Quantcast
Jump to content
Search In
  • More options...
Find results that contain...
Find results in...
    1. Welcome to GTAForums!

    2. News

    1. Red Dead Redemption 2

      1. News
      2. Red Dead Online
    1. GTA Online

      1. After Hours
      2. Find Lobbies & Players
      3. Guides & Strategies
      4. Vehicles
      5. Content Creator
      6. Help & Support
    2. Crews

      1. Events
      2. Recruitment
    1. Grand Theft Auto Series

    2. GTA Next

    3. GTA V

      1. PC
      2. Guides & Strategies
      3. Help & Support
    4. GTA IV

      1. Episodes from Liberty City
      2. Multiplayer
      3. Guides & Strategies
      4. Help & Support
      5. GTA Mods
    5. GTA Chinatown Wars

    6. GTA Vice City Stories

    7. GTA Liberty City Stories

    8. GTA San Andreas

      1. Guides & Strategies
      2. Help & Support
      3. GTA Mods
    9. GTA Vice City

      1. Guides & Strategies
      2. Help & Support
      3. GTA Mods
    10. GTA III

      1. Guides & Strategies
      2. Help & Support
      3. GTA Mods
    11. Top Down Games

      1. GTA Advance
      2. GTA 2
      3. GTA
    12. Wiki

      1. Merchandising
    1. GTA Modding

      1. GTA V
      2. GTA IV
      3. GTA III, VC & SA
      4. Tutorials
    2. Mod Showroom

      1. Scripts & Plugins
      2. Maps
      3. Total Conversions
      4. Vehicles
      5. Textures
      6. Characters
      7. Tools
      8. Other
      9. Workshop
    3. Featured Mods

      1. DYOM
      2. OpenIV
      3. GTA: Underground
      4. GTA: Liberty City
      5. GTA: State of Liberty
    1. Red Dead Redemption

    2. Rockstar Games

    1. Off-Topic

      1. General Chat
      2. Gaming
      3. Technology
      4. Programming
      5. Movies & TV
      6. Music
      7. Sports
      8. Vehicles
    2. Expression

      1. Graphics / Visual Arts
      2. GFX Requests & Tutorials
      3. Writers' Discussion
      4. Debates & Discussion
    1. Forum Support

    2. Site Suggestions

Quinn_flower

so the us goverment is blaming video games again for the mass shootings

Recommended Posts

Dryspace

@Tchuck

 

I'm listening to you, but I don't understand what you mean by saying that I am moving the goalposts further. Further from what? What is the original goalpost that you are asserting that I have not adhered to?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Saggy
13 hours ago, Svip said:

@Saggy, I appreciate the long post, but you really didn't have to.  You convinced me pretty much in the first paragraph.  In fact, your reference to Mafia-style killings in the 1930s made me wonder whether the Saint Valentine's Day Massacre would count as a mass shooting.  After all, 7 people were killed, although there was at least 4 perpetrators.  (But mass shootings are not limited to lone shooters, as far as I know.)

Yeahh I rambled a bit.  I have a problem with brevity. 

 

I was also wondering how the mafia killings would work into a "mass shooting" style of definition.  From what I've read, there were only a few incidents where more than 1 or 2 people were shot and killed.  Beyond that, I think the intent matters, because with mafia killings it was basically a plain and simple assassination for whatever motives organized crime would have to do that, but seems like people just got in the way.  For example, how different would it be if the shooter's goals was to hit bystanders instead of avoid them.

 

Statistics are one thing, but there is a very clear public perception that the U.S. is inundated with shootings possessing these criteria...

 

A dozen or multiple dozens of fatalities

An intent to kill as many people as possible

Was conducted using a semi-automatic, intermediate or large caliber, high round-capacity weapon

 

I do see a definite distinction between the types of shootings collated into studies, or reported on day after day by media outlets, and the types of shootings where the killer was intent on amassing as many casualties as they could, and where that figure ultimately results in numbers that are in magnitudes of order greater than other multiple-fatality shootings.  A multiple-fatality gang shooting where 5 people die is not similar at all, in intent, to something like the Orlando night-club shooting where a homophobic individual kills 50 in an attempt to kill as many as he can.

 

I think part of the problem with developing research methodolgy, as well as understanding public perception, is where to decide what number of casualties is significant.  A singular killing is significant enough.  So you might say 5 people being killed as a "mass" when compared to one death.  However, what do you then call a shooting where 50 people die?  There needs to be recognition that the fatality numbers in shootings where the shooter intends to kill as many as possible are reaching much higher echelons than all other typical multiple-fatality shootings.

 

I would propose considering one umbrella group of "multiple fatality shootings" which covers any shooting where 2-5 people die.  You then consider any shooting whose casualty figure is ten times higher than 2-5 ( so 20-50 ) as being on a higher echelon, let's say "massive fatality shooting".  Of course 20 is more in the median range in terms of how high the casualty figures in these attacks have reached, so there needs to be a tolerance in there, let's say +/- 5-10 .  So 15-55+ fatalities (or 10-65)  would fall into that "massive fatality" category and be reasonably distinct enough from other "multiple fatality" shootings that the statistics could get a better sense of it.  What could be deduced as the intent of the shooting would then be used to determine how much tolerance to apply to the lower bounds, so that a drive-by shooting that killed even 10 people would be a "multiple fatality homicide" but a disgruntled worker who kills the same number of people would be a "massive fatality homicide".  The reason being, that of the 10 that died in the hypothetical drive-by, many are often bystanders, or associates simply present among one or two intended targets.  In the disgruntled worker hypothetical, the intent was to kill anybody and everybody the shooter came into contact with.

 

Following that type of complex metric, we could actually track and define different types of shootings according to the average person's sensibilities and not a rigid, simple metric like body count alone.  By that complex metric, I would have to say that the mafia killings are distinct from the type of shoot-everyone-you-see "massive fatality" shootings we've had a lot of lately.

 

I also wonder if the action we took to curtail the tommy gun's popularity would work in the same way to curtail this recent trend of "massive fatality" shootings.  That would kind of rely on data showing that such "massive fatality" shootings were in fact spiking due to a particular weapon or style of weapon.  My hunch is that the closeness in timing between "massive fatality" shootings becoming a trend, and the assault weapons ban being lifted, isn't just coincidence.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Tchuck

@Dryspace

 

Further from original point. In the part I quoted, you attempted to equalize Mass Shootings with School Shootings, as if they were interchangeable, so that your point could continue to be valid. You've been doing it from the start, slightly changing the definition of what a mass shooting is every time sivis questioned it or showed you wrong. That's what moving the goalposts mean: redefining an argument every time you are challenged, so that it can not be countered by the adversary. Most famous example are antivaxxers and their logic; first Thimerosal isn't safe. Then thimerosal is removed, but other vaccine components aren't safe. Then  other components are proven safe, but vaccine injury still exists. Then "vaccine injury" is explained, but doctors are out to make you sick. Then it is shown that doctors aren't out to make you sick, but it's all a conspiracy and you can't trust anyone, thus vaccines cause autism and are bad. 

 

They keep going further and further so that they can maintain that they are right and their argument is true, coming to a point where it can't technically be challenged because it's a false premise.

 

Quote

I also wonder if the action we took to curtail the tommy gun's popularity would work in the same way to curtail this recent trend of "massive fatality" shootings.  That would kind of rely on data showing that such "massive fatality" shootings were in fact spiking due to a particular weapon or style of weapon.  My hunch is that the closeness in timing between "massive fatality" shootings becoming a trend, and the assault weapons ban being lifted, isn't just coincidence.

This is an interesting point, though. The Tommy Gun was a landmark in gun control, leading to legislation to tax it and require registration, likely curtailing its use by non-criminals and making access to it more difficult. Eventually gangsters abandoned it once the gangland period of the mafia was over, and they became more "professional" in their dealings.

 

But then the provisions were later revoked in 1968, because it would criminalize owners who tried to register weapons that were illegal in their state. Surely they could have come up with an alternative to that, but I guess it was "easier" to just allow it all. 

 

I completely agree that it isn't just a coincidence. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Dryspace

@Saggy

 

I think that you have a very reasonable point about public perception and semantics, as regards terminology. Earlier in this thread I made a similar point in a reply to sivispacem:

 

On 3/14/2018 at 6:10 PM, Dryspace said:

"I think we can all agree that requiring four fatalities to count as a "mass" killing and excluding familicide even when more than four [die] are fairly ridiculous."

I don't agree. The term is 'mass killing'. If it were 'multiple killing' I would agree that the number four instead of three or two would be fairly ridiculous. Upon reflection, I would say that your assertion is closer to ridiculous. I believe that most people would not imagine a 'mass killing' as a killing of 2 or 3 people. A number had to be picked, and I don't think four unreasonable. I believe it was recently changed to three, and I maintain that many if not most people would be surprised to find, after being informed of a mass killing, that the total number of deaths is three.

As for familicide, I don't in my ignorance presume to question the reasoning. I would guess it was related (uggh, lol) to the issue of perception, which is fundamental to issues of semantics. What I do agree with--again, in my ignorance--is that the reason for omitting familicides that otherwise meet the definition of 'mass killing' is not obvious to me.

 

@Tchuck

 

I understand the concept of 'moving the goalposts'. What I don't understand is what you are basing your assertion on. When you say that my "point could continue to be valid", I don't know what point you are talking about. My point regarding U.S. history? Or are you perhaps referring to my assertion that mass shootings are not "mostly an American thing"?

 

At the outset, I made a claim regarding U.S. history based on the concept "reasonably similar to the school shootings of today". I believed that this concept would be understood by the average person. What I meant was a person making plans to show up at a school and begin firing upon people, and carrying out that plan. This claim regarding history was not based upon any specific number of injuries or deaths. Not once did I exclude an historical example based upon number of injuries or deaths--in fact one incident of March 30, 1891 that I counted as reasonably similar had zero deaths.

 

I'm convinced this is a misunderstanding, but I would know for sure if you would paste the "before and after" text so that I can see the discrepancy that you refer to. If I have contradicted myself or made disparate claims, you should be able to clearly show this by pasting the contradictions one after the other.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Short Stay

I'm suspicious of the recent WHO gaming disorder classification. Sure there will be individuals who develop problems around gaming, but so what? You gotta sort the wheat from the chaff somehow. What's really important is that someone (usually Mom) is around to do the drudge work, whilst little Johnny should be free to indulge his passion/addiction for computer games. 

 

The WHO classification could be viewed as part of a creeping tendency to try to control computer gaming. This must be resisted at every turn. Fight for your right to game whilst others toil.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
RedDagger

Have you actually looked at the classification or are you just parroting the rhetoric of fearmongers? All it does is recognise that people can use video games to a detrimental effect. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Short Stay
On 8/23/2018 at 2:18 PM, RedDagger said:

Have you actually looked at the classification or are you just parroting the rhetoric of fearmongers? All it does is recognise that people can use video games to a detrimental effect. 

I'll assume you are addressing me. Of course I haven't looked at the classification, though i have heard reports of it on the news.

 

A detrimental effect on some children, however small, will be seized upon by the Mothers of Morality (MoM) as an excuse to lobby for restrictions on computer games and simulated worlds in general. They'll want us to help out with chores, study hard, finish homework, go to college, get a job, listen to their whiny reproachful voices encouraging us to get married so we can have yet another whiny, reproachful voice in our lives. Instead they should butt out and get back to their work. What we really need, nay, righteously deserve, is an army of slaves to toil whilst we immerse ourselves in the virtual worlds of our fancy. That's what I'm afraid the fookers will try to subvert.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
sivispacem
23 minutes ago, Short Stay said:

A detrimental effect on some children, however small, will be seized upon by the Mothers of Morality (MoM) as an excuse to lobby for restrictions on computer games and simulated worlds in general

Right, because that worked so well for "Parental Advisory" stickers on albums, or the film classification system, didn't it?

Slippery slope arguments of this nature are seldom very appealing. I don't think a WHO classification for gaming addiction is any more likely to sound the death-knell of gaming as we know it than the WHO classification for alcohol addiction has drinking culture.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Cutter De Blanc

This new mass shooting at the Madden tournament certainly won't help affairs

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Wolver_321

What it just happened is unbelievable, and it's incredible how these mass shootings are happening regurlarly in the US. Honestly I'm not very informed about US politics in general, but I don't think banning all the gun shops would help so much at this point, because people who've already bought a weapon would still be dangereous... But limiting the damage IMO is the best choice!

 

From what I heard the guy who shooted had lost a match in Madden in that tournament, and if this is true let's prepare to see tons of "articles" about how videogames are killing people. For journalists and people at the government there won't be any difference between a game like Madden (ESRB "Everyone" - PEGI "3") and an "Mature"/"Adults Only" rated game, for them the most important thing is that a videogame was attached to this mass shooting.

 

All my thoughts are for the victims and their families and their friends. Let's hope at least that who's been injured could survive!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Jerking For Soup
Posted (edited)

omg moving pictures and pieces of code causes mass shootings lmao

 

media just uses video games for higher ratings and interest from old boomers. 

 

Its rly not a big issue tbh.

Edited by Jerking For Soup

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Wolver_321
27 minutes ago, Jerking For Soup said:

omg moving pictures and pieces of code causes mass shootings lmao

 

media just uses video games for higher ratings and interest from old boomers. 

 

Its rly not a big issue tbh.

Yeah, I agree with you, we can just ignore all the things that medias say about videogames in general... But the problem comes when the "old boomers" who're at the government start to censor games because of their violence!

Now probably I'm not the best person for speaking about this topic because I'm living in a country that has never banned/censored a game (only Manhunt 2 risked a ban), but in the recent years I've seen tons of garbage articles blaming videogames that have never considered a thing: the PEGI (which is the european equivalent of ESRB). Only one time I saw a semi-decent article about PEGI and how it should be respected as a law, but again they've missed one thing: kids could create a fake account on PSN/Live/Steam and buy

18+ games without any problems! 

 

But even if 13 years old guys buy a 18+ game, will it really hurt them? Unless they've some mental problems the answer is no! Even 10 years old kids can see the difference between the real life and a videogame. If we make a poll in this forum asking at what age people played their first GTA, I'm quite sure that the most voted answer would be "10-17". When we are in that range of age we want to feel more mature, and this has been always a thing even in past generations. In the past maybe music could be that "mature thing", now there are films and videogames. Everything is normal, a part the sells of some newspapers I guess 😁

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Short Stay
On 8/25/2018 at 3:17 PM, sivispacem said:

Right, because that worked so well for "Parental Advisory" stickers on albums, or the film classification system, didn't it?

Slippery slope arguments of this nature are seldom very appealing. I don't think a WHO classification for gaming addiction is any more likely to sound the death-knell of gaming as we know it than the WHO classification for alcohol addiction has drinking culture.

How long will it be before any kind of violence, be it 'killing' enemies in first person shooters or running over pedestrians in you know what game series, will be deemed "Problematic" and hence slowly squeezed out? The evidence provided by the censorious will come in the form of suggested links between gaming and real life violence. This will be taken up as empirical evidence by those who don't give a hoot as long as they get their way. Slippery slope arguments of that nature are very appealing to those who really should be getting on with the drudge work.

 

Perhaps the Jacksonville Landing shooting will provide some more 'ammunition' for the Drudges?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
sivispacem

I'm reading a lot of repetition and not a lot of reasoning. On what basis are you making these assertions given that video games and other media, violent or otherwise, have received the item of motivated individuals and been associated  colloquially(though not scientifically) with violence for the best part of half a century now without ever being subject to what you describe?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Short Stay
Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, sivispacem said:

I'm reading a lot of repetition and not a lot of reasoning. On what basis are you making these assertions given that video games and other media, violent or otherwise, have received the item of motivated individuals and been associated  colloquially(though not scientifically) with violence for the best part of half a century now without ever being subject to what you describe?

I'm making my assertions by way of memory and life experience. Ironically, I should of course be making them by way of empirical examples, which is something which I have accused the other side of lacking. You are correct that there have been many previous moral panics around video games, which appear to have had little effect, but then it is hard if not impossible to measure how much self-censoring amongst game makers has taken place, looking over their shoulders and all too aware of previous moral panics. The climate is changing, with the digital world coming under increasing scrutiny as it itself grows ever larger. I don't know if violence will eventually be banned in video games but, if I were a Drudge, I'd certainly be making noises about it. That gives me an idea - why don't I join some Drudge forum and agitate against violence in games? Being a double agent would tickle my fancy no end.

 

As to the repetition - say it long enough and hard enough and eventually enough will believe it, something the Drudges know all too well.

Edited by Short Stay

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
sivispacem
2 hours ago, Short Stay said:

I'm making my assertions by way of memory and life experience

Are you? Exactly what exposure in your life experiences do you believe gives you the authority to argue these outcomes are inescapable, given that they haven't occurred with any other violent media?

 

2 hours ago, Short Stay said:

You are correct that there have been many previous moral panics around video games, which appear to have had little effect, but then it is hard if not impossible to measure how much self-censoring amongst game makers has taken place, looking over their shoulders and all too aware of previous moral panics.

Alternatively, you can look at game content and how much more graphic when it comes to violence and torture and portrayal of sex they have become in the last couple of decades.

If developers are self-censoring, it's not around barbaric levels of graphic violence- it's around gender, race/ethnicity and sexuality.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Dryspace

@Short Stay

 

As I don't know anything about Drudge other than that I believe he is anti-leftist, what are some examples of things that he has repeated which are demonstrably untrue, or that defy logic?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Short Stay

Come on you Drudges, it's a well known fact that violence in video games encourages violence in the outside world, just as it's a well known fact that the objectification of women encourages violence against women. You surely don't need reminding that violence in the outside world must surely include violence against women? Even if there is no proof of this as such, are you willing to take the chance and possibly have the blood of innocent women on your hands? Shame on you!

 

Why do we have to tolerate boys playing with their silly toys anyway? They would be better served helping mummy around the house, painting their faces with coloured pigments, and playing with plastic babies.

 

Discuss.

 

~~~~~~~~~~

@sivispacem You win the argument, again.

@Dryspace Drudge is usually female, or at least identifies as such.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Dryspace

@Short Stay

 

I, uh...I see your non sequitur and raise you one--unless a guitar is a good substitute for villainy?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Short Stay
13 hours ago, Dryspace said:

@Short Stay

 

I, uh...I see your non sequitur and raise you one--unless a guitar is a good substitute for villainy?

My life has been a failure. I think I may as well top myself.

 

So long.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Domand

I mean sure video games can influence or have an effect in some cases to a person doing something crazy. but overall? No, video games are video games. People are people. People make the choice to kill and become mass murderers. Clearly there is something wrong with them in the head to be willing to do it, but its there own doing, not a video games influence. I think its crazy every time this happens, the blame is shifted onto something that doesn´t need to be blamed at all. Infact even guns shouldn´t be blamed as they do, cause its people doing this. They can still kill with a gun or something else. Grant it they would prefer a gun since its easier mostly. Even then people will get access to guns whether they are controlled or not. I think we need to start getting the blame on the correct thing. The people doing it and not a video game. Its a game. Like I said some cases sure, a game could of caused it (Though I cant name it off the top of my head) but mostly its a person making a disturbing choice to act this way. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×

Important Information

By using GTAForums.com, you agree to our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy.