Video games and shootings...

Status
Not open for further replies.
Yes it is true. Sure there were exceptions, but in my life I never heard of a child shooting his classmates or teachers until recently. In fact we could take guns to school, and leave them with the principal until after school when we would go hunting.

I am not talking about the '70s, but the 40s and 50s. To say that Mass shootings were happening then is pure nonsense. A couple of exceptions do not prove your case.
They are fairly common now, and the desensitizing of violence is largely responsible. Video games are significant contributors to it.

Jerry
 
Last edited:
None of the above examples are mass murders except one. They were all individual revenge killings, that is the difference.

No matter how you try to slice it there are MANY more mass murders now than before. Many factors come to play IMO but ultra violent video games played constantly by an altered mind surely isn't a good recipe.
 
She isn't old enough to realize there's a difference between real life and what she sees on TV.
Click to expand...

Likewise, a mass murderer seems to have an altered perception of reality, can't differentiate between real life and what they see in movies/TV, or has developed an innate numbness to human/animal suffering.

No one is saying that violent video games cause violence in everyone, or are the sole cause of violence in demented people. What I am saying is that it seems to be one of a number of factors common to those who go on murder sprees where the only goal is to see how many people they can kill. For kicks or glory. It doesn't take a lot of psychoanalysis to observe this common link.

The fact that one gamer in a prior post admitted that he uses video games to relieve stress and take out his violent aggressions on fictitious characters after a bad day seems to me to further confirm some link between mental aggression and video games.

But, it's not just violent games. In my opinion, it's a person with some predisposition toward low or no empathy for others coupled with obsession(s), drugs, poor parenting, delusional thought and video gaming. Its sort of like a trick lock that requires 6 hidden steps performed in a very precise manner and sequence necessary to open it. You could have the key, insert the key, performed 5 out of the 6 steps, but no matter how many times you insert the key and turn it, the lock won't open. Nothing happens without the missing step.
 
Last edited:
JerryM said:
Yes it is true. Sure there were exceptions, but in my life I never heard of a child shooting his classmates or teachers until recently. In fact we could take guns to school, and leave them with the principal until after school when we would go hunting.

I am not talking about the '70s, but the 40s and 50s. To say that Mass shootings were happening then is pure nonsense. A couple of exceptions do not prove your case.
They are fairly common now, and the desensitizing of violence is largely responsible. Video games are significant contributors to it.

Jerry
Click to expand...

The statements you are making about the link between violence and games are not supported by research. No neutral study has been able to establish a link, and there have been hundreds that tried. It's not correct to say something is true because it intuitively feels obvious. Frequently the opposite conclusion ends up being true. It's the same logic as anti-gun people saying guns are linked to violence because the link seems intuitively obvious, but in fact the link isn't there. You can't say video games are "significant contributors" to desensitization of violence when it hasn't been proven that they are contributors at all despite the best efforts of agenda-driven researchers.

As a lifelong gunner and lifelong video gamer, the arguments against games and guns sound remarkably similar to me - based on personal anecdotal experience and individual perspective but not based in fact.
 
I don't remember there being any mass random shootings in the '60's, '70's, 80's or hearing about any going further back in time. It wasn't until the mid '90's that these events (as rare as they are) started happening. That's not decades ago, just about 17 years ago. So, what has changed?
Click to expand...
just because you don't remember doesn't mean they didn't happen. they absolutely did. there were more mass shootings in the the 80's than there have been since the year 2000. there were mass shootings in the 20's. they are actually in decline right now, with the 80's and 90's being the two decades with the most. video games are more realistic than ever. what's changed you ask? the media. you don't remember because there wasn't a constant 24 hour news cycle back then but they were happening
 
Last edited:
I do not need any studies. I lived through those periods. I do know the mindset of kids when I was a kid, and adults when I became an adult.

I know that until a thought is put into your head you do not think of it. However, when it is put there over and over and over again it does desensitize one to such things. If you watch **** over and over and see thing that you would never have even dreamed of, then there are those who want to try them. Until they were put into one's thoughts there was no possibility of them happening.

People do influence the thinking of others, and so it is with violence and essentially all things.

Anyway, having turned 80 last year, and lived through a fair amount of this nation's history I am capable of logically making some of those types of determinations. The argument that no credible study, blah blah cuts no ice with me. I suspect there have been credible studies that show some link between what people watch and play and their behavior, including murder.

I am going to leave it there, and each can think as he will.

Regards,
Jerry
 
well you're free to think as you please but the evidence doesn't show a link. mass shootings are on the decline, plain and simple. they've been happening since the early 1900's and there were more in the 80's than there are now as i said. as gun owners we can't simply try and find something else to blame other than guns because we know guns aren't the problem. neither are video games. ever see doom? it's pretty unrealistic looking to say the least. why were mass shootings more common in the 80's? history is history. no amount of debate can change that. super mario wasn't causing mass shootings in the 80's, so what was? :)
 
another interesting fact to chew on for a moment. there were more mass killings in the 20's than there are today. they peaked in 1929.
 
All of you are focusing on the moral aspect of this.
Full disclosure, my sons were not allowed to play these games, I found the act of shooting a realistic human to be something I didn't want my children to get used to. That being said that's my call, and I don't have impose my ideas on you.

The aspect of this you have all neglected, and does need to be addressed is this, this was simulator time for these mass murderers. Just like any Pilot sharpens his skills in a simulator to get better at what he does, these kids spent hours honing their skills on these games.
All of you who have spent hours on these games, can you say with straight face that you are not better prepared for a combat situation than if you had never played these games? No, they are not completely realistic, they might teach you some bad habits, etc. But, you are more capable in these situations than you would be without them.
What if you were a sick, obsessed, individual? Couldn't you use these games to try out different strategies, learn to be a more effective attacker? Keep in mind, if you are any better at these games than when you started you have already proved this point.
I've played various combat piloting games for years. I have a number of friends who are pilots that have played these games against me who assure me that I have a huge chunk of the skills needed for not just a pilots license but to be a pretty good pilot (they tell me there is a huge gulf between these two skill sets).
I think that there is no way you can argue that these kids weren't more capable because of their simulator time.

Do I think they need to be banned? No. I think something different needs to happen.
If you are a parent of a child who is struggling badly you have to make a decision about whether these games are a good idea for your kid. I think you should be held legally responsible for that choice. If your kid uses this knowledge to harm my kid, without any action to fight against the problem from your side, then you share responsibility for that action. I'd want strong enough penalties to induce fear in the parents.

I've had a child who was a serious problem as a teen. Until we learned that we were fighting a genetic mental illness we were stumped on how to fix it. We fought every day against the behavior tooth and nail. It was a losing battle most days. Sometimes the problems were stronger than the solutions. My child would have played one these games over my dead body. I'm not talking about a parent who is obviously trying to do their best but it isn't enough, I'm talking about the one who just doesn't care.
 
i simply do not believe call of duty prepares anyone for actual combat anymore than playing cabela's hunting games prepares them for hunting deer. anyone going into either situation based on a game would be sadly under prepared. a flight simulator is entirely different than a first person shooter. there aren't multiple gauges and altitudes and all of that to worry about when playing call of duty. to say that parents should be given a penalty for allowing a kid to play a game would be suggesting a whole lot of other things. how about if they allow tem to watch violent cartoons? read certain books? movies? that would be an awfully slippery slope. these things were happening lng befor here were any realistic video games whatsoever
 
If you think from your great intuition that games cause violence and the rampages, you need to join the antigun organizations as the logic is the same for banning guns. The data suggest that both do, if you don't want to really study up on the debate.

It is immoral to support the existence of games and guns at the same time. Accept it and become an activist for that position.Ban both.

Or know what you are talking about.
 
JerryM said:
I do not need any studies. I lived through those periods. I do know the mindset of kids when I was a kid, and adults when I became an adult.

I know that until a thought is put into your head you do not think of it. However, when it is put there over and over and over again it does desensitize one to such things. If you watch **** over and over and see thing that you would never have even dreamed of, then there are those who want to try them. Until they were put into one's thoughts there was no possibility of them happening.

People do influence the thinking of others, and so it is with violence and essentially all things.

Anyway, having turned 80 last year, and lived through a fair amount of this nation's history I am capable of logically making some of those types of determinations. The argument that no credible study, blah blah cuts no ice with me. I suspect there have been credible studies that show some link between what people watch and play and their behavior, including murder.

I am going to leave it there, and each can think as he will.

Regards,
Jerry
Click to expand...

With no disrespect intended, as I was taught to respect my elders, being older is not a substitute for a logical argument. I have had arguments with people in their 60s and 70s who support gun control and cite the same specious, fact-devoid arguments the Brady Campaign cites.

They also "don't need any studies" to know that more guns cause more violence.

There have been studies that show a link between movies/games and behavior, and they have almost entirely been as agenda-driven and methodologically suspect as the "studies' by the Violence Policy Center showing how dangerous it is to own a gun. They go into the study wanting the result. Proper peer-reviewed studies without an agenda have not managed to prove the link, just how they haven't managed to prove it with guns. And, just like with guns, frequently some studies bump across the opposite result - that games/guns provide a healthy outlet and reduce violent tendencies.

But what do I know? I'm just an every-scary-feature AR-15 owning guy that has played every game the media has freaked out about in the last 15-20 years, including Grand Theft Auto 2, 3, and 4, Postal, the entire Doom series, Manhunt, every Call of Duty game, every Battlefield game, ever Gears of War game, ever Fallout game, and every Left 4 Dead game. I've never been in a fight, I've never even had a traffic ticket, and in a year I'll have a doctorate. I believe this is because I was parented right and mental health issues were never stigmatized in my household - proper counseling and ADHD treatment saved my sanity and my schooling.

With both of my hobbies, I get tired of arguments made by people who think they know better based on nothing more than personal distaste.
 
Last edited:
scrubcedar: I disagree that first person shooter games constitute simulator time. I've played a lot of PC games, some of them flight simulators, most of them of the shooter variety, and I only know of three shooting games (out of the dozens and dozens I've played) that I would consider simulation quality for the purpose of attacking other (armed) human beings. None of these games are widely played, none were played by any of the recent murderers whose cases we're discussing, and all of them are unpopular specifically because they are simulators and therefore not attractive to most gamers.

To see the difference between a game and reality (and more importantly why a first person shooter is a terrible simulator for real life violence) all you have to do is look at a Youtube video containing multiplayer gameplay footage of a game such as Call of Duty: Black Op 2 (currently one the world's three most popular and widely played first person shooters), and compare it side by side with any specimen of real life combat footage from a site such as Live Leak. There is no comparison. The game is a laughable specimen when shown beside the real deal.

If you like, I could post such a pair of such links if you or anyone else would deem it relevant to the discussion.

I admire your reasons for being opposed to exposing your own child to what you deem to be damaging material. I also respect that decision as a responsible, reasonable, and honorable one. However, please don't assume that because you can derive the fundamentals of flight from a combat flight simulator that the same must be true of shooting games. There are very few shooting games that even begin to approach the level of fidelity to reality that even the more primitive flight simulators employ. If an individual of violent intent is using an industry standard video game to train then they are wasting their time, and will find very little to contribute to their goals in terms of knowledge and skills.

On another note, Diane Feinstein conducted a television interview yesterday, in which she presented an argument, very similar yours, along the "murder simulator" angle in regards to video games. Already angling for more legislation.

Sen. Dianne Feinstein: Violent Video Games Act As Death Simulators
 
Last edited:
Glenn, Zr, etc. I'm not saying these games cause the violence. If you look at all my posts on this subject you'll find that I believe that untreated mental illness is the cause.
I will freely admit that I have not spent hours in front of these shooting games, but I do remember pretty clearly watching my son with the one he (briefly) had.
It was pretty realistic. Perhaps it was one of the games ZR mentioned.

As for their value as tactical simulators, the pentagon, as well as a fair amount of researchers, agree with me. Here is a link from a gaming site.

http://www.polygon.com/2013/1/18/38...eloping-better-video-game-training-technology
Notice this statement part way through."According game technology developer Havok's vice president of sales and marketing Brian Waddle, the military still occasionally uses outdated simulation software. Proposal requests for training technology are often "designed for older technology to win," and soldiers don't take these games serious because "they don't look as good as what they're playing in their living rooms."

Here is another link from an online science magazine.
http://www.livescience.com/10022-military-video-games.html
Here is a quote from that article.
"But such reality-based video games could help prepare recruits for the mental horrors of war, help train them for the real thing and even help prevent cases of post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) in soldiers."

In case those references weren't authoritative enough, or might be considered biased here is an article that is from the military's own publication "stars and stripes".
http://www.stripes.com/news/not-playing-around-army-to-invest-50m-in-combat-training-games-1.85595
A quote from that article. "The Army already uses a commercial first-person shooter video game — "DARWARS Ambush" — to train soldiers. Since 2006, PEO-STRI has fielded more than 3,000 copies of the game to the Army, Air Force, Navy, Marines, Coast Guard and Homeland Defense, Stephens said."

I'm not out in left field here folks, this is pretty clearly documented stuff.

I'm having trouble finding a link, but the report that was leaked talked about him dropping partially expended mags and reloading before entering the rooms, a move he learned from his games.

As for punishing the parents, if you have a child who is this far off kilter you darn well know it! I speak from personal experience as well as training and education. To park that damaged/dangerous child, who already has problems with reality, in front of what the military itself considers "training simulators" is begging for trouble.
To do it because it is simply easier than fighting with the child is nothing less than criminal negligence and extreme stupidity.

EDIT. Glenn, maybe you were referring to me not knowing about the law concerning negligence. I'll plead guilty to that. Explain to me what's wrong in the situation described above in calling it negligence.
 
Last edited:
Charles Whitman had a brain tumor. Whitman was aware that something was drastically wrong and he tried to get help.
Click to expand...

That's exactly my point. From my admittedly limited research, there is some underlying cause of severe mental illness in mass shooters.

Violent first person shooters aren't it.
 
Heh. We had this gizmo at Ft. Knox that had an M-16A1(!) with laser attachment similar to the MILES gear and a projection screen where various scenarios were played out.

Most of them were shoot/no shoot, but some of them were of a more tactical nature.

That was some pretty good training, I think.
 
scrubcedar: I apologize if my post gave you the impression that I was accusing you of correlating video games with violence. The only point of your post that I was trying to address was your perspective that shooter games, as a category, constitute simulation time for already mentally unstable murderers.

Your data actually meshes quite well with my previous post. Two of the three games I was referencing are derivative from early US Army training simulators, the Operation Flashpoint series and the ARMA series. The third consists of the earlier specimens of a game series called Rainbow Six. I specify the older versions because the newer ones depart slightly from the series' original goal of simulation fidelity.

These games are combat simulators. The weapons work correctly, all the pieces are in the right place, every element of functionality is simulated to as great a detail as possible. The weight of equipment the player's avatar (in-game character) is carrying is taken in to account, influencing your ammo supply, movement speed, simulated stamina. Each avatar's heart rate and respiratory systems is simulated to account for variances in accuracy, tunnel vision, adrenaline shakes, and other factors that a soldier might experience. Ballistics are accounted for, including bullet drop and windage, hardness of material taken in to account to calculate for penetration and ricochet, and hit detection designed to model the effect of fired rounds on the human body.

These are the types of "games" that the US military uses, and they are the exception, not the rule. These games have almost nothing in common with games like Call of Duty, Medal of Honor, Battlefield 4, or Halo. Furthermore the differences between mainstream games and true simulations like ARMA are not readily apparent to the casual viewer. You have to play the games to notice the differences, and be familiar with the subject matter to see where the casual games depart so heavily from reality.

I think your point is valid in a sense that was touched on earlier in these thread. I think there may be some validity in the idea that exposure to gun violence can color a predisposed person's preference for the form their violence eventually takes. For instance a person who identifies gun as symbol for powerful violence in things they read, watch, or play will be more likely to seek out that symbol when they want to commit a violent act themselves. However, I have no evidence of this one way or another, so it's merely a matter of opinion.

However, I can see nothing in a vast majority of modern video games that will teach such a person any of the necessary tactics or skills they need to cause damage to other people. The example you mentioned specifically, the rumor that Lanza dropped his half expended magazines before entering rooms, does indeed show a gamer mentality if it's true. In a game your ammunition is independent of your magazines. If you have 100 bullets then each time you reload you get a full magazine as if by magic. You can fire one round, then reload, and the game will behave as if you have 100 fully loaded magazines. Your opponents can't pick your half expended magazine up off the ground and use them against you, and you never have to worry about reusing half empty mags. Mainstream shooting games do not reflect reality in any meaningful fashion, even if they appear to do so at a glance. You have to look deeper to find the truth.

All training simulators are games, but very few games are training simulators.
 
I know there was a school bombing in 1928. The shooting in Texas in the 70's. Those were both big. In the 90's we got multiple 23 hour news channels. They make alarmist reports about all kinds of things to get ratings. Heck, look at the weather channel.

But to share the experience, thought process and warning of possible psychological impact that pretending death (excessively) could desensitize an all ready unstable person is not out of the question. The military changed the type of targets for a reason...correct or not is a decent question. They seem to have studied it.
Click to expand...
The military is trying to take relatively stable people and teach them to shoot a person that is not directly threatening them.
The people involved in these attacks are by and large psychopaths. They aren't sensitive or empathetic to begin with.

I wouldn't have published this either. Reminds me of a five minute report I decided to wing my Senior year of college. It wasn't on guns, violence or anything similar, but it ended up going into the oddities of going to a year of high school over seas. For everyone in the room it was like watching a distant uncles slide show of a vacation where the food provided was fondue with rancid wine. Similar to the second half of this post actually. Maybe the first half. Maybe all my posts.
 
Last edited:
I played 4 hrs of Battlefield 3 last night, and when I was done I did not feel violent nor did I feel like I was a highly trained special ops solider. I felt like I had a good time with a group of people. The vast majority of the people who play first person shooters are not going to go on a violent rampage, if that were the case, we would have mass causality shootings 3 times a day. I do fully agree with the mental health aspect of it. If you have someone who can not tell the video game from reality that is a big problem. Most people who play video games can tell the difference.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top