Printable View
...hey wait! We haven't had guns in ages! Something I'm very glad of, naturally. Didn't know about Australia though...interesting thoughts!Quote:
Originally posted by Belair
Rates of homocide and armed robbery have fallen, and Australia's example has been followed by other countries including Canada and Britain.
Acepting the fact that is way easier to get a gun in the U.S. than in most places and acepting that they are happy with their legitimate right to bear guns. My question is, why didnīt anybody notice that this guy was spending more time learning to shoot than learning to conjugate verbs?
He killed more than 30 people and wounded less than 20 with... a revolver. I think "he knew where to put the bullet" far too well. Where did he learn? Perhaps, a record of people who train to shoot a bit too often should be kept to check for this kind of guy.
Salimar
OF COURSE Video Games played a role and frankly I can't stand the argument "Well we never had video games in the past and there was violent crime then."
So because it never influenced people before it means it cannot ever influence people?
To sit there and actually think that video games do not influence your everyday behaviour is just outright ludicrous. Hell go look at the "How I realized I'm addicted" thread, I'm sure you'll see how it does have an influence.
Check this out Angry Halo Player
Basically, I find myself influenced by video games in many minor ways. I played Grand Theft Auto Vice City for 4 hours once, left to walk to the store and passed by a large garbage truck. I admit there was part of me that imagined stealing it and driving to the store. Thing is though, I didn't act on that impulse. MANY of us do not act on those impulses because while Video Games, Media, etc have an impact on our temptations and urges we still have common sense to overcome them.
But add in factors like girlfriend dumping you, being a loner, mental problems... man, that is a recipe for disaster.
So what about those people who didn't have video games in the past? Well they were influenced by other things, duh.. people will ALWAYS be influenced to violent behaviour because it is so rampant in our own nature. The thing is, sometimes the mediums change but the end result is the same thing.
Now does this excuse anyone's behaviour? Not at all. No matter what circumstance you find yourself in you are still capable of making a choice, you should still be responsible for your actions.
Actually, neither of the guns were revolvers. Both were clip-fed automatics. Also, what is "too often"? Perhaps we could keep a record of all people who shoot "too well"?Quote:
He killed more than 30 people and wounded less than 20 with... a revolver. I think "he knew where to put the bullet" far too well. Where did he learn? Perhaps, a record of people who train to shoot a bit too often should be kept to check for this kind of guy.
Shooting is not as difficult as most people think. Mostly, it is a matter of self-correcting practice and understanding the fundamentals. Your suggestion is at least a little ridiculous.
Uh, you don't think he was playing it up just a little for the camera?Quote:
Check this out Angry Halo Player
So, are you indicting video games or violence in the media in general? I would agree on the latter, but most argue that video games are the primary method through which children are turned into serial killers, and this I do not buy. Especially considering that the numbers do not support it.Quote:
MANY of us do not act on those impulses because while Video Games, Media, etc have an impact on our temptations and urges we still have common sense to overcome them.
No. I think that was clips taken over a long period of time, and edited to pick up all his worst moments. I think each clip, in itself, is probably honest and accurate; it's just that he's not like that ALL the time (presumably only when he's losing). Note for instance that he never tantrums enough to really smash anything - he wants to keep playing.Quote:
Originally posted by Darion
Uh, you don't think he was playing it up just a little for the camera?
More of an index to his behaviour, though, is not how he talks to the screen (that just shows him to be passionate - I'd say he'd be similarly vocal when he achieves something for the first time), but how he talks to other people while he's playing. (Presumably Halo doesn't pause?) He was rude, but not too bad. Frankly, I wouldn't expect this guy to do what happened at VT; the worst I would expect him to do would be a big tantrum after he's just lost the game - that tantrum COULD (though I very much doubt it would) involve running around and killing people, but it wouldn't include deliberately chaining people up and mowing them down.
Video games, especially the FPS types that are blamed for violent behaviour, invariably require fast reflexes and mainly, acting _in the heat of the moment_. The angry Halo player would only be really dangerous if you unplugged something while he was playing, I reckon.
OMG!!! Jack Thompson and Dr. Phil said it, so it MUST be true. No newscasters or TV personalities have EVER written articles based on personal opinion, right? They're both ratings whores.Quote:
Originally posted by Katidyd
No I do not work for a newspaper, I just know how to listen and read gooder. Sorry to disappoint but it is not my speculation, some guy named Jack Thompson (on Fox News) and another named Dr. Phil (on Larry King) associated video games into this incident.
My advice to you is to learn to differentiate between speculation by the media for ratings and factual evidence, the latter of which there is none.
There is no evidence that directly puts video games as a reason for the VT shootings. By the way, here is a link to information about the media package that Cho mailed to NBC, in which he cites his reasons as being bullied and picked on, and aims his anger at rich people and christians: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18169776/
Or how about the video where he claims that he is like Moses, "splitting the sea and leading his people, the weak, the defenseless". Sounds more like this guy is fucked in the head than that he played too many video games.
If your argument was that he lacked social skills and the ability to cope with depression due to too much time spent playing video games, I might be more inclined to agree, but that's another problem entirely (parenting problem, not video games). The argument that video games are violent just doesn't hold water.
Owned.
I think you mean, "That argument that video games CAUSE violence just doesn't hold water."Quote:
Originally posted by Leshrak
The argument that video games are violent just doesn't hold water.
We all know video games can be violent...you can stab, bash, assassinate, shoot arrows at, decapitate, starve, humiliate, bully, shoot, maim, torture, hunt, rocket-launch-at, burn-with-a-flame-thrower, and generally kill humans, humanoids, aliens, fluffy creatures, assorted sundry other creatures...in about 95% of the games you see!
Even with most japanese dating sims...you can manipulate and humiliate your virtual partner, let alone the damage you can cause with GTA, AvP2, or Thief (only naming three I've played...and I suck at all of them!). Even in Civ4 you can destroy entire armies! Get onto things like Doom, Quake, and I think Hitman...plenty violence all round :D Even lemmings (I :biglove that game) lets you blow them up!
...okay, done now :)
Indeed. Can't imagine where such suspicion would originate. After all, through out much of human history governments have had a magnificent track record of looking after their constituents. All it takes are the right laws to get passed. If they passed a law here in the states forbidding males 21-25 from going out after 9:00 pm you can be damn sure that there will be an army of tool cops ready to enforce it. Not the most plausible idea but you get the idea. America is powerful because its government is powerful. We need armed civilians more than you think.Quote:
Originally posted by Belair
What is not often known to foreigners (and please correct me if I am wrong), is that Americans are unwilling to restrict gun availability due to a powerful and deep-rooted suspicion of government; a fear that a renegade president or military official could abuse the power they wield upon their own people. A sizeable minority, or even majority, believe the risk that criminals will perpetrate events such as V. Tech is a painful but necessary price to pay for the freedom to counter such a scenario.
Oh, the video games. The media feeds that shit more than it is really believed. People keep hearing about video games connected with violence and weak-minded individuals (the sheeple) start believing it. Enough sheeple start believing it and then you have a small portion of the population subscribing to it. That's my theory anyway.
This is absolutely correct. The people who go through the processes of getting a gun are not gonna be the gang-bangers and dangerous criminal minds we see in the news everyday. They aren't gonna put their name to a firearm and be in the system, so tightening gun laws only hurts the law-abiding.Quote:
Originally posted by Jolen
What people forget is that gun laws only affect the law abiding citizens. Few serious criminals ever go through the legal process of purchasing a firearm as it can lead to their eventual arrest. You will not solve the problem of weapons in the hands of criminals by tightening gun laws. All this will do is create an even larger black market of illegal and difficult to trace weapons.