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

Somini said:

Adam Lanza is a dirtbag. There's nothing else to it. The guy was a mental case who needed professional help. Or perhaps some real, non-gun toting time with his mother.

While the reason behind the Sandy Hook shooting may never be realized, it's certainly not due to video games. 27 people were killed at his hand and we are still looking into the fact that he owned "thousands of dollars worth" of violent video games.

Now the police are looking into whether Adam Lanza was emulating a video game scenario while he massacred innocent kids. I've never read such bullshit in my life.

Good call police force. It's the video games that caused this. Not the guns within arms' distance, the fact that he used to shoot with his mother, his sensory integration disorder, or his Asperger's syndrome.

Nah, none of those could have been the issue here.

http://www.courant.com/news/connecticut/newtown-sandy-hook-school-shooting/hc-raising-adam-lanza-20130217,0,5614292,full.story

maybe it emulates from a TV show? or movie...

LEAVEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE VIDEO GAMES ALONEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE leave it alone!!!!!!!

 



 

Around the Network
timmah said:
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 likely 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.

People don't buy child porn legally either the point is that it make's it harder to get ahold of a gun when there illegal especially when the person is mentally inept like the Sandy Hook shooter. 

And I'll agree that America is a more dangeous nation than Australia and therefore people need gun's to defend themselve's but Assault rifle's are exessive and only used to kill large group's of people or in a warzone. Using one in a school or a residential neighbourhood would be far more dangerous than a form of protection.

And the attempt to restrict video game's more would be far less sucessfull than restricting gun's as the internet would just fuel piracy. 

I also agree that the war on drugs is only adding to the allure of drugs, wasting billion's of dollars and send's people to jail for victimless crimes.



This is the Game of Thrones

Where you either win

or you DIE

SlayerRondo said:
timmah said:

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.

People don't buy child porn legally either the point is that it make's it harder to get ahold of a gun when there illegal especially when the person is mentally inept like the Sandy Hook shooter. 

And I'll agree that America is a more dangeous nation than Australia and therefore people need gun's to defend themselve's but Assault rifle's are exessive and only used to kill large group's of people or in a warzone. Using one in a school or a residential neighbourhood would be far more dangerous than a form of protection.

And the attempt to restrict video game's more would be far less sucessfull than restricting gun's as the internet would just fuel piracy. 

I also agree that the war on drugs is only adding to the allure of drugs, wasting billion's of dollars and send's people to jail for victimless crimes.

While banning assault rifles sounds warm and fuzzy, the fact is it will do literally nothing to prevent or even impede violence. A very, very small percentage of violence in the US is carried out with these types of weapons, and the fact is that multiple handguns with smaller clips (which the shooter also had on his person) could be just as easily used to carry out the exact same level of carnage and are much easier to conceal. This type of ban is really just to make people feel better inside, as it has no measurable effect on violence.

Also, Adam Lanza was not mentally inept at all, he had a severe case of Asbergers and a personality disorder, but was a very, very smart individual. He was certainly intelligent enough to figure out another way to carry out his evil intentions.

I certainly wouldn't advocate for restricting video games.

I'm not against sensible steps. Background checks should be more stringent, there should be tougher laws on the transfer of gun ownership, and people should be required to report stolen firearms. I think holding an owner responsible if he transfers ownership to a felon or failure to report a theft within a given period of time would also help. There are sensible things we can do that might actually help.



timmah said:
SlayerRondo said:
timmah said:

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.

People don't buy child porn legally either the point is that it make's it harder to get ahold of a gun when there illegal especially when the person is mentally inept like the Sandy Hook shooter. 

And I'll agree that America is a more dangeous nation than Australia and therefore people need gun's to defend themselve's but Assault rifle's are exessive and only used to kill large group's of people or in a warzone. Using one in a school or a residential neighbourhood would be far more dangerous than a form of protection.

And the attempt to restrict video game's more would be far less sucessfull than restricting gun's as the internet would just fuel piracy. 

I also agree that the war on drugs is only adding to the allure of drugs, wasting billion's of dollars and send's people to jail for victimless crimes.

While banning assault rifles sounds warm and fuzzy, the fact is it will do literally nothing to prevent or even impede violence. A very, very small percentage of violence in the US is carried out with these types of weapons, and the fact is that multiple handguns with smaller clips (which the shooter also had on his person) could be just as easily used to carry out the exact same level of carnage and are much easier to conceal. This type of ban is really just to make people feel better inside, as it has no measurable effect on violence.

Also, Adam Lanza was not mentally inept at all, he had a severe case of Asbergers and a personality disorder, but was a very, very smart individual. He was certainly intelligent enough to figure out another way to carry out his evil intentions.

I certainly wouldn't advocate for restricting video games.

I'm not against sensible steps. Background checks should be more stringent, there should be tougher laws on the transfer of gun ownership, and people should be required to report stolen firearms. I think holding an owner responsible if he transfers ownership to a felon or failure to report a theft within a given period of time would also help. There are sensible things we can do that might actually help.

Please don't use term's like warm and fuzzy as though you can make the argument for banning/restricting firearm's seem to be based on emotion rather than logic.

It is well shown that nation's where their are a higher percentage of gun owner's have a higher rate of gun violence and when they regulate gun's in a signifigant way the rate's of gun homicide go down. And oddly enough the rate of knifing's and bombing's have not gone up in nation's like Australia where gun ban's have signifigantly reduced gun death's.

However i would agree to tale the steps you mentioned first to see the effect's it has as well as law's requiring people living with children or people with mental disabilities having to use storage equipment not accessable to them.



This is the Game of Thrones

Where you either win

or you DIE

I have aspbergers and played CoD MW1.

I be killin peeps in the future they say!



NNID: crazy_man

3DS FC: 3969 4633 0700 

 My Pokemon Trading Shop (Hidden Power Breeding)

Around the Network

What if he was trying to emulate a movie? I can list plenty of films where someone massacres a large number of people in one place. Why must the blame always be on video games?