Two More Politicians Claim Video Games Are The Real 'Problem'

from the who-needs-research-when-you've-got-baseless-conjecture dept

It's only been slightly over a week since the administration announced its plan to have the Center for Disease Control conduct a study on the link between video games and so-called “gun violence” and it's already looking as though the study won't be necessary. This isn't because anyone has taken a look at the evidence compiled already and decided that another look will likely be more of the same. Rather, it's looking like a thorough study would be ruled extraneous because many politicians have already decided the link between violence and video games is an unarguable fact.

Just last week, Connecticut senator Chris Murphy gave a speech in support of Sen. Dianne Feinstein's new gun control bill in which he dropped this somewhat mystifying statement:

“I think there’s a question as to whether he would have driven in his mother’s car in the first place if he didn’t have access to a weapon that he saw in video games that gave him a false sense of courage about what he could do that day.”

Beyond the confusing wording is a statement that Murphy inelegantly tries to frame as a “question:” Video games gave Lanza “the courage” to kill small children. The clumsy wording is Murphy's attempt to tie in the legislation he's supporting with his preconceived notion of the power violent video games supposedly have. Note the painful stretch that occurs in this phrase: “if he didn't have access to a weapon that he saw in a video game that gave him a false sense of courage.” These stated-as-fact thats are heavily reliant on a leading if, turning the whole sentence into a triumph of suggestive conjecture.

Taking it apart further, you get this phrase: “if he didn't have access to a weapon he saw in a video game.” That's the truly amazing section of the sentence. Murphy wants to ban “assault rifles” because they appear in video games? I seriously doubt that. He wants to ban them because he thinks the ban will prevent further violence. He very badly needs a second scapegoat because he knows his first scapegoat (assault rifles) might prove immune to his efforts. So, we get this tortured bit of logic that most certainly makes sense to Murphy, but falls apart under the slightest bit of examination.

Should the next step be to ban any weapons that appear in video games? Or should we put the cart before the horse (or perhaps behind the horse again?) and ban violent video games to prevent future would-be killers from somehow drawing the courage to pick up a matching, real-life weapon? Which should go first: the “access” or the video game? I think Murphy wants both, but since this is Feinstein's party, he has to settle for grafting on his gaming views with all the grace of an inept surgeon reattaching someone's severed limb… to someone else's chest.

Then there's Sen. Lamar Alexander. Rather than answer a direct question about gun control, he sidesteps it with an attack on video games:

Chuck Todd: “Can you envision a way of supporting the universal background checks bill?”

Lamar Alexander: “Chuck, I'm going to wait and see on all these bills. You know, I think video games is a bigger problems than guns because video game affect people, but the First Amendment limits what we can do about video games. The Second Amendment of the Constitution limits what we can do about guns.”

Alexander is correct about the what's protected by what amendment, but it's clear that he'd rather go after the First. It's nothing more than Alexander swapping out the topic he'd rather bury with one he'd rather push. Not a surprising move, but it's another politician who's already made up his mind on the link between crime and video games and who is going to advance this viewpoint whenever given the opportunity.

Politicians have long distrusted electronic entertainment, dating back to the 1940's, when New York City mayor Fiorello La Guardia ordered the destruction of several hundred pinball games, claiming they were “tainted with criminality” and “robbing” schoolkids of lunch money. As video games have grown in popularity and ubiquity, the moral panics and political scapegoating have kept pace, blaming this form of entertainment for everything from delinquency to lower grades to childhood obesity to murder.

While Obama's call for a study of the link between “violent media” and “gun violence” was very definitely a product of the current political climate, it was far more reasoned than the arguments being advanced by these politicians. Their minds are already made up and any information uncovered by the CDC study that fails to agree with their preconceptions will be disputed, distorted and ultimately ignored in order to tackle an opponent they think they can handle. These two don't appear to be confident they can push stricter gun control laws without suffering political damage, so they've brought along their own personal punching bag. Murphy's is a Plan B, should Feinstein's bill fail to make it through. Alexander's is a dodge, a soft underbelly to attack, far away from the more politically dangerous territory of gun control, but close enough to seem relevant.

Filed Under: , , , ,

Rate this comment as insightful
Rate this comment as funny
You have rated this comment as insightful
You have rated this comment as funny
Flag this comment as abusive/trolling/spam
You have flagged this comment
The first word has already been claimed
The last word has already been claimed
Insightful Lightbulb icon Funny Laughing icon Abusive/trolling/spam Flag icon Insightful badge Lightbulb icon Funny badge Laughing icon Comments icon

Comments on “Two More Politicians Claim Video Games Are The Real 'Problem'”

Subscribe: RSS Leave a comment
Mark Harrill (profile) says:

Problem Solved:

Based on Senator Murphy’s “logic”, I propose that we dictate that all video game makers replace all instances of any weapons with fruits and vegetables (banana rocket launcher anyone?). Once the video game weapons are fruits and vegetable people will find the courage to obtain said fruits and vegetables, thus increasing their health and helping to solve America’s obesity problem and boosting sales to farmers (especially the local farmers’ market which is an unregulated marketplace). Look, three problems solved with one small piece of legislation!

Ninja (profile) says:

Fiction meets reality. Cervantes certainly thought it was funny at the time…

Can we PLEASE make fact/evidence based assumptions here? I’m sure airplane crashes kill shitloads (200+ for a single crash!) so why aren’t we banning airplanes to help reduce deaths? Because, well, they are just a small portion and statistically irrelevant.

Rant: Maybe if they ban guns on video games we’ll stop having that many rehashes of 1st person shooters and get the much needed diversity?

LetumComplexo says:

Re: Response to: Ninja on Jan 31st, 2013 @ 7:27am

Actually, airplanes (the ones that carry 200+ people) very rarely go down. In fact, it’s an estimated 200 people in North America a year that die in a plane crash. Conversely it’s over 40,000 a year that die in automobile accidents. Look around for yourself and you’ll get some conflicting numbers, but it’s a generally accepted fact that it’s safer to fly than to drive.

Skeptical Cynic (profile) says:

So more uninformed people talking about thing they don't know anything about.

I really think that this is a simple case again of 2 things colliding. One political pandering and another of political blame shifting.

The first,Connecticut senator Chris Murphy trying to play to his political base with I am sure some push by the Obama administration for him to be a front man. Not going to jump in to the reasons that Democrats want to control guns but this is about pandering plain and simple.

The second, Sen. Lamar Alexander is trying to not come out and say he is pandering to his base by trying to blame shift. “Guns are not the problem, Violent Video Games are”

Either way it does not address the real issues in this country and instead just shows the pols in Washington have lost their ability to talk with facts and instead default to spin every time.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:2 Re:

In this game you should play the role of the ‘Governator’, which would resemble Arnold…

I’m sure they could work in lots of his great one-liners from over the years (parody is protected, right…).

“I’ll be back.”

“I let him go.”

I would buy copies for all my friends. It could be just like the sports games that change rosters and lineups as new players show up and teams are re-arranged.

Marketing dweeb: “And now the new lineup of Political Targets..”
Legal Division: “You can’t call them targets, that’s not appropriate.”
Marketing dweeb: “And now the new lineup of Political Distributed Ammunition Models who will look great wearing this years ammunition lineup…”

Hephaestus (profile) says:

Re: Re:

I can picture it now …

For weapons they could carry a copy of the 10 pound health care act. The really evil ones would carry a copy of the federal budget which they would throw at you. The RIAA and MPAA funded ones would throw razor edged CD’s at you. The NRA ones would all carry rifles. The ones wanting to make abortion illegal could throw unwanted babies at you. You could even do a cameo of the mayor of New York throwing 2 liter exploding soda bottles at you.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re:

The video game/chainsaw harmony used to be a casual link, but now its a catastrophically casual link. The Doom kids are playing these days isn’t the same Doom you played in the 90’s. Today they have *touch interfaces and these kids are literally getting their fingers on BFG’s. These touch games are making kids think that chainsaws and rpg gatlings are ‘smooth and cool’. That’s right, Joe Camel makes video games now. Think about it…

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re:

Oh and Nine Inch Nails did the soundtrack for Quake I and the Nail Gun ammo in the game that gave you 100 more rounds had the NIN logo on it so along with our bans on high capacity magazines, I guess we need to ban Trent Reznor’s music and merchandise too as this is obviously driving our people to attack others with high capacity fully automatic nail guns on murderous shooting sprees.

jupiterkansas (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:4 Follow the money

For starters his constituency isn’t NRA members unless they’re living in Tennessee, and I’m sure many of them play video games and are fine with it. I doubt many are writing him telling him to legislate video games. The NRA’s poorly chosen scapegoat right now is video games, and this guy is parroting the scapegoat and obviously doesn’t know what he’s talking about.

John Doe says:

Red Herrings galore

The universal background check and banning assault rifles are both red herrings along with any curb on video game violence. The Columbine kids didn’t buy their guns or use assault rifles, the Va Tech shooter passed a background check (one he would fail now due to a change in the law) and didn’t use an assault rifle, the Newtown shooter killed a gun owner and didn’t use an assault rifle. So in none of these 3 cases would an assault rifle ban done any good. In 2 of the 3, background checks wouldn’t have worked and there is no way to say the 3rd wouldn’t have gotten a gun elsewhere.

The attack on video games is just as pointless.

Ninja (profile) says:

Re: Red Herrings galore

A guy went in a killing spree in the subway of S?o Paulo (Brazil) and killed and injured a dozen people or so. With a knife. It is said the psycho gave preference to those wearing red clothing.

We should ban Assassin’s Creed because they use small knives to kill. He certainly had the idea while playing those games. Please ignore the fact that he might be mentally ill or something and focus on a non-issue (the games that he probably never played). Also, please note we should ban all knives since they can be used for killing.

Anonymous Coward says:

The truth is...

They both (media and guns) are scapegoats in this debate. We have had an armed populace as well as violence depicted in media for quite some time and up until just recently these sorts of incidents were a relatively rare occurrence. If these were the cause, could someone please explain the delay in their escalation? Correlation may not be enough to prove causation but a lack of correlation certainly can DISPROVE it.

LetumComplexo says:

Re: The truth is...

Not quite true. In actuality this instance of violence (in general) and gun violence (specifically) is nothing all that new. The school massacres aren’t even that new. There was a school shooting back in 1902, and I’m sure there were school shootings before that (although there was a much fewer number of people in school back then). The main thing that’s changed is that communication has sped it. It used to be that communication between cities would take days or sometimes weeks, therefore when one paper got the information about a school shooting in another city or county it was no longer relevant news. Now a days information is almost instantaneous, so we the people know about pretty muh every instance of senseless violence. It’s an ongoing problem, the only new thing is that we know about it.

Anonymous Coward says:

Why do we have to keep blaming inanimate objects? Psychos do crazy shit. Sometimes it’s violent. Always have, always will. If you ban guns and video games tomorrow, guess what? There will still be psychos doing crazy shit. Sometimes it will be violent. And when it’s all said and done, the number of people dying year-to-year might drop by fifty.

Mason Wheeler (profile) says:

Re: Re: Your bias is showing

The underlying social problem, singular?

Do you really think that all violence stems from the same single underlying social problem? Does gun violence have the same cause as domestic violence, which has the same cause as sexual assault, which has the same cause as road rage, which has the same cause as bullying?

John Fenderson (profile) says:


I’ve been enjoying the statements being made on these issues because they lay bare the hypocrisy surrounding the whole thing.

People who argue that gun ownership is such an inviolable right that there can be no reasonable restrictions on it tend to be the same people who have no problems whatsoever opposing equally protected rights such as free speech.

Also the exact arguments they use for why gun ownership should be essentially unrestricted for non-criminals apply to other things they tend to strongly oppose, such as possession and use of recreational drugs.

It’s hypocrisy at its most blatant. What they’re really arguing is that the things they like should be legal and the things they dislike should not — which is they very worst way to determine what our laws should be.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Hypocrisy

I, for the record, support both the first and second amendments. I also support privacy rights and the freedom to do with your own body what you want – ie. recreational drug use if you so desire.

In other words, “The freedom of my fist, stops at your face” however that freedom should be guaranteed in the first place.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Hypocrisy

People who argue that gun ownership is such an inviolable right that there can be no reasonable restrictions on it tend to be the same people who have no problems whatsoever opposing equally protected rights such as free speech.

I do not wish to restrict either, especially if it’s going to be arbitrary “reasonable restrictions” that aren’t going to make a lick of difference and just leave the door open for more “reasonable restrictions” down the road.

Also the exact arguments they use for why gun ownership should be essentially unrestricted for non-criminals apply to other things they tend to strongly oppose, such as possession and use of recreational drugs.

I certainly don’t oppose possession or use of recreational drugs. If you’re not going 60 mph down a residential street on PCP, it’s really none of my business. I don’t like my tax dollars going to lock people up for stupid shit.

What they’re really arguing is that the things they like should be legal and the things they dislike should not — which is they very worst way to determine what our laws should be.

What’s sad is that that is what our political landscape has become. Politicians can’t be seen doing nothing, and doing something effective is hard, so vote for me if you like X and hate Y, and constitutional and ethical or not, I’m gonna do my darndest to make it happen.

Elections, at this point, more or less amount to “in what order do you want to lose your rights?”

shane (profile) says:

Re: Hypocrisy

“People who argue that gun ownership is such an inviolable right that there can be no reasonable restrictions on it tend to be the same people who have no problems whatsoever opposing equally protected rights such as free speech.”

I could just as easily say that people who want to do away with gun rights are the ones who always want to promote smut and violence in entertainment. And I would have just about as much accuracy in the statement.

John, the only reason these issues split along such lines is because our politics are dominated by two parties. If Democrats decided to oppose gun control tomorrow, the Republicans would suddenly find a reason to support it.

You can verify my position by watching which party supports “nation building” at specific points over the last three decades.

John Fenderson (profile) says:

Re: Re: Hypocrisy

This is an excellent point, at the party leadership level, anyway.

Most of the democrats I know are not in favor of abolishing guns. Most of the republicans I know are in favor of at least some amount of gun regulation.

The parties themselves are more extreme than their membership, from my experience.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re: Hypocrisy

Furthermore, in our sound byte driven modern media, having a nuanced discussion of the issue is virtually impossible for politicians and pundits, and any attempt to do so is political suicide once the opposing side cuts up your interview to present it against you. So instead they scapegoat the easiest targets they can, this is why the NRA has shamelessly scapegoated violence in the media while the others continue to scapegoat the guns. It’s sad but true.

Anonymous Coward says:

these statements are only coming out because they dont want the grief involved with trying to introduce some sort of more strict gun laws. there will always be people that take fantasy and apply it to reality. banning games or restricting the release to certain ages wont help. there will always be people that use guns for nefarious purposes. banning them is the only way to ensure that wont happen.

shane (profile) says:

Re: Close

The real issue is that video games and guns both have one thing in common – neither has ANYTHING to do with criminal behavior.

There’s your trouble. Ask yourself why your government wants to ban things at all.

In banning guns, Feinstein and others also want to ban the manufacture of guns, which in turn brings up a thousand and one opportunities to go all Aaron Swartz on people who machine or work with metal as a hobby.

Stop allowing the government to convince you to ban things.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Close

The real issue is that video games and guns both have one thing in common – neither has ANYTHING to do with criminal behavior.

I agree about games, but do you want to back that up with a source. Specificaly about guns not correlating to higher levels of violence in a society.

It seems it is exactly the opposite.

With due respect, you Americans will continue to have higher mortality rates, and crime rates, and gun related deaths, as long as you hold these misconceptions about gun control. Meanwhile the rest of the developed world(read europe) will just laugh at you…

John Doe says:

Re: Re:

banning them is the only way to ensure that wont happen.

Like banning drugs ensures nobody will take them? Or banning alcohol will ensure nobody makes or drinks it? You must be on one or both of those to think banning anything actually stops it. It only makes it illegal and criminals are criminals because they do illegal things.

shane (profile) says:

Well, once again

The issue here (touched on in the article with its mention of the demonization of pinball) is that people are tired of the entertainment industry in general being such an engine of filth. (The entertainment industry being filthy goes even further back…) People used to say, “Well, if you don’t like it, don’t watch it,” but it is now more than clear that people will watch things specifically BECAUSE they do not like it, and in any event it’s beside the point.

The point is that there are a metric f-ton of positive things that video games COULD do, but all they ever seem to do is make more smutty and violent simulations.

You’re not going to talk away people objecting to making something horrific into the theme of your entertainment choices. Some people are always going to find that repulsive. Some certain percentage of them will even be able to act accordingly.

I’m still waiting for someone to point me to the video game based on teaching calculus.

maclypse (profile) says:

Re: Well, once again

Try “Kerbal Space Program”. In development but very playable, very popular, teaching you all kinds of interesting things about the laws of physics. It’s fascinating to see people discuss whether or not “the Oberth effect” is big enough to make a gravitational slingshot viable around a small celestial body such as the moon.

Just because the big studios focus on “action blockbusters” doesn’t mean everything is like that. There’s a lot of really good, and very ususual games out there, but most studios cater to the lowest common denominator and make shooters “because that’s what people want” and to a large extent they are right. This isn’t much different from the movie industry in that respect.

Now and then, an independent developer makes everyone go “Huh!?” by doing something completely outside the box and being massively successful. Minecraft and Kerbal Space Program are good examples of games that don’t involve guntoting massacres. Sometimes even the big shooter-studios do that: remember “Portal”?

jupiterkansas (profile) says:

For decades there have been practically no resources and pressures on the other side of the issue. Senate and house members know that opposition to gun control brings political rewards (the support of the NRA) while support of gun control brings only political liabilities (the opposition of the NRA). Without a group on the other side, the calculus for members is clear, and explains why the United States has among the most permissive gun ownership laws in the world. (from the Sunlight Foundation

Anonymous Coward says:

I’ve been a gamer since I got my hands on a sinclair spectrum 16k (with rubber keys, yay.) I was even bullied at school, by other students as well as one teacher. By all accounts, I should be a guntoting madman, with at least one massacre behind me.

In spite of “fact” I’m a pacifist, considering physical violence primitive and barbaric behavior by sad and pathetic people. Given a choice, I walk away rather than even raise my voice at someone.

Something is wrong with their equations.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re:

Something is wrong with their equations.

I appreciate where you’re coming from, and thanks for trying to be pro-community like so many of us. However, I should caution, since you were using a sinclair 16k, that trying to put a reasonable moral test to anything coming out of DC always results in either NULL or a divide by zero error. When I was forced into this situation, my own hardware wasn’t up to the task… hard crash.

If only my expectations had been lower….

Anonymous Coward says:

I really don’t get the connection being drawn between violent media and violent crimes. One predates the other by a long, long, long time; if there’s not a progressively increasing amount of violent crime among younger ages coinciding with the increase in video games, how does this get anywhere?

If there’s not even a moderate upward trend in youth violence, how do we make this claim?

maclypse (profile) says:

Re: Re:

Think of it like this:

Option a: Games are the problem! Movies are the problem! Whatever is the problem! This is about blaming things, and it’s EASY.

Option b: People, society and politics are the problem. This requires critical self-reflection. This requires politicians and indeed the population to shoulder the blame. This requires you to accept that maybe, just maybe, YOU are a part of the problem. This is HARD, and for politicians it’s probably also career suicide.

Anonymous Coward says:

So if we need to ban all weapons that appear in video games then does that mean that we’re going to ban the following objects/body parts?

-Balls (balls can be thrown to hurt people, and lots of bullets look like a small ball!)

-Hands & Fists (how many games allow you get into fist fights?)

-Legs and feet (a lot of games let you kick people to death to)

-All kinds of knives (even kitchen knives, games encourage people to stab other people to death!)

-Cars & Motorcycles (I can’t tell you how much fun I used to have running over innocent pedestrians in old Sega Genesis games, even if the point of the game was to win a race! Motor vehicles can be a dangerous weapon if you want them to be)

Terry (profile) says:

Its funny how the government keeps blaming the Video Games as the problem. Well how about the parents letting the kids play these violent games??? Also how about the parents that are actually having anything to do in their kids lives, they will do anything to appease so the kid will get out there hair so the parent can do what they want. So there is no consequence anymore when a kid does a bad thing. I will tell you I still remember the paddle quite clear and when I got the paddle I was asked if I understood why I was being paddle and if I said no there was an explanation. So instead of blaming everyone else people should start looking to there own life’s and taking responsibility.

Anonymous Coward says:

Technology has just gotten better.

If they want to take us back to the good ol’ days of the 50’s or 60’s, when the kiddies were huddled around b/w tv’s or the family radio. There were some plenty of violent shows on the air at the time. Gangster shows, westerns, super heroes and the like were being marketed to kids. All the while characters were dropping like flies, now they weren’t interactive but I know for a fact kids were reenacting their favorite scenes. Pretending to kill the bad guy who was played by a friend or sibling and was left as a game.

Anonymous Coward says:

As someone who’s lived with a mentally disabled person, I can state that we had to take his violent video games away because he became very violent and destructive. It didn’t solve the problem completely, but it’s been a hell of a lot better.

I think it’s affecting more kids than anyone realizes, but very few go to the extremes of mass violence.

I’m not saying ban violent video games, but parents who have special needs children should definitely be paying more attention to what they’re absorbing themselves into, be it violent video games, tv, movies, music or friends. But that’s hard to do with 2 working parents who aren’t home right after school.

I just don’t know how you can legislate this problem away. It’s not a legal issue but a parental one, in my eyes.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re:

I have to pretty much agree, as its only the people “on the scene” who can do a damn thing about a situation getting out of hand. Pre-emptive nannying does nothing to diffuse a live grenade. For people with issues, many kinds of input can be aggravating, from violent games and movies to the stresses of driving a car. There’s no way to remove all potential ‘triggers’ for a person in crisis.

It would probably help most if we could de-stygmatize and encourage people to accept and confront issues rather than being compelled by the pack to pretend they don’t exist.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re:

As a mentally “disabled” person myself (Aspergers and ADHD), I find the above-mentioned statement preposterous. Videogames in general were what got me through the hell that was Middle and High School WITHOUT going ballistic on my peers. Now, I would like to point out that most of the games were NOT Call of Duty games, but one of the ones that got me through was Armed Assault (a brutally realistic Mil-sim), along with various other simulation games (Microsoft Flight Simulator 2000, Quake 3, DOOM 1, etc)

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:

I’ll see your Aspergers and ADHD, and raise you a 20 year uphill battle with PTSD. Do I get to collect disability now? (jk, never would want to, though its still a battle leaving the house most days)

I got the impression this OP was saying everyone’s different, and you really have to deal with issues on a case by case basis. Some people with serious issues can get aggravated by violent media or violent people. For me, the trouble is with carrots and flash mobs.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re: Re:

Interesting you bring up PTSD (not a fun thing to have, but highly relevant to the “videogames & violence” discussion):

I remember reading in the Journal of Clinical Psychology in Medical Settings, June 2011 issue about video games (virtual reality) being used to help soldiers suffering from PTSD. Why is THIS research not being brought up when people are discussing video games and violence?

(Article: Virtual Reality Goes to War: A Brief Review of the Future of Military Behavioral Healthcare)
(DOI: 10.1007/s10880-011-9247-2)

From the Article:

“[T]he University of Southern California (USC) Institute for Creative Technologies (ICT) created an immersive VRET system for combat-related PTSD. The treatment environment was initially based on recycling virtual assets that were built for the commercially successful X-Box game and tactical training simulation scenario, Full Spectrum Warrior. Over the years other existing and newly created assets developed at the ICT have been integrated into this continually evolving application. The Virtual Iraq application (and the new Virtual Afghanistan scenario) consists of a series of virtual scenarios designed to represent relevant contexts for VR exposure therapy, including middle-eastern themed city and desert road environments. In addition to the visual stimuli presented in the VR HMD, directional 3D audio, vibrotactile and olfactory stimuli of relevance can be delivered. The presentation of additive, combat-relevant stimuli in the VR scenarios can be controlled by a therapist via a separate ??Wizard of Oz?? Clinical Interface, while in full audio contact with the patient. The clinical interface is a key feature in that it provides a clinician with the capacity to customize the therapy experience to the individual needs of the patient. The clinician can place the patient in VR scenario locations that resemble the setting in which the traumatic events initially occurred and can gradually introduce and control real time ??trigger?? stimuli (visual, auditory, olfactory and tactile) as is required to foster the anxiety modulation needed for therapeutic processing and habituation.”

Anonymous Coward says:

We all know that regular fat American kids are OK playing violent video games and watching violent movies.
But to my knowledge we have no studies of kids like the last few shooters that are serotonin uptake inhibited medication users.
I think there needs to be a closer look at the psychopharmacological nexus in relation to violence.
Drug violence is already mildly established for illegal drugs, what casual effects might be found with legal ones?
Some drugs enhance suicide idealization and can lead to suicide. Are other forms of violence possible?

DCX2 says:

False sense of courage

I think there?s a question as to whether he would have driven in his mother?s car in the first place if he didn?t have access to a weapon that he saw in video games that gave him a false sense of courage about what he could do that day.

You know what else gave him a false sense of courage? Being taken to the shooting range to practice shooting the guns.

I bring this up because I’m a gamer who has never shot a firearm (well, I’ve shot BB guns before, does that count?) If you were to hand me a real gun, I wouldn’t know what to do with it. There is no B button in real life that reloads the gun for me. There is no HUD telling me how many bullets are left.

Finn says:

Crasy is Crasy

This is insane. Yes, violent video games can effect people who have mental problems, but only them. For people who do not have the mental problems, they are cathartic. When they get angry they go take out their aggression on some pixels instead of a person or animal. If we are going to start banning everything that triggers crasy people to enact homicide, we need to ban dogs and blonde hair since that’s what set off Son of Sam back in the ’70s.

darkblazedan8924 (profile) says:

I hereby state I wouldn’t vote for a politician who blames gun related problems on games. I would rather associate that with gangs first or psychological issues. I mean if a man murdered his wife you wouldn’t hear him breakdown and say the video game made me do it, would you? Older generations have always been bothered with change. it’s because they can’t relate or try to. I play video games and I hate guns. in my opinion guns are meant for hunting seasons only. hopefully one day there will be peace in this world cause losing people, family, friends etc. is hard and seeing it on the news bothers the people. I know it does me. things would change if we could find the real problems behind this, but I do know for a fact that gaming isn’t one of them cause I do it and I haven’t bothered anything.

Add Your Comment

Your email address will not be published.

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here

Comment Options:

Make this the or (get credits or sign in to see balance) what's this?

What's this?

Techdirt community members with Techdirt Credits can spotlight a comment as either the "First Word" or "Last Word" on a particular comment thread. Credits can be purchased at the Techdirt Insider Shop »