce the responsibility of the parents from raising their children.
Re:Shootings have gone down (Score:3)
Okay, compare the US to, say, Yugoslavia and the rest of that area. Or Northern Ireland. Or Rwanda. Or Israel/Palestine/Etc. Or...
Sure, there are countries where there are less murders than the US. (I hear Singapore is very clean, too.) And there are countries where there are a lot more.
I think in the US, we like our killing on a retail level; elsewhere wholesale deaths seem more popular.
The school shootings and such here in the US may indeed be a strictly American phenomenon, but that doesn't make the US an inherently Bad Place. In fact, it doesn't really say anything about the US except that we have a problem with our kids and parents and schools.
Every country has its problems. In some places they kill you in huge groups because of your ethnicity. In others, they control what you can watch on TV. In the US, we don't take care of our kids well enough.
We've got a problem, but it's solvable, if only we can get people to focus on what the problem is. And, to bring this back on topic, gory video games are not the problem.
Shootings have gone down (Score:5)
Just as there are a lot of gun owners who don't rob liquor stores, similarly most game players don't kill people in real life.
The problems that caused the Littleton and other shootings are the same as they've been for ages -- intolerance, parental incompetence, lack of emphasis on the importance of education.
Our society needs to realize that our children's education is like your rent payment -- it's not something you get around to if you have some extra money after buying fancy clothes; it's your number one priority -- and that being a parent is a full-time responsibility, more important than your hobbies, your friends, even your career. If you're not willing to give up all that, don't have kids. Besides, condoms are a heck of a lot cheaper.
I'd much rather see kids play Quake after school (Score:4)
Gaming is as mentally rewarding as any physical sport, I'd wager, and costs a lot less for equipment - especially since the computers can be reused for other purposes during the day.
I say let the geeks be given a "sport" all their own.
Re:Obnoxious Politicians (Score:2)
I fail to see how the "very poor" could have children if that was one of the "requirements." Why would poor people have "lots of time" to spend with them? They should be working and improving their financial situation so that one parent could stay home before they decide to have kids.
If people are that irresponsible to have kids before they can take care of them responsibly, we can't really count on them to raise them appropriately, can we?
That'd Balkanize society even more than it already is... I thought the goal was to get the middle class to expand, not shrink!
That's a common mis-conception. America society and American culture does not have as one of it's key concepts that everyone has a "right" to be middle class. As far as the "rights" that are due every citizen, it is the fundamental right to pursue their own fortune and not be kept back by government or other forces. If someone is a bum and does not want to work, makes "wrong" life decisions constantly, and is irresponsible, they can rot in a gutter for all I care. If someone wants to work, learns from their bad decisions, and tries to be responsible, then I'd be glad to help them out.
With that said, I think we should do everything we can to ensure that everyone has an equal chance to excel. What I get ticked off at is that people take our money in the form of taxes and spend it on useless people. If people want to perform private charity, that's fine, but the government shouldn't be in the business of redistributing wealth.
Western culture as practiced in the USA is also flawed in that we think that raising kids is the parents' (and only the parents') job.
It is the parents sole responsibility for raising their kids. I believe a lot of the problems we see now is because baby boomer parents, who's kids are in high school now, tried to place some of the responsibility on others.
Raising a kid demands lots of adults participating, and before state-sponsored education, that meant aunts/uncles/grandparents.
Well, that's true, but it doesn't change the fact that it's the parents responsibility to make sure their kids get the proper attention. Both from themselves and other adults who are involved in their education.
Now, it means teachers. (Does that scare you? It scares me.)
Absolutely, that's why my wife and I decided to home-school our son. I attended private (Catholic) school, but I'm begining to wonder if even that is safe enough. And I'm not referring to just physical safety. When I was leaving school, I noticed that a lot of the brothers and sisters at my school were being replaced by "normal" teachers. I believe this has the potential to make the Catholic schools no better than public as far as the level of education.
Part of the major reason for the situation we are in, IMHO, is the removal of authority by teachers and school administration. Now-a-days, teachers and admins are scared that they will get sued and/or fired if they even try to correct a kid doing wrong in their class. How can you expect teachers to teach if they can not correct?
Correlation does not equal Causation (Score:2)
Correlation is not causation.
The mere fact that some of these kids played Quake-like games does not lead, even logically, to a conclusion that Quake-like
games lead them to kill.
Of the millions of kids who play these games, how many have killed? Falling back on simple statistics, and not even bothering
with common sense, it should be clear that your position doesn't hold water.
Unfortunately, few people know that you can twist statistics to show any desireable result. Let's not concentrate on a far-fetched, illogical, opinion and focus on the facts. Doom and games like it may have an effect on mentally disturbed children. But, it was not a "root cause" of the incident.
Ask some questions we know the answer to:
1) Did the parents know their kids were mentally disturbed? It appears so, as it has been reported that one of the kids was on a psychological mood-altering drug.
2) Did the parents know their kids were making bombs in the garage? Don't know if they did, but shouldn't they have? If they knew they could have prevented this.
3) Did the parents know their kids were in posession of the semi-auto pistol? Why not? Where did the kids keep it? Where did they get the money to buy it (I assume it wasn't cheap)? If they knew, they could have prevented it. If they didn't, why not? The knew their kid was having mental problems. Why weren't they keeping closer check on them?
I don't think anyone is closing their mind to see whether or not a thing is possible. I think we all did consider it. I personally believe that Doom like games can have an effect on mentally disturbed kids, and I would think that others would agree. However, the "solution" is not to ban these types of games to anyone under 18. Parents should know whether their kids are mentally disturbed or not. If they are, they should take greater control of the situation.
No law is needed to allow parents to "ban" these types of games from their kids if they are mentally disturbed - or for any other reason. They can also decide that the kids don't get a car, can't go out, don't watch TV, don't have access to the computer, etc. Yes, these measures may seem draconian to some (especially those mis-guided parents who want to be their kids best friend instead of a guiding authority figure), and I don't advocate them in general, but for a mentally disturbed kid it may be appropriate.
David Grossman (Score:2)
He wrote an article in August 1998. You can see it at http://www2.christianity.net/ct/8T9 /8T9030.html [christianity.net].
Re:Obnoxious Politicians (Score:2)
By involving them I believe their health and lifespan improves, as well as the attention and parenting the kids need, they get. Imagine all that exercise the older folks would get, and all the rich cultural exposure the kids get.
I'm sure other cultures do similar things, Latino, Black, other Asian cultures.
I wonder if there are any statistics for psychopathic rampages across race/culture...
I'm currently biased because of the news to think only white people commit these kinds of sociopathic crimes, but I'm sure your fair share of Chinese, Black, and Latino criminals exist. I wonder if adjusted for income, however, if the white yuppie culture still has the most problems?
-AS
You CAN say video game violence has NO effect (Score:2)
Outlyer is right; to show a correlation between two events like high school shootings and people who play DooM requires one to go the other way. Not only should one examine if people who go on rampages play DooM, do people who play DooM go on shooting rampages?
Overwhelmingly, the answer is no. For the same reason one could correlate drinking Coca Cola with people who go on shooting sprees. Or something equivalent, like milk or orange juice.
"Everyone one of these kids drank milk and had their cereal with milk. We think, therefore, that milk is responsible for these tragic shootings, and are seeking to bar advertisments, commercials, and access to milk."
Likewise, these teen shooters played DooM. So what? Millions of other kids play DooM and don't go shooting people either. I'm not arguing games don't influence people, but I'm saying there must be something of higher correlation because of the fact that these millions of kids can play Quake or DooM and not kill people, while these handful of teen gunmen did. Was it their bread? Their sodas? Their games? Why is the video game more culpable than the additives in their water, or genetic imbalances, or social problems, or family issues? Because games are loud, easily targetted, and easy to control, compared to families or high schools or even diet.
-AS
Re:Obnoxious Politicians (Score:2)
The grandparents are actively involved with the parents and the grandchildren. In your situation, if the grandparents raise the grandchildren, it just offsets the responsibilities by one generation such that the parents will have to deal with their grandchildren instead of their own children. This fails to work because at that age the grandparents, and later the parents, won't have the energy or youth to do so properly...
The situation I speak of is one in which the parents don't just kick out the children at the age of 18 and let them fend for themselves; rather, a strong bond remains despite leaving for college and leaving for work, and grandparents help with the grandchildren without replacing the parents. The social return is that the parents help care for both the grandparents and their own children simultaneously.
It's not an issue about needing assistence from grandparents, its about overlapping the parental cycles of two generations, instead of one; as a parent, I'll raise my kids, and then help when they have their own kids/my grandkids. They in turn provide for me because I will want to retire and pursue other livelihoods, like gardening or sculpture or photography, even as I help watch over their kids. When I am gone, my children will help watch over their own grandkids while pursuing their own second childhoods, as their children enter into the workforce etc.
It works, but it requires parents being able to live/deal with their own kids past the college/working age. Most of my friends have such dysfunctional relationships that I wouldn't be surprised if they only ever saw their parents on Christmas, once a year, if at all.
-AS
Re:Obnoxious Politicians (Score:2)
This is very much a cultural issue. It is not the case in Chinese, and I think Latino and Black families, that it is *only* the parent's sole responsibility for raising kids. It is the *family's* responsibility, including elder siblings, grand parents, aunts and uncles, etc, though with decreasing responsibility and attention according to separation from the children.
With that said, I think we should do everything we can to ensure that everyone has an equal chance to excel. What I get ticked off at is that people take our money in the form of taxes and spend it on useless people. If people want to perform private charity, that's fine, but the government shouldn't be in the business of redistributing wealth.
There is some discussion on this point in economic circles, because the government is positioned exactly right to redistribute wealth. Public schools, insurance, health care systems, libraries, hospitals, emergency services, etc. are all examples of redistribution of wealth, though admittedly via provision of services to the citizen and not through welfare checks or monies.
It is a delicate issue, what the government is/should be responsible for, what an individual should be responsible for, and where the overlap/division occurs.
-AS
Re:You CAN say video game violence has NO effect (Score:2)
If the Littleton duo, for example, daily partook of Big Macs at McDonalds, the exact same logic you use to point at Quake and Doom can be used to say eating at McDonalds causes violent behavior. Sure, millions eat it without killing people, but these two, who ate there frequently, also killed people... So there MUST be a correlation, and that correlation, by the same logic, is that Big Macs cause teens to go violent.
I don't doubt that games have some sort of effect. However, we cannot yet show what this effect is, either, whether crazy kids play more violent video games(which would actually mean that said video games can be used as an indicator for violent behavior, and by banning said games, we lose a valuable benchmarking tool on teens), or whether violent video games cause more violent kids. For the same reason we cannot rule out Wonderbread, Coke, or Big Macs, as causes for teen violence. Who knows, too much fat, or cholesterol, beef, or saffron vegetable oil could lead to the chemical imbalances that leads to tragedy!
-AS
Re:You can't say movie/TV violence has NO effect.. (Score:2)
I wish I knew what you're talking about. Your speech/grammar is very unclear, so I don't know what it is you agree/disagree on. For example...
It's not basic human nature to indulge in killing?
I agree on that. What I disagree on is that thus far the games Doom and Quake, as oft mentioned, are not examples of graphic killing. They are pixelated, blurry, symbolic, and iconic representations of death. There is no pain, no screams, no suffering, no smell, no blood. Perhaps those who commit violent acts cannot tell the difference, in which case then there is a very big problem. For the rest of humanity who play and watch these things, it is just a game, and in no way representative of reality. It is more realistic than arcade games of yesteryear, but it still is very shallow and unrealistic as well.
We *can* make it more realistic, but again, I don't think psychoes would respond to realistic games becuase then they'd also have to deal with such realisms as fatigue, management of health and strength, caution, and survival issues.
These kids have problems if they cannot distinguish reality from games. Even if we take away their games, their guns, their bombs, they would still have problems. A big issue is, without games, how else would they manifest their problems? Games are indeed simulations of reality, to some extent, but much cleaned up and sanitized, and as such can be useful to tell parents and involved adults that these kids have problems. If little Johnny fixates too much in a game in running every pedastrian over, rather than winning the race, Father should be able to see this when he plays with Johnny. If he isn't playing with Johnny, then there is half the problem, isn't it?
-AS
Re:You can't say movie/TV violence has NO effect.. (Score:2)
the thought of blowing someone away is a thought NO kid should ever have.
The problem still isn't video games; take away the video games, the media, the television, the sensationalism, and the kid is still psychologically messed up, still having problems. The fact that they draw from these sources isn't the problem, and taking it away just hides some obvious clues that the kid has problems. A stable person can play all these games and watch all these movies and not be driven to murder, and proof exists that millions do partake without actually commiting violence. If there are no violent video games as positive and negative examples, then the kid just draws examples from somewhere else: books, fairy tales, playground bully's, nightmares, horror stories, etc.
I agree that kids should not be thinking about blowing people away. I don't think government intervention with regards to video games solves anything. Parents and adults involved with the children still need to observe and care for them, still need to guide them for any effect to take place.
-AS
Re:You can't say movie/TV violence has NO effect.. (Score:2)
Stop entertainment, progress, and media? US culture thrives on entertainment and technology. The point isn't to expose them to violence; I would argue very strongly that games like Quake and Doom are not violent, as compared to something like football or hockey. Most video games are very clean and sanitized, and even FPS games are still so abstract that I would argue they are still better indicators than inducers of violent tendencies.
Do you really believe that for the protection of 1 or 2 all people should be protected/restricted from video games? That is exactly the whole point of individual responsibility, that parents and families decide and control, and not powerful entities like government and lawmaking institutions. You'd remove cars from society for the threat they pose, due to accidents? You'd remove alcohol as a recreational drink because of the few who abuse it? You'd take away personal choice and control and responsibility, to force them to comply and be safe?
That is so not American. That is so not right. When do people grow up, if everything is always chosen and controlled for them?
I'd argue every generation, every human, has outlets and sources of violence. I really don't believe that video games are any more violent than said football games or hockey games. I believe if you think 'violent' movies and video games should be removed, so too should football, hockey, soccer, water polo, baseball, or many other activites we have taken into US culture.
I want to play games as entertainment. I don't believe in violence or in hurting others. I don't believe video games are 'violent'; you'll have to convince me of that, I think.
-AS
Re:You CAN say video game violence has NO effect (Score:2)
Do you want to know how/why I got desensitized to violence? Endless bullying on schoolyards while I was a kid, being picked at, yelled at, called racial epithets, at being hit and attacked without a teacher there to stop it.
Violence, and no one to stop it, control it, or prevent it, desensitizes kids to violence. I am no longer afraid to hurt people. If I needed to defend myself, I would not be held back by a fear of killing the other. Its me, or its them, and this was not taught to me by video games... I was like this before Quake, before Wolfenstein. It was the social structure of schoolyard playgrounds.
You tell me what can solve that, as taking away my games just leaves me idle, and idle hands...
-AS
Re:You CAN say video game violence has NO effect (Score:2)
I would be cautious at saying "Games like drugs can be addictive. Someone should stop it, control it, or prevent it. The government can ban it from the kids under 18."
Since when has it been shown that games are addictive? They are pleasurable, sure, they are fun, they are enjoyable; but then so is anything else in life. I assume you only mean violent games; but even then, when has censorship and government intervention solved any social ills? Why should the government control anyone's ability to do something like play video games? It is the realm of the parent, the adult, the guardian to do so, and not the government, else we would also have the government controlling what we watch on TV because it's 'dangerous', what movies we can see, what news we can read, what activities we can partake in... You know, Big Brother? The United States culture is not supposed to be about government regulation and control, but about personal freedom and responsibility, no?
I'd think guns would be a better target than games, btw, by not allowing them in the country, but the guns rights activists are just as right; most people own and use guns without going on rampages. Those who do suffer from problems, and even without the guns, they would still suffer from problems, and need to be dealt with rather than dealing with the tools.
I'm hoping you don't seriously advocate government control and intervention, or else they would also creep into anything subversive, dangerous, and inappropriate, and who has the right or power to decide what is right and wrong?
No one does.
-AS
Re:You CAN say video game violence has NO effect (Score:2)
We can't say that black trenchcoats, Quake, milk, or tv caused or didn't cause these kids to go on a shooting spree.
We can say that these kids who shot people wore black trenchcoats, played Quake, DooM, watched movies like the Matrix, drank milk, ate McDonalds, and wore Hanes underwear. These are all 'facts', but these are not causes. We cannot pinpoint causes.
The problem is that some people assume correlation equals causation. These killers played Quake. They played Doom. They wore black trenchcoats. Those must be reasons.
The logic can be extended; they also drank milk and Coke, wore Hanes, ate Chiquita banannas, and used Caress body wash. These too are just as likely reasons as anything else. Maybe they were allergic, or chemically unbalanced, or whatnot.
Millions of people do all of the same things these teens did, and fail to shoot people. This would seem to indicate that these things are not the cause, per se, though they may have helped.
I personally don't think Quake causes people to kill. I also don't think video game violence is, well, violent. I think football and hockey is violent. I think movies like Aliens is violent. I think being exposed to grade school schoolyard bullies is violent. Video games are, after all, just games, and are symbolic, stylized, sanitized, and mostly, non-violent.
Some games push it; Grand Theft Auto, for example, or Kingpin, or Camaggedon.
But mostly, games are played for fun, entertainment, and enjoyment.
-AS
Re:You CAN say video game violence has NO effect (Score:2)
People are without morales, they are brutes, they are ignorant, yadda yadda...
That has always been the case, no? All throughout history, none of this has changed. Today one can use as examples countries in which the govt controls the media, and countries where this does not happen, and compare. The US vs China vs England vs Singapore, etc.
I'm not so convinced we want to live in a country like China or Singapore, for example.
I'm not sure why you believe regulation and control works, because you fail to mention enforcement. How is it enforced? Underage drinking still occurs, illegal possession of firearms still occur, illegal drug use and possession occurs, and all of these are technically not allowed by our legal system. How would adding video games to this list help anything except stunt our computer industry? The growth and spread of video games is very much selling computers and performance, for example, and if we reduce the games available, we reduce the need for consumers to buy powerful computers and the need for manufacturers to produce powerful computers.
Again you mention Quake as violent and addictive. This is a fundamental difference of opinion, I think. I would have to argue that if Quake were violent, it would trigger the same physiological response that violent behavior causes, and I don't know anyone who has actually triggered their fight/flight response via Quake, or adrenaline rushes, or endorphine rushes.
However, even a good session or rollerblading can trigger those responses, so even if Quake could trigger adrenaline and endorphin, it wouldn't necessarily be indicative of any more violence than rollerblading.
What does it mean to say a game is violent?
What does it mean that a game has destructive potential to young minds? Reading the wrong books(existentialist, nihlistic, or even darkly pessimistic works) would be destructive to young minds, but prolly in a different way.
The question remains: what kind of intervention can the government effectively accomplish? What would be the benefits? The side effects? The negative externalities? I would rather not have government intervention in the US; a country for the people by the people, a government created as a minor nuisance only for the benefit of the populace and not for it's detriment. If a government can control media content, that seems only a step away from a government that can control opinion and thought.
-AS
Re:You can't say movie/TV violence has NO effect.. (Score:2)
Teamwork, too!
What is the violence? It is no more violent than a game of paintball or laser tag. Do you count those as violent games? Quake is just a whole bunch cheaper and a whole bunch less stressful on my body than running around through bushes and buildings and leaping over ravines(though in its own way, those are fun too)
I strongly do not believe Quake's primary component is violence.
If it were, I would be disgusted by it, just as I would be disturbed by real life violence.
Instead, I see it as a game; it's fake, it's symbolic, it's representative, but not of violence.
-AS
Re:You can't say movie/TV violence has NO effect.. (Score:2)
Well duh; anything I say that disagrees with your own point or belief is rationalization. I am trying to justify it, then it is rationalization; I am not trying to justify anything, this is how the game plays.
You mention heart pumping aggressivness; what aggression. I would play *very* poorly if I were aggressive and angry. If I wanted to kill someone, getting emotional about it would only cloud my abilities and reactions, from experience with violent circumstances.
You make some very broad and general accusations, that paintball and wargames are no different, that adrenaline is somehow violent.
Study some history, okay? Our society is so much less violent now than it ever has, like say a hundred years ago, or in other cultures across oceans, like Chinese cultures, or Western European cultures.
Death and killing is not an aspect of daily life; in those worlds, life was cheap and death was everywhere, disease, bandits, thieves, child birth, etc. I almost believe that we are so peaceful and non-violent because we have channled much of our natural aggressive tendencies into sports, video games, movies, and television, instead of acting it out. This is only my opinion and hypothesis, but recall the wild west, it's lawlessness, or even current day Kosovo, the Balkan states, ethic cleansing within the Czech republics, the government brutalities of the Chinese governments and such.
We are so lucky to live in such a sanitary and clean country!
-AS
Re:You can't say movie/TV violence has NO effect.. (Score:2)
I obviously can't email you =)
Our country, our generation, has a lower crime, murder, and violent crime record now than it has in the last 6 years... It has been dropping according to FBI and government statistics.
I ignore your Bible and its prophecies. I believe in brotherhood, love, and nonviolence, but not in God. At least not yet.
Well, good luck with your life then.
-AS
Games DON'T cause violence shootings... (Score:3)
Teen violence is very difficult to pin down and solve. I'm sure that video games may have played some part, but I'm also convinced that even without video games these kids had problems. Couple this with easy access to guns and lack of adult intervention in their life, and tragedies are just ready to happen.
Why do I say games CAN'T cause violence? It's a two way analysis. If these teen shooters played DooM and Quake, reverse the situation. How many people play DooM and Quake, and still don't go out to shoot people?
Id's website brags of 2 million copies of DooM, so at least 2 million people relish digital violence, but only a handful of people actually go out and shoot their teen aged peers because of this.
A stronger example could be said that these teen killers drank Coca Cola, or ate Wonderbread, or drank Minute Maid orange juice, or used Kleenex brand tissues, or partook of Pizza Hut pizzas, or something else as inane as video games, and blame the violence on these objects. For the same reason, it washes out, millions more partake and don't go on shooting sprees.
If (a very big if) games do contribute to violent tendencies, then we have a very big problem as over 2 million people play these games. One might as well ban movies, for all the violent scenes they express, or television, for all the violence on the boob tube, and comic books, and all other entertainment media that uses visceral reactions to grab the attention of consumers.
If these troubled souls didn't have Quake or DooM, would they still go out and shoot people?
Why not?
-AS
I know I'm just a moron, but can I disagree? (Score:2)
Examine or so-called war on drugs. These are some of the strictest laws around, but somehow they just aren't making people stop taking or selling drugs. Hmm. And why do you suppose that is? Is it because the laws of supply and demand have precedence over the laws of crime and punishment, at least in the minds of the general populace?
Here's my point: you can make any law you like, but unless the vast, overwhellming majority supports that law, it will be unsuccessful, largely unenforcable, and eventually it will be ignored. The people will have what the people want, regardless of any efforts, benign or otherwise, to stop it.
I'm not saying we should just roll over and give up. But use your head. If the shooters at Columbine would have not used guns and instead spent their time making sure all their bombs went off, the loss of life would have been much greater. Would we then be talking more about making the Internet illegal, or making propane illegal, or having to be 21 to purchase roofing nails? No, probably we wouldn't, because those ideas sound ridiculous. We'd be focusing on the reasons behind the violence, rather than the violence itself. Violence is not a cause, it is an effect.
Am I being to subtle, or are you understanding my argument? If you don't agree with everything I'm saying it must be because of the incredible complexity of my argument and your difficulty in comprehending my vastly superior intellect.
Getting back to the point, there are something like 50 million copies of the Doom and Quake games out there, and two shooters.
What the media and parents seem to ignore is that out of the 50,000,000 who play these violent, bloody games two of them went crazy. That's what, .00000004%?
Re:Shootings have gone down (Score:2)
Guns are not the problem. They may or may not exacerbate the problem, but I'd rather have an armed populace and take my chances with some nutjob blowing my head off than live in Kosovo (whose populace was disarmed shortly before the region exploded).
Re:The problem with that argument (Score:2)
Umm, the Jews and Romanys were not being attacked by some sort of redneck gang or even an unruly militia. They were rounded up in probably one of the most efficient and well planned military operation by the best disciplined army ever to walk the earth. Grampa jew owning a shotgun would not have helped them, if anything it would have made that family's suffering worse. Even some sort of united militia would not have lasted 10 days against an army that conquered Poland/Belgium/Holland in a matter of weeks (they are on a map, go look it up).
The ignorance of many Americans (by no means all though) to European history and politics is amazing (see their attitude towards the current troubles in Northern Ireland). The Internet would be a nicer place for everyone if you would keep your mouth shut about things you knew nothing about.
--
Economy (Score:2)
Complex problems call for fuzzy logic (Score:4)
Do violent games promote the school shootings? Sort of.
Does the current parenting and daycare situation promote the school shootings? Sort of.
Do other factors promote the school shootings? Sort of.
Wimpy answers, aren't they? But I think that they're more correct than what the media has been selling us. People are arguing over yes/no answers to all of these questions. Binary reasoning, it does or it doesn't. Binary reasoning doesn't apply here.
School shootings are a complex problem, and require a complex diagnosis. For most school shootings (or other violent sociopathic events), there are a host of factors that lead to it. Pardon the phrase, but most slashdotters know what I mean: there is no magic bullet. We have to identify the many factors and deal with them accordingly, to reduce the outbreaks.
Guns. The easier the access to guns is, the easier it is to kill people. Giving a sociopath access to a gun makes it easier for them to commit their crimes. Denying access will make it harder, but not impossible; the most desperate will always be able to get guns, and there are certainly ways to kill without guns.
OTOH, guns can be used to teach responsibility. It used to be that you weren't respectable if you didn't carry a gun. Like a car, a motorcycle, or even a pair of alpine skis, however, you must learn how to responsibly use it. This is something that should be taught in grade school, whether people own guns or not. Kids must understand that guns can kill, and that killed people don't come back. Little kids must be able to recognize guns, not to touch them, and to get a grownup to take an unattended gun.
How many of us had driving school and were forced to watch the associated splatter film? That sobers you up. It makes it a lot harder for you to take a car, or a life, lightly. It should be the same with guns.
Do guns cause school shootings? Sort of. There is a correlation, but not a high one.
Games and Media. I lump these together because a game is simply an interactive medium. Here, we show "fun" violence, and people associate violence with fun. Does this desensitize people to killing? My money says that it does. It doesn't do so very effectively. Military boot camp is built to desensitize civilians in the effort to make them soldiers. If Quake did that well enough to make most players killers, the military would just use Quake for its boot camp; it's cheaper.
Media violence desensitizes people a little bit, so those that were on the edge may go over the edge.
Another problem with media violence is that it glorifies unrealistic violence. On TV, someone get hit by a bullet and a little red spot shows up. In Quake or Doom, you can take multiple hits without going down, then recharge your health and armor. The fact is, if you think in terms of this, violence is fun.
Science fiction author and Vietnam combat veteran Joe Haldeman once railed about this. He contended that the media isn't violent enough. He figured that, when you show somebody hit with multiple rounds from a high-caliber weapon, you should show the full grotesque effects of that. IMHO, it is sad that the one bit of violence that television will not show is real, stomach-churning death. Yes, it's horrible. Killing is horrible, and only to be done in the most extreme or circumstances.
Do violent media and games cause school killings? Sort of. I think that there is a correlation, but not a high one.
Parenting. I'll admit, this is my personal "silver bullet". Minors are to be watched. Minors are not fully responsible people; that is why there are parents. Parents are responsible for the welfare of their children, and this implies their psychological well-being.
Some parents take this responsibility more seriously than others. Some parents are almost strangers to their children. Some parents think that "this sort of thing happens to other peoples' kids". Parents must be involved in their kids' lives, and must understand warning signs of impending insanity. I'll say it: All parents should learn how to be parents. Parenting in a natural setting is instinctive. Instincts will not prepare people for parenting in today's artificial settings; that's why we have books, schools, and web sites. If you're not willing to learn how to be a good parent, you should give your children to somebody who is. End of story.
Parents cannot do the job alone, either. That's why we have schools, friends, extracurricular kids' clubs. They all can help. They all are responsible to help, and to learn how to do it as above. But they cannot do the job themselves.
The same people who rail about not trusting the government (I certainly don't trust them) will ship them to government schools for thirteen years and expect the school to make a proper adult out of those children. This is patently stupid.
Parents are the first and last line of defense. They are the first line because they can be the primary influence on the values their children have. They are the last line of defense because they can see their kids slipping into insanity, and call upon resources (school guidance councilers, social workers, clergy, somebody) for help.
Sure, your best parenting efforts won't keep somebody else's kid from flipping their lid. But you can set an example, and demand similar responsibility from other parents.
Does parenting cause school shootings? Sort of. There is a correlation (IMHO bigger than the two above), but it is not the only factor.
Conclusion. These are the three factors that I see. I am sure that others can come up with a half a dozen more. For all I know, there might be a vitamin deficiency problem. I would love to hear more factors.
This is a many factored problem, and requires a many factored solution. We need to be honest. Saying that something is a factor is not saying that it turns all kids into psychopaths, and it isn't saying that the government should move in and control it. You don't need to separate into rabid attackers of an idea and rabid defenders of it; the answer often lies in the middle. I don't think that the government can control this problem. You can, and I can. Let's find the problems, scout out the solutions, and apply them across the board.
Re:millions of years? (Score:2)
Humans, per se, have not been hunters for millions of years, if you define 'human' as homo sapiens sapiens and believe the current archeological/anthropological theories. However, unless one does not acept *any* modern theories, humans are the latest in a very, very long line of hunters.
(Cue monologue...)
More than that, humans are remarkably violent, far more so than other primates. (Feel free to call me on this, but I'm speaking of both scale and savagry.) More violent, in fact, than any other species that comes to mind. I don't think that this should be overlooked; while you cannot argue that continuous war is the natural state of humanity, the idea that it is somehow unnatural is even more absurd. Feel free to disagree--I have in the past--but I believe that humans are the result of hundreds of millions of years of evolution that, perhaps as a side effect, has made us possibly the most violent, destructive and dangerous species known. Then add to that the fact that modern man is so complex psychologically and socially, both as a species and as individuals, that the use of that power is unpredictable and often bears the marks of insanity. To expect this to all go away just because we have nice homes and the Internet is beyond absurd.
(I should point out that I am looking at this situation as more a Romantic that sociologist, and I must admit some pride in the destructive power of mankind. I doubt many other people will agree with my views; they could and quite possibly are correct. Looking over the preceeding paragraph, I see quite a bit of my own Existensial leanings, and even more of Dionysus, so feel free to tear my argument to shreds.)
Let's look at who really plays Quake... (Score:4)
If you take into account all the different FPS games out there - doom, quake, etc - then there can't be too many people out there who haven't played one of these games. I can't think of a single person I know with a computer who doesn't have an FSP installed on their box.
What the media fails to do is finish the facts. They're quick to point out the some gun wielding lunatic has quake installed on his computer at home and this must have been a major influence in the whole situation, but they never point out that almost everyone's got quake (or similar) installed on their computers and not everyone falls into the gun wielding lunatic category.
Last night on the news (Score:5)
Oh yeah, I think there was something about yet another punk shooting up yet another school. What does that make since the huge media hype of Littleton? Three, four? I don't really know for sure since I can't watch the news too often (too depressing). I would bet that most of them wouldn't have done it if they didn't figure they'd make the national news or CNN.
At times in this article the author seemed to be saying, "Look, these guys aren't monsters." Then at other times the author seemed to be saying, "They aren't monsters, but they make games that make people kill other people." Romero and Carmack and the games they make aren't the monsters here. The idea that an FPS can teach you how to kill a person is ridiculous. They DO teach you how to point at something, I'll give ya that (assuming you haven't already figured that part out after 14 years on the planet). The one kid said, "I don't even know how to load a gun." If you ask me, that says everything that should need to be said about the issue of games teaching kids how to kill.
I agree 100%. (Score:2)
Exactly. Why are they complaining about video games that have only been around since the 70s, while this is a problem that is human nature. It's like that "Boycott Violence" web page that I found. Yeah, let's boycott the human mind. Let's boycott testosterone. DOWN WITH PUBERTY! Let's get everyone castrated!
I have been playing games since I was 5 years old. I started programming when I was 8. I first played DOOM at 9. I am now 13, and I am getting great grades, I have never touched a gun, but I have gone on shooting rampages in the labs in Half-Life. I like seeing the poor scientists getting their brains blown out. But it still horrifies me when a school shooting occurs. Most of it is because of the loss of life, but some of it is the media having an influence on people, and turning the USA's gaming control from simple ratings to Germany-like outright bans.
I've said it before and I'll say it again.... (Score:5)
Look elsewhere for the root cause people......
Forget Littleton, the burning issue of the day is: (Score:3)
Re:Asking the wrong question... (Score:2)
Liable? Hell no! (Score:3)
Computer games are the least expensive way to get the feeling of blowing another person away--checked paintball/lasertag prices lately? As such, they're going to be the choice of plenty of kids. Some of those kids will be psychos. When/if one of these psychos snaps, we look for a semi-large corporation with lots of $ to take the blame.
What can I say? It seems to be the American way--justice by lawsuit. Computer games are a contributing factor here, just as the Mir space station is a contributing factor to the tides.
And another thought: Many folks on /. and elsewhere have been saying either explicitly or between the lines "Structures existing within the US school system killed the Columbine kids." Has anyone thought of suing the schools?
"Do these games show violence in a positive, approving way? Yes. Is the player rewarded for blowing his virtual opponents away? Of course. Do these games cause violence? Well, that's hard to prove..."
--Bill Watterson, "Calvin and Hobbes", paraphrased from "TV" to "games"
Hind sight always seems right..NOT! (Score:3)
After the littleton thing eveyone's an expert on why teenagers shoot. Everyone knows that it is the violent movies, video games and so on that causes our teenages to shoot.
Umm... So much for your white american views..
What i want to point out is that for years now America has teen shooting in schools out of school at homes. But for so many years it has been a black African American problem or so the white polititcans think.
What's more it isn't it strange that many of these black teen shooters never touched Doom, quake or quake2 before they pick up a gun?
People will be people, forsight and hindsight are both colored by people's own belives and envioments. Never believe what people say about looking back being clearer and more objective. People still only see what they want to see.