Video Game Violence

[D Jones]

Video Game Violence is very common today, especially with Grand Theft Auto type games. Everybody blames it the game that the Child is playing and which the parents (probably) bought for them. And I am just getting tired of everybody blamming the people who make the games, when its really the Parents/Childs fault.

 

They parent buys there child a game. He gets way into and decides to go out and kill someone with a damn knife or a couple of kids go spray paints "Grove Street" on a 7-11 store. People blame the game for this when they should really be blamming the parents.

 

I think any child who does this or is maybe planning to do something like this needs to get mental health and needs to wake up and realise this is the real world, not San Andreas.

 

Anyways, how do you guys feel about the people blamming the games for the acts.

 

Also, hear is the man who alway finds a way to try and sue R*. Jack Thompson

[leper73]

Anyone who looks in Gaming Chat and stumbles across the topic called Censor Watch knows how I feel. Gerard Jones, author of Killing Monsters: Why Children Need Fantasy, Super-Heroes, and Make-Believe Violence, can articulate better than anyone:

 

 

We are in another of America's periodic prohibitionist crusades against entertainment forms that offend adult sensibilities, and once again our leaders seem determined to miss the point that each one of those crusades has already made: They don't work. In fact, they always backfire.

 

The pattern is reliable. A new medium or genre appears, selling itself partly with shock value and the things young people like - which inevitably includes bad taste.

 

There is a cry of horror from teachers and parents who wish to believe that adolescents won't think about sex and gore unless they are "exposed" to them. Then research is created to demonstrate the medium's negative effects, usually by social scientists who already dislike the offending material and design studies that seek only the negative, never the positive. Always, "Does this make the child more aggressive?" Never, "Does it make the child feel freer, bolder, more resilient?" Never even, "Does it make him more aggressive than, say, playing soccer?"

 

Finally, the legislators move in, for no fruit hangs lower in the political orchard than entertainment loved by kids and nonvoting geeks in their 20s. When the Illinois Legislature passed its video-game law, Democratic Sen. Mike Jacobs said: "I'm going to vote for this bill, but I'm voting for it for one reason - because this is a political bill. If I vote against it, it will show up in a campaign mail piece."

 

In the early 1950s, the U.S. Senate assailed comic books for supposedly contributing to juvenile delinquency. As a result, many comics that are now considered great works of popular art were killed and the medium's development was retarded. Die-hard comics fans reacted with an "underground comics" movement that eventually spawned material far more offensive to adult taste than any of the comics excoriated by the Senate. And, of course, juvenile delinquency didn't go down. In fact, it went steadily up for the next quarter of a century.

 

I say "of course" because I don't think anyone, not even the authors of bills such as AB 450, really believes that such legislation will have any effect on real-world crime. Since bloody "first-person shooter" games hit the market about 15 years ago, violent crime in America has dropped nearly 30 percent. Youth crime has dropped even faster than adult crime. A few hideous acts have been perpetrated by kids who played video games, but the same acts have been perpetrated by kids who didn't. All the numbers show that young Americans aren't nearly as violent, criminal or disrespectful of laws and other people as was my generation in the 1970s.

 

Bills such as AB 450 are eruptions of offended taste, and like all such eruptions only aggravate what they're supposed to stop. We all know that every kid who really wants to play "Grand Theft Auto" will find a way. The law will only add the glamour of contraband to the experience. That's how prohibition always works.

 

[Viva Gta San Andreas.]

viloence is in about every game now. 31 games of 42 are violent games in my collection . Also %50 of games are viloent. War games, RPG, Grand theft auto. Even some car racing come into the term "violent", well maybe not. But you get the idea when your playing Burnout 3, smashing into poles with your car etc. Yet no, they dont try and sue car racing games.

[Cran.]

I've had enough of Jack Tompson and his bullsh*t, so I've taken the liberty to email him.

 

 

Hello,

 

I think you are wrong here for blaming video games. So please, stop wasting your time because I play video games, and I’m not going around setting police officers on fire, or shot gunning them in the face.

 

Geez, we are just playing this for entertainment, and in these cases were children/teenagers have done this, it most likely not caused by video games. If it really was caused by a game, the child/parent is a fault because this individual obviously has mental problem. You've probably never played a video game in your life, so you’re in no position to blame these particular games.

 

These games are rated for persons over 15 (Where I live) due to the fact that they are very violent. In most of these cases, these games are not intended for these people. This is another reason why the parents are to blame.

 

So do us all a favour, you're wasting your time and making it harder for people to sit down and have some fun with a video game! So just piss off, I've had enough of your bullsh*t.

 

James Donovan.

 

I totaly agree with you, it's the parents/child's fault not the video game

[YeTi]

I agree that the whole consecpt of video game violence is bullsh*t. All though people might learn some things from video games sayings, and stuff. But a video game won't teach you how to load and shoot a gun.

[D Jones]

I've had enough of Jack Tompson and his bullsh*t, so I've taken the liberty to email him.

 

 

Hello,

 

I think you are wrong here for blaming video games. So please, stop wasting your time because I play video games, and I’m not going around setting police officers on fire, or shot gunning them in the face.

 

Geez, we are just playing this for entertainment, and in these cases were children/teenagers have done this, it most likely not caused by video games. If it really was caused by a game, the child/parent is a fault because this individual obviously has mental problem. You've probably never played a video game in your life, so you’re in no position to blame these particular games.

 

These games are rated for persons over 15 (Where I live) due to the fact that they are very violent. In most of these cases, these games are not intended for these people. This is another reason why the parents are to blame.

 

So do us all a favour, you're wasting your time and making it harder for people to sit down and have some fun with a video game! So just piss off, I've had enough of your bullsh*t.

 

James Donovan.

 

I totaly agree with you, it's the parents/child's fault not the video game

Yeah, nice E-Mail but he is going to say "get a life" or something similar becasue he can't get his old rinkly hands on the f*cking keyboard to type a decent E-Mail back.

 

But yes, its the Parents/Childs fault.

 

Here is my email, I was acting as if I was a father.

 

 

Hello,

 

I have a problem, my child which is 13 plays Grand Theft Auto San Andreas. I thought it was just a normal game but once I sat down with him it looked horrible, killing random people on the streets and having sex with hookers then later killing them to recieve your money back. I want to take this horrible game a way from him but he seems to pout and nagging me about him, and his mother agree's that he should just keep the game.

 

I was just wondering what would you do to take this game out of my childs hands, and what kind of video games do you suggest?

 

Thanks.

 

 

divorce your wife

[spoof]

@leper73 - I’m aware that censorship is an issue prevalent in all of your arguments on the topic, but perhaps you could explain to D&D members exactly why the restriction of adult themed video games to minors is a such a violation of rights?

 

Age restriction, in terms of products and images has been around for centuries. Certain age demographics of society are unable to legally vote, drive, purchase alcohol, enter certain venues, or be legally held responsible for their actions etc.

 

This is nothing new.

 

The argument of “do violent video games influence minors to act detrimentally to society”, is also not the real question. Evidence both for and against can be presented almost ad nauseam; and with no conclusive proof either way.

 

You’ve generally attacked new laws pertaining to the issue, yet have always used existing laws as a basis for defence.

 

In truly Orwellian terms, not all laws are equal (at least on a common-sense basis) – I understand this and I expect that most other members do also.

 

However, restricting adult themed video games to minors, to me at least, delves into the realms of common sense.

 

You have often quoted many different subjectively selected legal cases to add weight to your argument, but tend to provide rather less emphasis on the wider moral and societal issues.

 

Perhaps it is not so much an issue of you clearly explaining your position, perhaps it is more an issue of you clearly explaining the actual issue to begin with

 

 

Perhaps you could indulge me with clarification. As the more regular members are aware of, I’m a bit thick (generally) when it comes to reading between the lines, so perhaps you could state things in such a manner that even I may understand exactly what you are trying to say

 

 

 

………and please, given that the issue is of global discussion, do not make reference to any one given country’s legal system in your response.

 

[leper73]

To begin with, it is extremely difficult, if not impossible to find an answer that would suit all countries. Even if every country in the world did have a universal legal code, a second, more important fact is that cultural standards of what is considered acceptable or unacceptable images or ideas varies widely from country to country. Here in the United States, we have a liberal democracy with the right to free speech, separation of church and state, and a system of checks and balances between the president, Congress, and the courts to ensure that power is not concentrated within one individual or group. We are, for the most part, tolerant about the ideas that we and our children consume in the mass media. Let's compare that to a country such as Afghanistan, where games considered harmful to children are out and out banned in the country. Even though the Taliban is no longer in power and the country is more or less a democracy now, it is still a society very much rooted in Islamic tradition and law, and is generally hostile towards anything that would come into conflict with that. Even Germany, a liberal European country, is so strict with the sales of certain games to minors that adults there have trouble finding them as well. That may seem excessive, but they have to deal with a history of brutal violence against humanity with their role in the Holocaust and WWII. This black spot on their history has forced their society to swing the other way, and shun violence in any form. Here we have three separate countries with three entirely different histories, governmental forms, and roles of religion in everyday life. Adopting a legal and ethical definition of right and wrong that would encompass the values of all three societies would be extremely difficult.

 

As for attacking new laws with previous cases, legal precedents set standards by which future laws need to consider. Certain decisions will lay out definitions (for example, what constitutes obscenity), and new laws must either 1) accomodate the definitions as legally defined historically (ie show that the material in question is obscene by the standard of the existing definition) or 2) demonstrate that the existing standards set by prior cases are inaccurate (ie demonstrate why the existing definition of obscenity is too narrow and why it should be broadened to include violent as well as sexual material).

 

Now for the question at hand: while minors do traditionally have fewer rights than adults (ie voting, deciding where to live), they also have a right, before they become adults, to shape their own beliefs and ideas, and popular culture is one medium by which they do this. Children are unlikely to become well-thinking, functional adults if they are raised in an intellectual bubble. You may have some reservations about children forming their belief systems through violent, adult content (this is probably where the moral debate comes in), but bear with me, and you'll see later in this post that this is not only not bad for kids, it may actually be good for them.

 

If we strip away the need to demonstrate harm and the doctrine of compelling interest, what are we left with? Arbitrary wrangling over the moral issues. In considering these moral issues, the disturbingly unanswered question is, whose morality are we to go by? Government? Church? Those who believe children should be sheltered from any negative influence? Those who believe children should be exposed to various aspects of society and learn to deal with them? This breaks down even further than global to national definitions, to individual definitions.

 

And who's to say it's best for the child not to be exposed to violent themes? Experience with such material may have positive aspects for kids, as it gives them a fantasy self and a medium where they feel powerful. Adults are often horrified at the literal meanings of video games, force these meanings on their kids, and keep their kids away from them. What they fail to consider, is that these games and other media have important symbolic meanings for the kids. Such material allows them to validate their feelings of fear and rage, and experience them in a controlled, safe environment. Here's a personally relevant example: immediately following the September 11th attacks, I found myself playing Doom a lot. Even after a brutal act of violence was committed against my country, I found myself angry, scared, and helpless, and killing the Doom demons allowed me to release this anger I felt at al Qaeda. I was 18 at the time; imagine how much more intense those feelings would be for someone half that age, and the need for them to get these emotions out in a safe fantasy environment. We have become so worried that kids will learn from these games and form role models from violent protagonists, but in most cases, these games help them accept roles that they cannot have in real life, yet still occupy an important part of their psyches. Through these media, kids can escape a stressful, imposing world, know what it's like to be the hero, or, in some cases, the bad guy, try out the roles they know they can never have in the real world, integrate them into a more complete sense of self, and escape back into the real world more confident, and with their emotions validated. I'm not saying parents should give in to their kids' every whim, and they should help the kids put the entertainment in context, but we would be doing these children a disservice denying them this part of themselves. That's my moral argument for granting kids access to violent games.

[Cran.]

>From: "Jack Thompson" <[email protected]>

>To: "James Donovan" <[email protected]>

>Subject: Re: I support you and your actions.... *cough*

>Date: Tue, 7 Jun 2005 07:54:43 -0400

>

>turn your head to the right and check for a cranial hernia. thanks

>  ----- Original Message -----

>  From: James Donovan

>  To: [email protected]

>  Sent: Tuesday, June 07, 2005 7:27 AM

>  Subject: I support you and your actions.... *cough*

>

>

>  Hello,

>

>

>

>  I think you are wrong here for blaming video games. So please, stop wasting your time because I play video games, and I'm not going around setting police officers on fire, or shot gunning them in the face.

>

>

>

>  Geez, we are just playing this for entertainment, and in these cases were children/teenagers have done this, it most likely not caused by video games. If it really was caused by a game, the child/parent is a fault because this individual obviously has mental problem. You've probably never played a video game in your life, so you're in no position to blame these particular games.

>

>

>

>  These games are rated for persons over 15 (Where I live) due to the fact that they are very violent. In most of these cases, these games are not intended for these people. This is another reason why the parents are to blame.

>

>

>

>  So do us all a favour, you're wasting your time and making it harder for people to sit down and have some fun with a video game! So just piss off, I've had enough of your bullsh*t.

>

>

>

>  James Donovan.

 

 

 

That shows how mature he is, so here is my reply.

 

 

If your turn your head to the right you will see your lovers cock. Go suck it and you better hope it a judges, thanks.

 

kthxbye.

 

 

EDIT: He replied, and he told me this:

 

the last clown who wrote me an email like that got a visit from the police.

tell your lawyer

 

Edited June 8, 2005 by Cran.

[ganja_man_biatch]

i believe little kids should actually spend more of their time playing outside than actually at home infront the tv playing video games, when i was a youngin the game to play was mortal kombat, most of the ppl i grew up with didn't have any consoles so we had lots of free time between finding money for the arcades, and even though the game was probably the most violent game i ever played as a child, we didn't go out and try to emulate this attacks on random ppl on the street. but one thing we used to do was pretend we were characters from the game. I mean it's ok for kids to play video games, but the parents, or guardians need to monitor the kind of games a child plays, isn't that why the esrb rating system was established. It also has a great deal Of how the kid is brought up to. kids should be able to establish a difference between vidoe games (basically fantasy) and real life. basically jus let your kids go out and play a lil more, they won't complain.

[D Jones]

@Cran: That guy is a moron. I can't believe he even made it to CNN, I wish he would just admit that he is making the matter worse. And don't worry, I got you back if the polie come .

 

@Ganja: Agreeble(sp?). I am only 15 and I am addicted to video games, not addicited enough to go out and kill someone with a plastic bag. But I still agree with you, I need to go outside and play more damnit .

[jheath]

Howdy Ganja_man

 

Good point about the opportunity cost involved in video games. Playing any video game for hours on end means those hours are not spent outside, doing something physically active, conversing with others, pursuing girls, etc etc. Sitting in front of the TV or computer too much isn't particularly healthy for either the mind or the body.

 

=============

 

That said, I don't think violence in a game carries over into violence in real life, even for little children. Those who commit violent acts "because the game made me do it" are searching for excuses for their behavior, and they played those games from the beginning with a very different mindset from that of most normal people.

 

A different issue is the actual showing of graphic images of death or maiming, which would probably be disturbing and harmful, especially for young children. However, GTA1, 2, III, and VC all still look more cartoony than real in that aspect. (I haven't got SA yet, but it looks similar to VC.) Games like Manhunt, on the other hand, are beginning to step over this line.

 

=============

 

Howdy Cran,

 

A word of friendly advice: don't sink to Jack Thompson's level. Insulting an opponent just helps their cause, since they can always point to your words to say "this is what my critics are like." Our side is better served by using good, logical arguments with a respectful tone.

 

=============

 

I think I'll end with a quote from usenet:

 

"Games don't make people violent... lag does."

 

 

[Cran.]

@Cran: That guy is a moron. I can't believe he even made it to CNN, I wish he would just admit that he is making the matter worse. And don't worry, I got you back if the polie come .

I actually want them to find me. Then he'll ruin his life for false clams and potensoly lose his reputation and job!

[Liquid Metal Face]

I totally think it's the parents fault if their kids do something stupid. Not the videogame producers. The parents should look at the f*cking ESRB rating. And Jack Thompson can kiss my ass.

[Runestoner]

If you let a video game decide your actions and they are illegal (ex. stabing, shooting, carjacking) you are weak ignorant and stupid and just looking for an excuse to stay out of prison..thank you very much.

[Critter]

That Jack Thompson guy thinks he's big sh*t just because he's a lawyer or whatever. If he called the po-po for an e-mail, they'd probably laugh at his ass and cuff him up anyway. If he's as big a fa**ot as to reply like that, he needs to be forced to watch an act of violencle like that, up close. I bet he feels like God, saying, "The last time I got an e-mail like that [the cops came and got the person]. Notify your lawyers." Well guess what? He bleeds like everyone else. I hate to say it, but he'll probably die by the very thing he's trying to prevent. Jack Thompson is a bastard. I just pumped a cockroach full of Raid, and next I'm going to go wipe the ants out with my magumfying glass, so I can claim back my yard. Then the wasps near my front door are going down. Why don't you come get me, Jackie-boy?

 

-Critter

Edited June 9, 2005 by Critter

[D Jones]

@Jheatlh: Is it acceptable to say a game is "crossing the line"? Not really, ESRB set up there system so young idiots like the world has today don't do this bullsh*t. Manhunt doesn't cross any line what so ever, it's one of my favorite games but I don't think that our town is deserted and filled with guys with smiley face masks, then I later walk up and stab somebody with a knife. Thats clearly not the games fault, or not even crossing the line. Thats the little kid's physco ass imagination thinking he is doing it.

 

Don't say games cross the line, only except True Crimes.

[Tongue of Colicab]

"OMG you guys don't get it! VG's are sent from the gods to prepare us for when that sh*t really happens!"

 

But seriously...

 

WTF? Why do they blame video games? "They are violent, lol." So? Violence is everywhere. No video game has killed anyone. Unless you believe in the matrix. I read an article about the Red Lake shootings, and its like the have to say "he played video games". They didn't say anything about drugs or meds or anything else. Someone is controlling the media. I don't think its jews, Canadians with an agenda, or snake-headed aliens. I think its religious fanatics. (Actually I think its republicans, but I won't mention it.)

 

If I thought at all about what I was typing just now, it would have been better.

 

Diagram:

 

R*---GTA---kids---not violence---adults who hate the media---drugging kids to depend on stuff---withholding teh drugs---angry kid---school shooting---news coverage(conservatists)---controversy---heart and soul of GTA---adults angry at own failure---up teh ante---protests---suing---paying too much attention to NOTHING---susceptible to attack---exploitation---death---'smart' protestors think this crap up---new set of balls to kick repetitively---people talking about it on the intraweb---mixed feeling=truth (sorta).

 

EDIT: also, if you notice. THe adults who hate the media, fuel the media.

[jheath]

 

Is it acceptable to say a game is "crossing the line"? Not really, ESRB set up there system so young idiots like the world has today don't do this bullsh*t.

 

 

You didn't read my post very carefully. Manhunt doesn't cross the line by making "young idiots ...do this bullsh*t." I'll say it again: I don't think violent videogames make people violent.

 

What I said was that Manhunt, unlike GTA, shows graphic images of violent murders. Things like Cash beating open skulls with a brick, and killing people in the game even when they're helpless and begging for mercy. Killing in GTA is still on the cartoony side... Manhunt crosses over to out-and-out graphic. The ESRB warning is well justified.

[TheJkWhoSaysNi]

Violence, school shootings, etc were all around long before video games became popular. Sure, video games can cause people to be crazy, but these people are obviously mentally unstable to start with.

 

Hell, I remember playing GTA, Doom, Carmageddon, Quake when I was about 14. Never did me any harm. I haven't ever commited a violent crime.. and i'm a very passive person.

 

People blame video games because it's an easy way out. Much easier than explaing to parents that it's their fault their son decided to shoot his peers. Theres no doubt that video games can cause people to think that violence is ok if parents dont teach their children that computer games have different rules than the real world.

 

Also, how many billion people worldwide play video games world wide? And what percentage of those have commited a violent crime? Really, people are just finding somewhere to point the finger for the downfall of society.

[ganja_man_biatch]

i agree with u ^ video games are just the new scapegoat to blame all the world's problems, it's like the new thing in court to do instead of pleading insanity

[GTAFool12]

Jack Thompson is a retard.

 

Reasons:

 

1. GTA is based off life in the real world, the crime aspect. (they aren't changing the kids views because they watch the f*ckin news.

 

2. Video games can't teach you physical skills (well some can), it will never teach you how to load a gun.

 

3. How could a sniper practice sniping on a video game. Hmm.. maybe his sniper had a XBox controller apadtar!?

 

 

This guy is trying to end violence. Well here's the truth. Violence will never die. Animals will always kill eachother and so will humans.

[D Jones]

@jhealth: Got your posted twisted up. So you call Splinter Cell a bad game, people beg for you in that game then you helpesly(sp) snap there neck. There is no such thing as violence in a game if its animated and totally fake. There is a lot worser games than Manhunt, try Solider Of Fortune for PC.

 

@Jk: I agree with that 100%

 

@Fool: lol yeah, How can Halo teach you how to shoot a Sniper Rifle? What a f*cking retard.

[Ciabatta]

Jack Thompson should be shotgunned to the forehead for not giving a mature response to both of Cran's e-mails.

 

I think it was ridiculous what he wrote to Cran the first time and when Cran responded he told him the police would pay him a visit. Excuse me sir, weren't you on CNN? I believe your online argument with this individual has lowered your credibility.

 

How can this man be taken seriously? How can anyone who protests action/shooter video games be taken seriously? They keep bringing up the same point, saying that the subject matter within video games infest the mind of the youth and bring them to kill someone or rape a girl or commit some other heinous crime. It's utterly ridiculous.

 

Are they aware that some children underage are getting their parents to buy this game for them? I believe they are aware, yet they just use the video game violence issue as a tool to get their political status pushed forward. Like Mr. Jack Thompson's prediction of Columbine and other school shootings in which video games instantly were to blame. NOPE, not the problem. Those kids were outsiders who were pissed off at the fact that no one would talk to them or get near them. So, they shot up the school because somewhere in their mind they thought they would finally be recognized.

 

If Jack Thompson wants to blame these school shootings as products of a violent video game instead of mental illness or social problems, he can go ahead and do so. Like a wise man once said, "You can't knock a homie's hustle."

 

 

 

 

[Tim Dog]

These are computer games and is meant solely for entertainment purposes.

These games contains content and materials not recommended for children and/or those seeking to enhance or establish political careers.

I believe violence and inappropriate actions belong in video games and not the real world, and insists that in no event should anyone attempt to recreate or mimic any of the actions, events or situations occurring in these games.

[Mankind]

Jack Thompson is a little prick. He probably doesn't know how to give mature responses. They shouldn't gives f*ckoes like that lawyer liscenses. And I think all of the soccer moms are ignorant bitches. I saw a lot of bloody gangster movies when I was a child and it had no effect on me at all. I'm sure this has been said many times in this topic, but it's the parent's fault, not the videogame companies. All who believe otherwise suck.

[addisonpeterson]

I think that the parents are at fault because they do buy the kids video games and there is a warning on the back with a rating symbol. Honestly I think Congress should make a bill banning parents from suing companies if they bought the product. Thats like saying that the parents are blaming cigarette companies for there kids for smoking if they bought them the cigarettes in the first place.

[ISuck]

I think, being on a grand theft auto board, we are all a bit biased . But the truth of the matter is that this is just another case of daddy government wanting to step into people's lives and regulate regulate regulate. Video game violence, along with violence on TV and in movies, should be monitored by the parents to whatever extent they feel like, NOT the government.

[Crazycraig15]

i completely agree that violent video games don't cause mental deterioation and eventually end up serial murderers. I have also found out a interesting study that probably proves violent games such as GTA and Doom etc can actually save your life!!!!

 

http://forums.cheatcc.com/blogs/news_by_li...07/04/2030.aspx

 

 

[AllDoItTheSame]

just for the sake of irony, that guy should be shot/run down/set on fire by someone who would later make the video game violence claim