Thread: Violent video games?

> However, consider this: there where violent games, music and movies before columbine, but news reports regarding columbine only took place after.

News reports regarding Columbine only took place after Columbine? That's a totally valid point, thanks for making it!

Protip: Go stick a broken bottle up your ass.

Off the top of my head, here are 2 school shootings that predate Columbine. Feel free to ignore them though, since they go against your completely screwed up worldview, though

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paducah...eath_shootings
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jonesboro_massacre

Take note that I linked you right to the relevant information instead of saying "There's something on wikipedia about it, go find it"

I don't need psycho babble to tell me if games affect me or not.

Sure you do. Scientific method > Introspection.

> I was trying to show you that it obviously wasn't video games or movies or whatever that caused the increased violence rates, since they existed before columbine.

And I was pointing out a typo you made. Sorry you're too busy trying to act superior to notice that.

> I don't see how this furthers your argument at all

Your smarmy little "protip" didn't either.

> I already know that there was school violence before columbine, what I was trying to show you was that it occurred more often post columbine.

Oh? So why did you say this

> However, consider this: there where violent games, music and movies before columbine, but news reports regarding columbine only took place after.

If you were actually saying that, then I'm sorry, but you've been less than clear during most of this discussion. Your earlier post implies that there was little to no media coverage for school shootings, which is obviously not true.

March 2000
Branneburg, Germany One teacher killed by a 15-year-old student, who then shot himself. The shooter has been in a coma ever since.

As a fair comparison, I'd use this shooting in 2002 in Germany.

Obviously, the shooter was playing Counter Strike in his sparetime. This must have been the obvious reason for his killing spree. Bad game. Bad, bad game. Good thing that his permit to own and carry (!) a semi-automatic shotgun (!) because he was in a gun club and his kick out of school that left him with nothing less than a spectacular career as a burger flippers assistant's helper due to a flaw in the german schooling system as a bright future kept him sane until that point. Who would have known what had happened if he'd had played that game without access to military firearms and with a future as an actual human being.

Nv the point isn't that the games cause shootings. You're right, a person must decided to partake in an aggressive of violent act. The evidence indactes that they can be one factor that contributes to a person's descision to go on a shooting. Plenty of other factors (noted above - and can be expanded to include gun control if you wish) can contribute to aggressive and violent actions by people of all ages (note: aggressive and/or violent behavior is not limited to school shootings).

I'm not going to weigh 400 lbs because I eat McDonald's once a week, but I would be less likely to get fat if I didn't eat there.

Sure there are other things that might deserve more blame for me gaining 250 lbs: lack of exercise, my genes, too little free time to make my own meals etc. And those factors should probably be addressed for my health sake as well.

The point is that wihle it can be completely healthy to watch video games (or eat at McDonald's), it can also contribute to more aggressive behavior. Therefore, while I certainly don't think violent video games should be banned (they're too much fun), they should be played in a responsible manner by people of an appropriate age to minimize the risk of both proactive and reactive aggressive outside of the game.

Therefore, while I certainly don't think violent video games should be banned (they're too much fun), they should be played in a responsible manner by people of an appropriate age to minimize the risk of both proactive and reactive aggressive outside of the game.

I guess that pretty much sums up my point of view as well.

Also, I was satisfied with your previous post in response to my questions...if you could've answered everything completely, in the absolute sense, you wouldn't be a psychologist, rather a prophet.

What's the work balance, in a psychology degree, between throwing around theories and ideas vs researching scientific studies, analyzing the work of others, etc.

I'm just saying that putting the weight on the video game when you have a) a weapon that no private citizen should ever need b) a fscked up life that is a motive for suicide and/or mass murder anyway and c) a videogame is defying all logic. But it's the media, it has to sell, not to be reasonable.

Back in the 90s it were roleplaying games. "Roleplayers" were satanists and every year or so some roleplaying books were found in the room of a punk who decided to kill a random guy on a cemetery and obviously those books were works of the devil, that just made him do it. Funny how my roleplaying books always said to roll dice in the kitchen, not to butcher someone on the graveyard. Anyway, good stories, sold well. Made me feel like a creep telling someone I play D&D.

Should I ever go onto a killing spree, I will erase my harddisk, install a copy of Windows, Office and Barbie's Dress Center v1.3. I don't think I'd want to miss that headline.

Edit:

should be used in a responsible manner by people of an appropriate age to minimize the risk

That's an appropriate warning label for everything, from chocolate to H-Bombs. And yes, it even applies to video games. But that's hardly news. There's just enough dumb people to ignore those warning labels. For each product. I'm to lazy to google but I'm willing to bet that I will find a death by chocolate if I search hard enough.

Perhaps that would be an option. Further research should be done. Perhaps developers should be encouraged to develop more less violent games (I know plenty of people here in the psyc department who do not game would agree with that). Perhaps we should look at what's appropriate for a 10 year old vs a 14 year old vs a 18 yr old.

More research should be done on which elements of a violent game most effect people? What about games that have both violent and non-violent solutions (RPGs?)? Do 1st or 3rd person games encourage more aggressive behavior? Does the type of violence in the game (reactive, active, weapon used, distance of user from the violent character i.e. a FPS vs a RTS game). I could see reasons why all of these factors might change the amount of aggressive behavior that games encourage or discourage and they should be investigated.

Moreover, what about the user? Does playing a certain amount influence you more per hour than if you play less? Is there a certain time limit parents should set? Are depressed users more or less effected than others?

All of this knowledge would be helpful for developers and parents...and at the same time we might just learn how to make games that promote pro-social behaviors...