Another blow for video games

Due to the recent Montreal shooting incident the media is once again attempting to blame video games. They are now blaming some stupid 2D RPG clone game for the shooting.

When will people learn that we buy the games that we love therefore it is more appropriate to say we are what we buy, not what we buy makes us who we are.

It's obvious the guy was already obsessed with death and what not, I highly doubt a 2D type zelda RPG of a massacre pushed him over the edge.

But here we go again on the stupid debate. Blame this blame that blame him blame her, just don't blame the person who did it.

I'm sick of the media attempting to paint a picture of an altar boy that is seduced into a massacre by a video game. Most of the people who do commit these kinds of acts are one screw short of an erector set anyways.

Well said. Reminds me of Scream, where the killer pokes fun of people who blame violent movies for creating murderers:

Don't you blame the movies.
Movies don't create psychos.
Movies make psychos more creative.

Where is the article Bubba... speaking to some of my friends in Canada who have been reading a lot of the news on this and they haven't seen anything on it. I attempted to Google it and came up with nothing for Montreal Shooting and Video Game other than where they happened to appear on the same page randomly.

We in Australia play the very same violent video games as others in the world.

Our children don't go around shooting random strangers or each other with automatic rifles.

Why?

Nothing special, is very simple......

We don't allow people, let alone children, have to have access to guns!

Well thats our second ammendment right here in the U.S. and if they tried to take that away, I'd take up arms. That's what protects us. It's the fools who don't use them correctly that ruin it for everyone else. Guns in and of themselves are not evil, people are.

Without guns, half of Europe would be speaking a mix of German and Japanese today.

The things you own end up pwning you.
- Fight Club

> Without guns, half of Europe would be speaking a mix of German and Japanese today.

I really resent that. And I don't see what exactly is it supposed to mean. I thought the regular american army fought in Europe, not some yelling 2nd ammendment partisans carrying their home guns.

I also thought the Allies fought in Europe, as they did in Africa, Asia an in the Pacific. I wonder How many Americans would be talking Japanese.

I believe Bubba is making the point that other languages like German and Japanese, for example, have throughout history threatened to make English a secondary language in the United States. However, a little research shows that German never even came close to being considered the official language of the U.S. (source) Neither has Japanese, which has only recently gotten popular enough to be available for study in American schools in select states, like Hawaii and Georgia. America doesn't even have an official language; (source) it just so happens that most of us speak English. Regardless of how history may have changed this, the fact remains it didn't, and that guns alone weren't the only thing that helped us win WWII.

Quote:

---

I really resent that. And I don't see what exactly is it supposed to mean. I thought the regular american army fought in Europe, not some yelling 2nd ammendment partisans carrying their home guns.

---

It means guns protect and are useful when used correctly. Blaming the gun is blaming a stupid piece of metal that is designed to work in a certain way. Put the blame where it belongs. On the idiot using it incorrectly. As to your other statements I'm not going to dive into the history of WW2 here.

The 2nd ammendment is part of our Bill Of Rights and it will always be there. Making more laws is not going to do anything b/c it's already illegal to take a gun out and blast someone, yet folks still do it. More laws will just make it harder for the responsible gun owners to own a gun, but it won't stop the wackos b/c the laws we have now don't stop the wackos.

But back to the topic which is not gun control but more the fact that everyone wants to blame a stupid video game for another person's actions. This kind of thinking ticks me off b/c games don't do anything. Heck I play GTA San Andreas all the time and to be honest, the game is more annoying and difficult than it is grotesque and violent. The graphics IMO look stupid because most of the polygons are spent on the cars and buildings. The people have very low polygon and triangle counts. If you attempt to calculate what they are trying to display you will find that you cannot spend the same amount of polies on everything. Something has to give and that is the character models. The pathfinding is good but quite humorous at times when the AI insists on walking everyone into a wall repeatedly even as they bounce off it time and time again. I dunno I just cannot see why this little game gets so much bad press. Trying to ban the game is stupid. The kids who buy the game probably got their money from their parents so they must be attempting to pass a law that you must be a good, responsible parent. This whole line of thinking is ludicrous and I cannot believe any sensible person buys into it.

Games are so much less graphic than anything I see on TV or the movies and yet they blame them first thing. I wouldn't even blame movies - blame the person b/c they commited the act. GTA 3+ always gets a bad rap but it has some of the best game design (although the missions are extremely tough in San Andreas later in the game), best free-form design and play, and yet the concept is so simple and straightforward anyone can pick the game up at any time and start playing it and have tons of fun. If I could come close to creating something like GTA...well I probably wouldn't be doing what I am today.

Quote:

---

Well thats our second ammendment right here in the U.S. and if they tried to take that away, I'd take up arms. That's what protects us. It's the fools who don't use them correctly that ruin it for everyone else. Guns in and of themselves are not evil, people are.

---

As far as I know, the second ammendment was meant to protect the citizens from the government in a time when 20 people with rifles were a formidable fighting force. The constitution grants you the right to form such a fighting force on your own, to counterbalance the governments armed forces just in case your head of state is an as<peeeep>. But really, that time is past. If the government wants to fsck you, it won't send Jim West on his horse. So tell me, to counterbalance your government, are you allowed to own anti-tank mines or surface-to-air missiles ? Nukes ? If you are not, then all of this "to protect the citizens from the evil government" is outdated and irrelevant. All it serves today is giving people an excuse to own handguns. Handguns can be used to kill your wife, assault your neighbour, rob a liquor store or maybe kill a cop. But handguns are not a valid choice to keep your government in check. It has nuclear bombs for christs sake.
Yes, guns are not evil, people are. Why not let go guns on a plane then ? Because devices that multiply the "evilness" of people are dangerous. Someone who intends to kill people can strangle them if everything else fails. But I have a hard time imagine a headline like "20 strangled in school massacre". Don't let evil people have a multiplier.

Quote:

---

Without guns, half of Europe would be speaking a mix of German and Japanese today.

---

Probably. And without bread we'd probably all be dead. But that's not the point. WWII were regular armed forces. Not the militia. Soviet human resources superiority and allied equipment superiority. No second ammendment there.

> Games are so much less graphic than anything I see on TV or the movies and yet they blame them first thing. I wouldn't even blame movies

On this I agree. However, not even the media are to be blamed really. It's not some graphical violent scene on the news that will drive someone nuts into shooting everyboy at work or at school.

If you ask me, it's a matter of home environment first, and culture slash society, second. The same movies, the same games, the same news go across the world. And yet, with due exceptions the problems occur in the same place.

There has been massacres in Australia, Canada, UK... Switzerland (can't recall. But I think Switzerland yes). However there is something in the US that makes this an unfortunate repetitive event. I don't think it has anything to do with guns either (despite the fact I loath guns in an home environment). After all Canada has similar laws and the same ratio of guns per person and yet, they don't go around killing each other all the time.

It's perhaps time US really wakes up to a problem that is going to bite in their arse soon if they don't do something about it. Not many countries in the world have simultaneously a Timothy McVeigh, and Columbine Shooting, and many other violent stories in their resume of late events. Something is dead wrong. Literally.

The US has a large population... there for many crimes happen. Look at India or China... they have riots and bombings and killings all the time. Too many people in too little space. The problem with the US is we have so much space but it all goes to waste because it isn't "prime space"... Cities thrive for residents because it's close to the jobs. I think if we spread the population out we'd have much less crime. I think network technology is going to bring us that future.

As for my opinions on guns... I personally believe in the right to bear arms. However it should be significantly more difficult to attain one than it is. I also disagree with the statements that movies and TV are more graphic than games... what movies do you watch? What games do you play? There are not many movies where the main character gets in a car and starts running hundreds of people over on the street. I think games are targets more than movies because of what they offer... the ability to control the violence. GTA games have good story lines and you could probably get through each one of them without killing more than 50 people yourself. However... if the user pleases, they can kill thousands of people. They can go onto the street and torch people. If offers this option... and I think that's what doctors feel build tolerance to violence. The ability to choose the violence... you get me?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wraithan

Where is the article Bubba... speaking to some of my friends in Canada who have been reading a lot of the news on this and they haven't seen anything on it. I attempted to Google it and came up with nothing for Montreal Shooting and Video Game other than where they happened to appear on the same page randomly.

---

Life is like a video game, you gotta die sometime.

> GTA games have good story lines and you could probably get through each one of them without killing more than 50 people yourself

There is something wrong with these games. I can't put my finger on it.

But regardless, a game that is driven solely by the notion of gratuitous violence can't be a good thing when played by youngsters without any kind of supervision. With or without a "good"(?) storyline.

As a parent I wonder if I ever saw my daughter playing this game and found her taking great pleasure by running over pedestrians or making them puch bags. Would I be proud of her skills? Worried about why she would find that fun even in a game context?

The games readily display their violent nature. They are also clearly rated as Mature 17+. So it's forbidden to sell them to anyone without an ID card that can't prove their age. Does this happen? Nope. It does not. So... who's to blame exactly if it was found out that these games do indeed provoke a violent attitude in real life?

Clearly not the game makers (although personally I have no respect for these people). However it has to be said that the main argument against these type of games is the fact they promote violence. In order to achieve our goal we are directed into a life of crime. This, some specialists say, blurs the difference between good and bad. And the graphical nature of the violence, they say, dismistifies death. It makes it look almost... ok.

We cannot deny this argument. We cannot prove it wrong, the same they cannot prove it right. Not at least for now. However, the irony (or immorality if you prefer) of this argument is that, if it was found to be true, it can then be readily applied to all the media. Movies too... but also television and the news. And then what? Are TV stations interested in stop showing during prime time what gives them the ratings? No more car chases across US streets? No more live coverage of wars with reporters riding on tanks? No more COPS during prime time?...

Quote:

---

Blame this blame that blame him blame her, just don't blame the person who did it.

---

Blaming the offender is easy and feels good. However, it won't prevent future crimes. The fact is that countries and regions with similar genetic populations have different rates of violent crime. Therefore, we can say that environmental factors affect the rate of violent crime. Some analysis and discussion of these factors is desirable. Unfortunately, as you've pointed out, any analysis by the media or politicians is usually simplistic and populist, and not based on solid evidence.

It is worth pointing out that Canada generally has a low rate of violent crime.

I still think the media is utterly wrong as far as the Montreal shootings go. I live in Montreal. The shootings happened 10 blocks from where I live, one of my friends' brothers was in the same school, in the same room, when the guy started capping people. The shooter wasn't sane whatsoever. Why would he commit suicide if he were so deep into thinking life was a video game ? And why hasn't anyone questionned the reason as to why the person can't distinguish fictional violence from actual violence ? Ten years ago, the hot topic was blaming underage violence on TV shows and the like. Now they've moved on to video games.

The headlines in the news yesterday read "Shooter's favorite video game : "Columbine Super Massacre"". Just great. Super. Instead of looking deeper, just explain the entirety of the events on a half-witted fact that was found on his website. This wouldn't ........ me off that much, but the fact of the matter is that what happened that day is going to seriously hurt the once booming gaming industry of my city. I mean, Montreal was becoming a real big player in the domain of computer artistry...and now people will start getting in their way, under the guise that it causes extremist teenage behaviour.

And that's the other thing. The shooter wasn't a teenager. He was an adult. Do they blame video games for every murder, every beating, every ounce of violence in society ? No. But when it happens in school...well, that's another story.

The events that went down are a tragedy. But just like is the case in most tragedys, people are jumping to conclusions before getting a serious grasp of the situation. Everyone is still engulfed by the fear, and thinking in fear will lead them nowhere.

My 2 cents.

Has anyone seen the film "Lord of War" ... and to a point (even though I don't like the man), that Michael Moore film where he gets a gun for starting a bank account?

>> They are also clearly rated as Mature 17+.
When I was about 11/12, I went down to the video store, and rented an 18 rated movie (not an adult movie, it was just very violent, but it didn't warrent the 18's tag). I went to the rack, picked the movie, and rented it. NQA. And watched it.

Seven years later, when I was 18/19, someone did the same thing in the same video store, and got an 18's rated movie when they were about the same age I was. The child's parents complained* about it and I think the guy who rented it to the kid got sacked, and since then that store has been ID-ing everyone** for everything*** ... for about a month, and now the same thing happens.

Good system eh?

* My parents didn't know I got the movie out. They'd prob have complained if they had.
** Not really everyone.
*** Obviously exaggerated!!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wraithan

Where is the article Bubba... speaking to some of my friends in Canada who have been reading a lot of the news on this and they haven't seen anything on it. I attempted to Google it and came up with nothing for Montreal Shooting and Video Game other than where they happened to appear on the same page randomly.

---

Struggling to get back on topic here.... In some of the initial news casts they had a bunch of "experts" babbling about how violent video games caused the shooting. It wasn't until they found the guys website where he confesses his obsession with guns that they seemed to relax this approach, though i'm sure it'll come back again.

At risk of going off topic again, I have a question about that whole second ammendment thing.

I thought the American constitution stated that it was the right of any well armed militia to bear arms, not the right of any Tom, Dick or Harry?

Quote:

---

A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

---

You're reading it wrong. It actually states that the people have the right to form militia to protect their freedom as well as the right to bear arms. It's really two separate parts. You can read case law if you wish to get clarity.

Ah, well regulated. Why did I say well armed?

Anyway, thanks for clearing that up for me.

Sorry for provoking that reaction but....I am always amused by the response.


We can't have violent video games, as some people can't distinguish real from imaginary.


We must have the right to own guns, even if that means some of our children will be murdered with them, its a price we pay to be free!


Guns are safe for our kids to play with but video games are not?????

Well your comparisons are light years apart. Regardless of your stance on gun control, games don't cause people to kill.

Guns are only unsafe if in the hands of someone who does not respect their power. I have been raised around guns all my life. I shot my first gun when I was 4 and go shooting many times a year to keep my accuracy up. I don't go hunting, just target shooting. It is a sport for me not something to hone my skills for killing. It is unregulating parents and the twisted minds of the person who did it who are to blame.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bubba

Well your comparisons are light years apart. Regardless of your stance on gun control, games don't cause people to kill.

---

I feel you may have lost your ability to distinguish a sound-minded adult from a 6-12 year old kid. In my opinion, games can definitely play a part in young children killing other children. In the case at hand... I'd say the murderer was old enough to be of sound-mind and I don't think games play a part, however, among younger children, I should expect greater responsibility from parents and game retailers, alike. I don't expect anything from the developers... they're not developing for the children.

Novacain, comparing guns and violent video games is laughable because it requires you to compare their availability to children... which isn't even a close number. It also requires you to compare making one thing illegal and simply toning down another. No one... I MEAN NO ONE here has said anything about making violence in games illegal, they've simply talked about cracking down on responsibility, specifically, as I said in the parents and retailers.

Which brings me to the fact the entire debate comes down to making bad parenting illegal. I would never let any of my kids play GTA: San Andreas because they are so easily influenced. However that does not mean the game is inherently evil but the kids won't pick up on the intended context. They make GTA San Andreas and other GTA titles with tons of sattire in them - including the mission types, goals, and other items. Clucking Bell? We've all said that when we meant something else. The sattire is prevalent throughout the game and is down right hilarious. The commercials in GTA are unbelievably funny even the 100th time around.

However I realize that kids won't pick all this up and will only pick up the violence and so forth. But we cannot just make games that are targeted at one group. I'm sure Rockstar didn't say in the dev meeting - let's target kids and expose them to tons of violence so they can turn out to be axe murderers or go shoot their school up. The targeted audience of GTA is 20 to 30 year olds. I'm sure the some of the people at Rockstar would never let their young kid play their games - at least not yet.

George Lucas said this of his latest Star Wars movie. He said there was too much violence in it and would not let his young kids see it. That is just being a good parent. There is a time in everyone's life when they finally 'get it' and realize fact from fantasy and can distinguish the two. It appears some wackos out there still have not made that transition but that does not make the medium evil. When the teenager finally 'gets-it' and can distinguish fact from fantasy then they can usually make their own decisions about what they want to play, watch, and listen to.

But letting 7 and 8 year olds sit down and play GTA or other games like it is just plain stupid. Hell kids at that age believe all sorts of stuff we know is not true. Even some teenagers are in that stage where they are so influenced that they should not play, watch, or listen to certain things. So if you want to make a law that says parents should be good parents then fine but good luck enforcing it. We can't make everyone else live in a bubble where no bad things happen just to make the kids turn out good. The 'bubble' they live in is determined by their parents. Most of us here had our 'bubble' popped long ago.

Sorry, but you miss my point, let me make it clearer.

In this case we hear from the poli's and media how his killer's fav game was <insert name here>, how terrible! Lets ban all violent games as some people can't handle them (or are influenced, desensitiesed (sp?) ect).

At NO point do we hear 'lets ban the gun he used to kill children' as obviously some people can't handle the responsibility of gun ownership.



Which product has more potential for harm if abused, video games or guns?

Which product is blamed in most of these cases?

Which product has a stronger political lobby?



When an Australian did this type of atrocity, we banned guns almost immediately. We have not had a repeat....

What is more important, stopping these type of tragedies or being allowed to own a gun?



[waits to laugh at the person who posts, without actually researching the data, NRA misinformation/propaganda on Australian gun crime]

If they attempted to ban guns here trust me it would not help gun control. Everyone who owns one would take arms against those who wanted to take them away. It won't happen here in the U.S. Blaming guns for murders is just misdirected anger, empathy, and won't help anything.

And if it adds anything to the argument one of my family members was just held up at gunpoint not too long ago. But both he and I have not changed our stance on guns. It wasn't the gun that held him up and robbed him, it was the person holding it.

Funny thing is, that same gun in his hand would have prevented the robbery. Or a gun in a policeman's hand would have prevented it. What's the difference? The person using the gun.

And although our constitution allows for an armed milita it also allows for us to own weapons. The main reason behind it is not just personal protection or some morbid obessesion with guns but more for protection from the government. The founding fathers knew that it might be possible the shaky democracy could crumble underneath a dictator or the wrong person in power. The final defense against this when all the checks and balances fail is revolution, just like they revolted against the British. I cannot imagine this ever happening in America now but that is one of the reasons for the 2nd ammendment. I think the writers at the time didn't want future America to have to go through what they did to arm themselves and stand up for freedom and so they put the provision in. The 2nd ammendment covers a broad range of issues and if I'm not mistaken is not entirely about an armed milita or army. That is more of a federal creation and the National Guard is more of a state based creation. Since the militia in those times was really our current National Guard if you will, I would say the 2nd ammendment applies more to local militia than it does the larger federal forces.


Funny how the constitution as it is today would never be were it not for the Bill of Rights or the first ten ammendments. Without those the constitution would never have passed. And I think the ammendments and the order they fall in is still indicative of what we in America value and always will speak for, stand for, and die for.

If a gun is just the tool and doesn't add to the violence, where would you draw the line ? What is illegal to own in the US and why ? If the weapon is just a tool, why not allow people to own tanks or attack helicopters ? After all, you have to blame the people, not the tool, so don't ban the tool. Let me have my WMD, you can blame me afterwards, but don't restrict WMDs.

Where do you draw the line between a weapon that must not be restricted and a weapon that has to be restricted to a point where you invade foreign countries ?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bubba

Blaming guns for murders is just misdirected anger, empathy, and won't help anything.

---

So having access to a automatic rifle did not contirbute one iota to this guy going on a killing spree?

I disagree.

How far would he have got armed with only a bolt action 22 or a knife?

I don't think he would have got out of his bedroom.

Unfortunately where there is a will there is a way whatever it may be.

Your anaylsis is akin to banning airplanes b/c they can crash and kill people. And they normally kill a lot more people than some random spree.

Injuries from firearms are one of the major death reasons in the US. Irrespectively of the fact that (and I do agree) that it's the weapon holder and not the weapon that commits the crime, the fact is it is a government responsibility to tackle and legislate according to their society behavior. This is not happening in the US. It simply is not. This is the same country that has laws against drugs; also a leading cause of death in the US. Where exactly does this make any sense?

Do I agree with banning of guns? Hell, yeah! But it is also a fact I wholeheartedly agree with Bubba when he says this will not happen in the US. Tradition and culture are strong factors. They are impeditive more often than they are paved roads to changes. Most of us Europeans cannot understand US gun legislation, it's a fact. Our culture differs from that of the US. But that doesn't stop us from also having high crime rates on par with those in the US.

All in all, the fact is that crimes like Columbine, office shootings, gang wars, etc... have high media exposure giving us the false belief these are common and representative. But we forget about deaths directly caused by alcoholism and drugs. These two alone are the leading death cause in the world. They top wars, crimes, diseases, guns... We should ban alcohol? It is as much as a crime as a gunner shooting innocent people if you have put the perpetrator behind a wheel. It ruins more families than any gun. It destroys lives before it kills them.

But it would make no sense in banning alcohol. Why would it make sense banning weapons? Because they are more immediate, quicker and effective perhaps. One doesn't hold a bottle of whisky with the intent of killing someone. But you do that with a gun. That is its only purpose. To kill, maim or injure. If you want to practice shooting, by an air gun. Don't buy a Colt. But definitely if you buy an M16, you can only use it for one thing, and one thing alone.

With that said, again I do agree that weapons are not the sole factor leading to crime. Again, Europe with it's ban on guns has crime rates on par with those in the US. Despite these being dangerous objects that really can only be used for a few things, all involving killing, a ban on guns in US would divide the crountry in half. Some polls I recall from seem to indicate half of the country is against, another half is for. So what good would it do when we know how hard it is for the typical citizen to accept changes in their constitution?

What I think should really be concerning the government and any good citizen of that country is not guns... but what the hell is happening with you people. Why things like Columbine are happening in such high rates as when compared to other societies? What is happening, what are the causes? How to solve it?

I feel none of the answer to those questions involve the word "gun". If that is the sole explanation we can find for those problems, then I'm afraid school shootings will keep on happening for a long time.