By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - General Discussion - Police Believe Sandy Hook Shooting Was An 'Emulation' Of Video Game Scenario

SlayerRondo said:
happydolphin said:

I replied to almost all of these in my replies above to other peoples' posts.

The "almost" implies that you did not adress it all.

I would like to hear you're opinion's on that which you did not adress.

Sorry, I meant all of them. Go read them and we'll continue.



Around the Network
timmah said:
pokoko said:

I'm going to need some research links for that, please, as I believe the exact opposite.  Sounds a lot like the Dungeons & Dragons bunk from a few decades ago.  Watching fake people die in videogames has never, ever affected me in near the same way as watching real human beings realisitcally depict death in films.  Not even close.  I think violent films are far more potentially damaging to children--not that they should necessarily have access to either, of course.

My brother works at a facility that treats people with autism spectrum disorders, and the most violent cases he sees are commonly addicted to violent video games (and I mean, really, really addicted). They also tend to have parents who coddle them & give them whatever they want, so that may be part of it as well. Removing the access to violent media, as well as changing the parental dynamic usually results in a very positive change over the next year of treatment.

Isn't it a bit of an assumption to think that violent videogames are a cause in those situations rather than a symptom, though?  What if violent people seek out violent media?  When a child psychopath kills a dog, do we say that killing dogs is the reason he has become a psychopath?  I have a lot of trouble with the causality some people seem eager to assign automatically.  I still think violent people seek violent experiences, and that's always been the case whether games exist or not.

Violent media should definitely be kept away from people with certain mental problems but I don't think we can just assume that they wouldn't be violent regardless.



SlayerRondo said:
timmah said:
pokoko said:
timmah said:

It's not meaningless at all. If somebody has a predisposition to violent behavior, then violent media of any kind can certainly exacerbate the problem by feeding the violent mindset with fantasy, which then becomes 'reality' for the disturbed individual. You also need to understand the difference between a movie (where you just watch the violence) and a game (where you actually cause the violence to happen on screen), this is a huge difference to the mind of an individual who has difficulty distinguishing fantasy from reality. This type of media has a substantially different effect on a disturbed mind than it does on your mind.

Even if it is not the cause of the problem in this case, it could be one of the pieces of the puzzle. The reason they're looking specifically at the violent games is, he had a whole lot of them. If he had a massive library of violent movies and few or no games, I'm assuming they would be looking for a link to the movies.

There is no case to be made for banning violent games, but more research and awareness might lead parents of similar children to keep them away from such media, be it games, movies, books, whatever.

I'm going to need some research links for that, please, as I believe the exact opposite.  Sounds a lot like the Dungeons & Dragons bunk from a few decades ago.  Watching fake people die in videogames has never, ever affected me in near the same way as watching real human beings realisitcally depict death in films.  Not even close.  I think violent films are far more potentially damaging to children--not that they should necessarily have access to either, of course.

I agree with you as this applies to most cases. Keep in mind, you're going based on how these things affect you, but I'm talking about how it affects people with a certain combination of mental ailments. Asbergers is not usually associated with violent tendencies (in fact, it very rarely is), but some (very few) people with asbergers or autism also suffer from other mental illnesses such as bipolar disorder, an inability or decreased ability to feel physical/emotional pain (I don't remember what that's called), and inability to distinguish fantasy from reality, or even psychosis. It is very, very rare for Asbergers or Autism to be associated with violence, but in those rare cases where some autism spectrum disorder is also present with other disorders, specifically resulting in violent tendencies, THAT is the very specific, rare case where violent media (especially video games) can be problematic.

My brother works at a facility that treats people with autism spectrum disorders, and the most violent cases he sees are commonly addicted to violent video games (and I mean, really, really addicted). They also tend to have parents who coddle them & give them whatever they want, so that may be part of it as well. Removing the access to violent media, as well as changing the parental dynamic usually results in a very positive change over the next year of treatment.


If you beleive that movie's and music and book's that have violent theme's don't negatively affect the mind's of disturbed people and lead them to commit violent shooting's then why not just have them be a part of the study as well? 

I have no problem with a fair study being done as the results will liekly be as they have been that video game's can result in a temporary adrenalin increase that can lead to a slight increase in agressive actions at best. 

If it were violent video game's this would be a global problem but it seem's to be more of an American issue than anything else.


Notice I'm talking about violent MEDIA, this includes movies, books, music, etc. Games seem to be a stronger link in these cases, because the individuals are actually 'acting out' the fantasies. That being said, the 'violent media' is not the problem and does not 'cause' violent tendencies, it's just something that can exacerbate a problem if one already exists.



happydolphin said:
hsrob said:
Yes, fits perfectly with the international explosion in school shootings that has occured with the rising popularity of games....

That's a strawman. Even if that weren't true, the link is trivial to anyone honest about this and not "defensive" about violent games.

Another example is guns. True guns don't kill people, but put them in the wrong hands and it makes for some silly situations.

@Somini, just read your reply. Funny how I mentioned guns in my reply to hsrob :)

The difference is that a guy with an assult rifle and no video game's can shoot up a school

A guy with no assult rifle and video game's cannot shoot up a school

The nation's with the highest violent video game usage have some of the lowest crime rates other than America.

Just admit it. This is an American problem with American issue's.



This is the Game of Thrones

Where you either win

or you DIE

pokoko said:
timmah said:
pokoko said:

I'm going to need some research links for that, please, as I believe the exact opposite.  Sounds a lot like the Dungeons & Dragons bunk from a few decades ago.  Watching fake people die in videogames has never, ever affected me in near the same way as watching real human beings realisitcally depict death in films.  Not even close.  I think violent films are far more potentially damaging to children--not that they should necessarily have access to either, of course.

My brother works at a facility that treats people with autism spectrum disorders, and the most violent cases he sees are commonly addicted to violent video games (and I mean, really, really addicted). They also tend to have parents who coddle them & give them whatever they want, so that may be part of it as well. Removing the access to violent media, as well as changing the parental dynamic usually results in a very positive change over the next year of treatment.

Isn't it a bit of an assumption to think that violent videogames are a cause in those situations rather than a symptom, though?  What if violent people seek out violent media?  When a child psychopath kills a dog, do we say that killing dogs is the reason he has become a psychopath?  I have a lot of trouble with the causality some people seem eager to assign automatically.  I still think violent people seek violent experiences, and that's always been the case whether games exist or not.

Violent media should definitely be kept away from people with certain mental problems but I don't think we can just assume that they wouldn't be violent regardless.

It would be a huge assumption (and wrong) to think violent video games cause anything. I've never said that, I said games can in rare cases exacerbate an already existing issue of violent tendencies in people with a certain set of mental & behavioral disorders. The violent tendencies already exist, so they are not being 'caused' by the violent media. However, if an individual has violent tendencies, a severe personality disorder, lack of empathy, and difficulty distinguishing fantasy from reality, it stands to reason they should not be engaging with any type of violent media (fantasy that can bleed over into their reality).



Around the Network
timmah said:
pokoko said:
timmah said:
pokoko said:

I'm going to need some research links for that, please, as I believe the exact opposite.  Sounds a lot like the Dungeons & Dragons bunk from a few decades ago.  Watching fake people die in videogames has never, ever affected me in near the same way as watching real human beings realisitcally depict death in films.  Not even close.  I think violent films are far more potentially damaging to children--not that they should necessarily have access to either, of course.

My brother works at a facility that treats people with autism spectrum disorders, and the most violent cases he sees are commonly addicted to violent video games (and I mean, really, really addicted). They also tend to have parents who coddle them & give them whatever they want, so that may be part of it as well. Removing the access to violent media, as well as changing the parental dynamic usually results in a very positive change over the next year of treatment.

Isn't it a bit of an assumption to think that violent videogames are a cause in those situations rather than a symptom, though?  What if violent people seek out violent media?  When a child psychopath kills a dog, do we say that killing dogs is the reason he has become a psychopath?  I have a lot of trouble with the causality some people seem eager to assign automatically.  I still think violent people seek violent experiences, and that's always been the case whether games exist or not.

Violent media should definitely be kept away from people with certain mental problems but I don't think we can just assume that they wouldn't be violent regardless.

It would be a huge assumption (and wrong) to think violent video games cause anything. I've never said that, I said games can in rare cases exacerbate an already existing issue of violent tendencies in people with a certain set of mental & behavioral disorders. The violent tendencies already exist, so they are not being 'caused' by the violent media. However, if an individual has violent tendencies, a severe personality disorder, lack of empathy, and difficulty distinguishing fantasy from reality, it stands to reason they should not be engaging with any type of violent media (fantasy that can bleed over into their reality).

I don't think we're actually disagreeing at this point.



Uh oh, all FPS games going co-op vs non-humans only CONFIRMED. =P



The Carnival of Shadows - Folk Punk from Asbury Park, New Jersey

http://www.thecarnivalofshadows.com 


happydolphin said:
hsrob said:

It would only be a strawman if I was genuinely claiming that is the position put forth which of course I wasn't ;) 

It troubles me though that games are being looked at as a cause by the police when logic dictates that even if they are 'proven' to be part of the problem here they are clearly not the main issue.  Games are ubiquitous in the developed world, mass shootings and school shootings are not.

Trying to finger games seems at best to be oversimplifying an issue that simply isn't simply, and at worst, blatent scapegoating.

Neither approach can possibly lead to a solution that will decrease the number of innocent people being killed by gun (or any other kind of) violence.  I have no prejudice in how that solution is arrived at, if it takes more guns, so be it. However, trying to prove a link, after-the-fact, if that is one's intention, will inevitably lead to proof in the positive but not necessarily the correct conclusion.

You know, the problem with violence as a diet for society is that, even if guns were removed from the equation, the more unstable would have more inspiration on other means to wreak havoc by using knives, household bombs, and any other tool they could devise for their mischeavous desires.

The problem with violence as a diet is that it feeds the madman, whereas guns could be eliminated as a tool, violence is the root.

You're argument would be more convincing if the evidence from other nation' around the world did not tear down your argument.

The best example of a nation that has banned gun's while similarly experiencing the boon in violent video game's would be Australia.

After the port Arthur masacre of 1996 gun's were either banned of very heavily regulated (in the case of hunting rifle) the number of death's buy gunshot has declined over 50% despite the coming prevalence of violent video game's.

A knife is not nearly effetive enough for someone to go on a killing spree like Sandy Hook and bomb's are complex, dangerous to the maker and not the kind of thing a mentaly inept person can put together. 

And for the record gun's DO lead to people who use them becoming more violent people from a mental standpoint.

And yes i think that if you're child is mentaly unwell you should probably take the violent media (not just video game's) away from them. But given how old he was and how easy it is to use the internet it lekely would have made little to no difference.

Regulating gun's is far more easy to do than digital media.



This is the Game of Thrones

Where you either win

or you DIE

pokoko said:
sergiodaly said:
IMO, games are rated for appropriate ages, and those should be used to guide people in the usage of video games. i know people will say its easy for me because i can play what ever i want (32 years old, no limits here) but i am a gamer for almost 20 years now and when i was a young gamer i did not need FPS to be a happy gamer, and 12 year old children shouldn't be playing 18+ or 16+ rated games. what we play does not define what we are, but could certainly shape some part of us...
totally against game censorship, but the rates are there for something... Parents and game stores should implement them...

Most stores that sell or rent games won't let kids have them.  Sure, some get through, but the overwhelming majory of kids who play violent games get them from a parent.  Even if they get them another way, it still often means that the parents aren't making any effort to see what their kid is playing.  It's not like a porn magazine they can sneak into the bathroom, games have to be played on large television screens.

I speak from experience on that.  I ran a video store for several years.  Even games where I felt I needed to make an extra effort to warn the parent about, like GTA, were usually met with a shrug.

Not that I'm necessarily saying those parents are bad.  Some know their children and what they can handle.  Some fifteen year olds can play or watch something 18+ with no problem, some can't.  It was those who display complete apathy that bothered me.

i understand the difficulties, we as a society have to do, to educate our selfs as adults and the children as future adults. its a eternal task.
but blaming games, as once movies, music, and others were blamed, because they did transport a violent content to the masses, isn't the answer, supervising the exposure to these content is the solution, because i, as a adult, don't want any kind of censorship, but for me to have that freedom i have to do my role of a good parent. People have to realize freedom have a price and we all have to pay it.



Proudest Platinums - BF: Bad Company, Killzone 2 , Battlefield 3 and GTA4

SlayerRondo said:
happydolphin said:
hsrob said:

It would only be a strawman if I was genuinely claiming that is the position put forth which of course I wasn't ;) 

It troubles me though that games are being looked at as a cause by the police when logic dictates that even if they are 'proven' to be part of the problem here they are clearly not the main issue.  Games are ubiquitous in the developed world, mass shootings and school shootings are not.

Trying to finger games seems at best to be oversimplifying an issue that simply isn't simply, and at worst, blatent scapegoating.

Neither approach can possibly lead to a solution that will decrease the number of innocent people being killed by gun (or any other kind of) violence.  I have no prejudice in how that solution is arrived at, if it takes more guns, so be it. However, trying to prove a link, after-the-fact, if that is one's intention, will inevitably lead to proof in the positive but not necessarily the correct conclusion.

You know, the problem with violence as a diet for society is that, even if guns were removed from the equation, the more unstable would have more inspiration on other means to wreak havoc by using knives, household bombs, and any other tool they could devise for their mischeavous desires.

The problem with violence as a diet is that it feeds the madman, whereas guns could be eliminated as a tool, violence is the root.

You're argument would be more convincing if the evidence from other nation' around the world did not tear down your argument.

The best example of a nation that has banned gun's while similarly experiencing the boon in violent video game's would be Australia.

After the port Arthur masacre of 1996 gun's were either banned of very heavily regulated (in the case of hunting rifle) the number of death's buy gunshot has declined over 50% despite the coming prevalence of violent video game's.

A knife is not nearly effetive enough for someone to go on a killing spree like Sandy Hook and bomb's are complex, dangerous to the maker and not the kind of thing a mentaly inept person can put together. 

And for the record gun's DO lead to people who use them becoming more violent people from a mental standpoint.

And yes i think that if you're child is mentaly unwell you should probably take the violent media (not just video game's) away from them. But given how old he was and how easy it is to use the internet it lekely would have made little to no difference.

Regulating gun's is far more easy to do than digital media.

Criminals don't buy guns legally anyway, and the US has a terrible history in relation to bans in general. Just look at when we banned alcohol back in the day, and our current 'war on drugs', neither ban resulted in less access to the banned items for criminals, and both led to the proliferation of crime and violence. Banning guns in a country with massive shorelines and easy smuggling paths at the borders would be disasterous, as criminals would still have easy access to illegal guns, while normal (law abiding) citizens would no longer have the ability to defend themselves.