Video games and shootings...

Status
Not open for further replies.
I am at work on a break so I have to skip ahead and bypass the last page or so. Well, work got in the way some more, I am cutting some, sorry it's still too long.

So many people are throwing these phrases around and yet I can't help asking myself what do they know of violence?

Who or what have they ever killed to know what it's like?

EDITED: (Long deer hunting story here)
.....
I know how I felt when I saw him shot. I know what violence is. That was not violence against my fellow man but if these people who think they know what violence is think they can imagine it......

....................They are wrong.

I had the knowledge that what I did wasn't wrong. The deer was food for our table and I was taught to respect that relationship between hunter and game.

But I don't think you can convince me that playing a shooter game does anything at all to mitigate or desensitize a kid to violence.

I understand where the idea comes from. That people want to understand why some people are doing these things. People used to jump off bridges when their lives went to hell. Sometimes they couldn't do it themselves so they got someone else to help. This new twist with the kids doing the mass shooting. To me this smacks of someone who wants to make a splash before they go. To punish those who they believe were responsible. You know that is sometimes a motivation for suicide, to get back at someone, to leave a hurt that can't be forgotten or fixed.

But I think it is naive to think that these games are desensitizing anyone to performing a violent act. When a person get's bad enough that they can consider murder, they are past the point of being sensitive to any reality.

Understand why I say this, we aren't talking sensitive in the way your finger feels the needle. And you can do something to make the needle not feel so bad. We are talking about changing a person's sense of reality to a point that murdering someone in cold blood is not so bad.

The doctors talk about these cold blooded types who have no conscience, no sense of right and wrong. Something in their mental make-up is broken. That is not what most of these kids are, but it is similar. The end state is the same, they have been hurt so bad and so often, and they feel there is no hope, and they are going to go out famous, a last act, violent and shocking and it's going to leave a mark. It's going to hurt and no one is going to put Humpty back together again.

You want to fix this problem, fix the problem of marriage and the family. Man and woman, Mother and Father, put the yin and the yang back into kids lives. Women need to aspire to be mothers again, open jobs up for Men. Instead of making men compete against women for everything let them work together again to be a cooperative unit.

We are different for a reason, we just got to smart to see it. Now we are paying for it.
 
anyone who can google can see that mass shootings are declining, not increasing. in order to have this conversation people need to know the facts. much like gun control advocates, there are people running around uninformed trying to lay blame on things they know absolutely nothing about.
 
anyone who can google can see that mass shootings are declining, not increasing. in order to have this conversation people need to know the facts. much like gun control advocates, there are people running around uninformed trying to lay blame on things they know absolutely nothing about.
Click to expand...

Actually there are many people on this forum that know a lot about some of these things. There are some real professionals here, give them time to reply and see for yourself.



They are clearly already seeing these games as simulators and have plans to run further down this road.
Click to expand...

No they are not, not the way you are interpreting what they are saying with what they actually mean. Now let me explain.

There is a reference to low cost, off the shelf, they don't want to pay big money for real simulator time to teach everything, instead they are looking to what something like these games can help with.

We understand that the game can't train you on how to reload, or how to actually aim properly. But when a soldier is in a vehicle in convoy and the lead vehicle is hit with an RPG, it can train them to stop, dismount(get out) of the vehicle, move to cover, look for threats, add voice and you get proper communications. So you get cognitive training that is trying to show the soldier how to identify what situation just unfolded, and how they should react to it. But on top of this they have to go and perform the physical part, the game is just an introduction. It's something that a squad can do in the afternoon in a classroom. The big simulators require a lot of support and preparation. Then they go to live training events at the National Training centers in Ft. Polk, LA. and Ft. Irwin., CA.

Try and keep in mind, this officer, he is involved in this project. Someone said....
"Captain go see if we can find some value in training our guys on the cheap, what can we do that's effective and identify how to tie that in with our current and future training."

Of course this Captain is going to sound encouraging when someone comes to talk about the great things this project will provide.

As for further down the road. That would be to actually have a developer custom tailor an existing title to better support what they want to teach soldiers in this venue. Think of it like this, I could use a game that was an accurate representation of the Pentagon so that new employees could learn how not to get lost in that maze of a building all the time. At first I might take an off-the-shelf title that has some big indoor areas, a lot of confusing mazes and corridors and offices just to see what I can expect the value to be, and to determine what I want the actual product to be. What are my contract requirements? This would teach someone new how to get around, but they still have to learn how to manipulate the security systems, and what shoes don't slip so bad on the polished floors. Does that help?
 
BTW, there is good evidence that rampage shooters study and are motivated by other rampagers. They even buy gear from stores that sold the gear to other rampagers.

Thus, censoring media might include coverage of rampages. Do we want this slippery slope to apply to the 1st Amend.?

Voluntarily experts have suggested that we down play the emotional coverage of such. Crying victims seem to be motivational.
 
Lc, I don't see how spending $50,000,000 on something can be called "on the cheap", you may want to read the Stars and Stripes article again. http://www.stripes.com/news/not-play...-games-1.85595
They are talking about developing these games into a true virtual reality experience, to train much closer to the level you talked about. I don't see how that isn't "further down the road" than where we are at.
You may have a point, I'm just not sure I see it.
 
Thus, censoring media might include coverage of rampages. Do we want this slippery slope to apply to the 1st Amend.?
Click to expand...

how about refraining from naming them? showing pictures of them?

this would apply to other killers aswell
 
It would be nice if the media would police themselves on this issue, and we, as thier consumers, would refrain from gobbling up every little tidbit about these sickos.

But I don't see that happening, it's a matter of morals and money more than anything in my opinion, but it certainly shouldn't be legislated.
 
Scrubcedar, let me take another stab at it and see if I can get it across better;

Let's get the on-the-cheap part clear, the modified version of DARWARS Ambush was the starting point and it was done by simply purchasing the rights to a commercial product so they could make a few modifications and push it out as a "proof of concept" and a "stop gap" to get something out there fast, one to fill a need, two to allow them to figure out everything they really needed later on.

First, that article is from 2008 so it's a bit old, but that also means we could probably track down more current info about it if we wanted too.
Found it, this is what has become of that development program and it's office since 2008. The training program is calle VBS2, the project office is the Product Manager Air and Command Tactical Trainers (PM ACTT) of the Program Executive Office for Simulation, Training and Instrumentation (PEO STRI)
http://www.peostri.army.mil/PRODUCTS/USAGFTP/


Game development has become a multibillion-dollar industry in recent years, with large game studios employing thousands of developers and sales that compete with Hollywood’s blockbusters."We want to take advantage of that, but we don’t have the intent to become a competitor with the commercial gaming industry," Stephens said. "We don’t have the intent or capability to be a commercial game house."

Instead, the Army gaming unit will watch trends in the industry and identify technology that can be used for military training, he said.
Click to expand...

Understand that by these statements the Army acknowledges or recognizes that the Technology they need is out there, but the products are not acceptable for training purposes. Now let's try to see why or what is lacking.


However, the game is based on 20th-century gaming technology and can accommodate a limited number of players in a relatively small virtual battle space. It can’t interact with the Army’s real world computerized battle command systems and trainers can’t edit terrain or change scenarios during play, he said.

The new game — dubbed "Game After Ambush" — will be an off-the-shelf commercial product that comes with tools that will allow the Army to make almost any modification necessary to terrain, scenarios, missions, etc.
Click to expand...

After reading this we see that;

First off, they need software and hardware for large numbers of players/soldiers, the largest I have seen has been Planetside with about 600 maximum on a server at one time. That would be enough for two opposing Company sized elements plus Attached Elements like Artillery, Military Police, or Air Support as examples.

Furthermore, they need good control of the "conditions", terrain, missions, the overall situations must be tailorable, that means they need to tie this in with real world mapping data so if they want to run a scenario at the Pantheon in Greece then they can do that.

It(DARWARS Ambush) can’t interact with the Army’s real world computerized battle command systems
Click to expand...

This means they need soldiers in the game need to talk with or receive data from the real computer systems we already have for Command and Control of the battlefield. This is a huge tie-in because it means the game software must support links to real live systems so the C&C part is also trained, leaders get to see things from the Operations Center exactly like it would look and sound in the real deal.

In addition to the $50 million, the Army gaming unit has an undisclosed additional budget to purchase a state-of-the-art commercial video game system that will be fielded for training in February.
Click to expand...

And last this, it's more then saying that they are going to buy a few hundred Alienware gaming laptops. For these computers to talk to the other systems, they need the hardware interfaces as well for talking on the secure Army Tactical Networks and Communications Systems. Expensive to say the least.

"DARWARS Ambush" was modified by the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency -
Click to expand...

"DARWARS Ambush" was the start point, the beginning, but it's also the closest these games will ever be to anything resembling a current day Game, from this point, the games become something entirely different from anything you would recognize because they are not trying to use it to teach them individual combat skills. They are using the technology as a base to train Team, Crew, and Command And Control tasks, not how to move and shoot like you would think from this article.

Just like the misconception above that the Army changed their targets into silhouettes in order to desensitize soldiers to killing when in fact it was only to train them to recognize the human shape in varied terrain.

What I am trying to get across is that this is far different from simply developing a slightly customized version of a commercial game and telling soldiers to go have fun playing an FPS game cause it's great training because the current products are not great training solutions. They are inadequate which is why they have to spend so much to make them useful and the use is not what you imagine or what the reporter makes the casual reader believe.

Stars and Stripes is a publication for the Military, sometime you need to see it from the Military's perspective to fully grasp the meaning of the articles.
 
Last edited:
Okay, I see what you're saying now.
The screenshots in the article were just as convincing as the info btw. They do look very different from what I've seen kids playing. I think as far as the quote about them walking further down the road we were misunderstanding each other, this sort of thing is exactly what I meant when I made the comment. They're a lot further along than I could have imagined though.

I still feel pretty strongly that these games in the hands of an already off kilter mind are a poor idea. The fact that doing this in real life isn't as easy as their games is one of the concepts that a mentally ill person would have trouble with. I was in nursing for a long while, as well as having a child with mental illness problems, this statement comes from some strong training and experience.
Our head injuries in particular were vulnerable to this. The last thing to heal, and the first thing to be damaged was the ability to realize what was real/practical. We had to have a locked unit because of this, they were all sure they were fine, they could go home. The most persistent patient about this I remember wanted to walk home every night. To his home in Hawaii. From Denver. The distance, and his lack of water walking skills never really managed to change his mind. After he healed to the point that he knew there was a problem he had a good laugh with us about his various escape attempts. It was a long 3 months at the time though.:rolleyes:

That being said, I am ready to freely admit that I was wrong about their being practical simulators.
 
scrubcedar And I see where you are coming from better.

You must have had to deal with some extreme cases. I am sure some improved to a point where they could be sent home. I can see where there could be concern in these cases.

But I don't think many of these mass killings at schools and theaters actually involve someone who had been hospitalized for mental problems. I think most of these cases involve young people who have issues at home, issues at school, issues online even. And with some work most of these people would be fine. But they aren't being seen, they are only being prescribed. They are known to have trouble but nothing really happens about it and they don't get real help and when it goes on for long enough they decide no one cares. They start looking for a way out, a way to get even, or a way to make it big. And then they see it on the news, someone has done it, someone else has gotten out, made it big, or gotten even. And even if the motive is different they are still in a mental state that allows them to clearly recognize the opportunity to end their own brand of suffering. And they take it.

That girl who just killed herself cause she couldn't get help after she was raped. They say she felt betrayed by everyone who she believed would be there if she ever needed them. Well she needed them, they weren't there, or they weren't enough, and she killed herself. But she did write the names of her attackers on her body before she did it. She did use her own death as an instrument of revenge. Maybe with more time someone would have come through for her.

A never found a maybe that was ever worth much though.
 
Last edited:
You've hit the nail on the head about these kids Lc. They weren't hospitalized. They should have been. I could make a good argument that everyone they killed, including themselves, would be alive with proper treatment. A short inpatient stay for each of them, then good outpatient treatment would've made all the difference in the world.
We let them down. Their illness was too strong for them without better help. We left them in a situation that even if they survived it, the best they could hope for was to be a healed, sane, mass murderer, with the weight of those murders on their conscience.
My strong opinion is that these young people needed an inpatient stay until they were healed enough to no longer be a danger to themselves or other people. That's starting to wander off topic though.
I think if you're sick enough to think murder is a good idea, you're sick enough that exposure to these games is a bad idea. It's not a whole lot more complicated than that.
 
Ahh, but that is a problem now isn't it.

Black Ops sold 13.7 million copies, Black Ops 2 sold 3 times that in 24 hours.

That is one title in one "venue" or style of game. It's not the only violent type of game, it has competitors. So lets just say the other titles in that venue make up another modest 2.3 million players, that's 15.5 million in one venue.

Now let's say you have the violent criminal type venue and the Sci-Fi venue and the Fantasy/Ancient Earth type venue. So 4 x 15.5 brings us to a very rough 62 million players.

Now the best I can see is that the total US population is just over 315.5 million.
If even 50 million are playing violent video games that is almost 1 in 6. The number 6 includes the old, the infirm, the homeless, etc. So what is the number of those who play violent games in relation to those who have easy access and means to play violent video games? Is it 1 in 5, or 1 in 3 ?

My real argument/question would be ..... of the people who don't play violent video games, how many have no real concept of just how many are playing them?

If you think it's just pimply-faced teen aged boys and unsupervised 9 year olds then you are way off the mark.

I would say that if you take just the population aged 35 and under the percentage is so high that you could never get legislation passed that would restrict the games in any way whatsoever. I am 53 and I play them, so it certainly doesn't begin at 35.

If violent games have a bad influence on the mentally unfit, I suggest we do a much better job of identifying and caring for them because you are not going to get anywhere trying to influence it from the other end.
 
Last edited:
And we have reached fully common ground. The problem isn't the games themselves.
The problem is that our mental health system is very badly broken.
Throw in a school system with obvious deep seated issues of it's own. Season heavily with parents in denial, who don't want themselves or their children stigmatized for their disease occurring between their ears rather than anywhere else on the body where it would just be treated, and now we have a recipe that kills people.
Yes,violent video games can play a part in that recipe. As for them being the cause, I don't really see it that way.
Stranger things have happened however, and if tomorrow some scientist said "I've found it! people lacking gene whatsis in location whosis when they play violent video games want to kill people for real it wouldn't surprise me. But I'd expect it to be such a small percentage of the population that only an idiot would talk about laws banning or even restricting the sale of these games.

You treat the patient. They have to be able to live in the real world, wheelchair ramps etc. aside, you can't just alter it specifically for them.
 
Read the article and found it interesting. Unfortunately the author makes a jump in logic.

1a) He is an angry, troubled teen with a fascination with weapons
1b) He habitually fantasizes about killing others and himself with these weapons
1c) He did not engage in mass murder or create an atrocity

2a) People who create atrocities such as Columbine or Aurora share his symptoms listed in 1a and 1b.
2b) These recent people have a fascination with FPS video games
2c) These people engage in mass murder/atrocity

Since the person in 1) did not share 2b) with him, he therefore assumes the difference between 1c) and 2c) is reliant upon 2b) being present.


I hate the Huffington Post but they were right to not include the article. Not because of the content, but because the author HAS NO SENSE OF LOGIC.
 
Perhaps the author simply lacks the sense of imagination required to enjoy video games.

But seriously, I play them, my kids are out of the house, my wife's days off are different then my days off so we don't get much time together. And we just don't go out often. What is a body supposed to do when he has so much time alone at home to fill?

A hobby is very productive for filling the time, mine is gaming. As my eyes and reflexes are not what they were I compensate by being a devious opponent and I love sticking it to those young guys who think they got "mad skillz". If I divulge my age some think I am lying, but I know the truth and I know there are many just like me and older.

OMEN, Old, Mean, Evil, and Nasty - Youth and exuberance has no chance :D
 
Today on NPR they had two psychiatrists who work in terrorism studies say:

There are no measures or behaviors that would not give a 100 false positives for every suspect person (who then might to nothing anyway).

That's really it as far as predicting from games. They gave a good analysis of hindsight bias. Yes, we should have known this guy was one of the ... - but there was no way to predict it before.
 
Your links are based on the work primarily from the Berkowitz/Anderson lab. If you truly do a lit review, you will find that the linkage is quite suspect.

Read some of the links here:

http://www.tamiu.edu/~cferguson/pubs.html

See the reviews of the video game claim and the meta-analyses.

Then, you might see that if you just use internet sources and don't really review the professional literature, you aren't in the game.

Particularly read - Ferguson, C. J. (2013). Violent video games and the Supreme Court: Lessons for the scientific community in the wake of Brown v EMA. American Psychologist, 68(2), 57-74.
 
That first article from Ferguson sure does look pretty bulletproof. The studies showing correlation seem completely debunked.

The part that I read that worried me was this "Part of the concern is the ethical limitations inherent in studying youth violence, particularly in laboratory settings. Researchers
cannot incite youth to engage in dangerous or illegal violent behavior in the lab.
As Ritter and Eslea (2005) note, efforts to get around this with milder ethical measures, such as mildly aversive “noise blast” generators, having participants taste
hot sauce, and so forth, have largely failed. Indeed, such tools do not predict
violent behaviors (Ferguson & Rueda, 2009)."

What this suggests to me is no one has come up an effective way of measuring whether there is an increase in aggression or a decrease in inhibitions.
I can't imagine a way to measure this without some highly questionable methods either.
Other than outcome based statistics, which in this case have too many variables involved you can't control for, we have no real proof either way.
Ferguson addresses this more than once in the study for proof for and against.
Without some ghoulish 60's/70's era like studies that let people think they are harming/killing others. I don't see how you find out either.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top