At QuakeCon 2018, Bethesda Game Studios was on hand to talk at length about its next release – Fallout 76.
Fallout 76 – Perk Cards, Mutations, and Dealing with Trolls
After getting banned and then un-banned in Australia, the long-awaited We Happy Few has finally been released. But, was the wait worth it?
We Happy Few Review - Frustration and Joy
We take Spidey for a websling through the Big Apple. How does it fare in the superhero gaming space? Click through for more!
Hands-On with Spider-Man - Arkham by Day?
Blizzard and Nintendo back together at last, with a game that just might be perfect for the Switch
Diablo III For Nintendo Switch Officially Announced!
Post by Steve Farrelly @ 03:48pm 16/02/18 | 106 Comments
US Republican Kentucky Governor Matt Bevin, in the wake of the latest senseless tragedy that has hit the US where gun violence is concerned, has hit out at videogames, TV and film as culprits.

"There are video games that, yes, are listed for mature audiences, but kids play them and everybody knows it, and there's nothing to prevent the child from playing them," Bevin said during an interview, as highlighted by ArsTechnica. "They celebrate the slaughtering of people...

... There are games that literally replicate and give people the ability to score points for doing the very same thing that these students are doing inside of schools, where you get extra points for finishing someone off who's lying there begging for their life."

This isn't the first time games or various other forms of media have come under scrutiny for gun violence, specifically in the US, with gun laws remaining largely unchanged.

To highlight that last factoid, in 2013 after the horrific massacre of young children at the Newtown, Connecticut’s Sandy Hook Elementary School in 2012, we looked in-depth at gun violence, videogames and causal links.

Alarmingly, and our reason for re-posting this piece, this is still as relevant as ever and points to just how little change, from a legislative perspective, has occurred, while games and more remain as convenient scapegoats for a larger, endemic problem.

Here's a snippet from our in-depth report, which is almost five years old:
To put things in perspective people once said that reading One Flew Over the Cuckoo’s Nest had a tendency to corrupt juveniles with its glorification of violence and descriptions of bestiality, a tenuous thread of association that is mostly laughed at in retrospect. In a similar vein, it’s ridiculous to think that if you read lots of fantasy books you want to uproot your existence to make like Don Quixote. So why then is it assumed by so many groups and individuals to be fait accompli for a person who likes games that are violent to they themselves be violent? It is a flawed and erroneous assumption countered well by this report by Forbes, from April 2012, showing that even though videogame sales have incrased rapidly, the rate of violent crime has fallen.

Such a view is covered in more detail by Forbes in another article using 2011 sales statistics showing the five biggest videogame markets in the world compared with firearm deaths. The biggest market is the United States ($13.6B) followed by Japan ($7B), China ($6.8B), South Korea ($5B) and the United Kingdom ($3B). This is compared with firearm deaths of 10.2 per 100,000 in the United States, 0.07 in Japan, 0.19 in China, 0.13 in South Korea and 0.25 in the UK. It should be noted with the high figure of the United States it is not clear if that reflects firearm deaths by suicide, a rate that in this article is given as more than 50%.

There’s a lot that needs to be taken with a grain of salt in the above statistics given that it tracks overall videogame sales and not the specific sale of violent videogames. A pertinent distinction as games most often blamed for violent crimes such as Call of Duty with Anders Breivik and Doom and Wolfenstein 3D with the Columbine High School massacre of 1999, are not big sellers in Japan. A quick look at vgchartz.com (beginning of March in this case) shows that while Black Ops II is No. 3 in Europe and the US, it only just breaks the top 10 in Japan, which is dominated by handheld sales. Yet the overall figure shows an interesting disparity between the United States and the other countries, a disparity large enough to exclude videogames as the soulless trainer of killers they are made out to be.
Click here to have a look at our still-relevant in-depth discussion surrounding real-life gun violence and games.



violent videogamesvideo games





Latest Comments
Nmag
Posted 05:26pm 16/2/18
Yes still relevant to that country. I don't expect the article to become 'dated'.

Here, gambling is an interesting topic. The allowance of the term 'gaming' to indicate 'gambling' on advertising and general media is almost evidence of how entrenched gambling is in our culture, and how our governments foster it. Our country is like a little Las Vegas of the pacific rim. Lottery and gambling adds appear to be outside scrutiny of consumer watchdog. How misleading it is to advertise a lottery and be showing these acting winners, asking "What would you do with the money?".. when the chances of winning are crap. Clearly misleading. We encourage so much gambling here, the roll on effect in our society is much harder to measure than walking through a school counting gun shot victims.

Explain to me what "Gamble responsibly" means, and how well that message applies to idiots who's think they can "Win back" losses.. or a person who has developed an addiction.

To mean "Gamble responsibly" certainly says "DO IT"
Raven
Posted 07:31pm 16/2/18
Well then, US Republican Kentucky Governor Matt Bevin appears to complete and utter monumental f***wit who doesn't know what he's talking about.
trillion
Posted 08:09pm 16/2/18
of course you're going to call the use of the individuals possibly influential use of the activity that FPS games may have contributed to that person's actions, i doubt you have personally felt a loss of anyone close to you from someone's similar actions, or been acutely aware of how differently influenced younger people are by some kinds of media


Steve you're a gaming journalist on the defense of an industry that you rely(ied) on the output of for influence you in turn create with your writing, try having skin in the game and defending gaming media if it's one of your children that's in the firing line of an incident like this.
Spook
Posted 08:30pm 16/2/18
i cant even with the states.
Khel
Posted 08:52pm 16/2/18
Yeah, violent games are definitely to blame, that's why every other country in the world where these games are sold and played also have frequent mass shootings.
trillion
Posted 10:10pm 16/2/18
except that we're talking about an incident that specifically occurred within a culture in which there is the presence of an economy that makes no ban of selling an AR weapon to a civilian

you've obviously never been to the US and personally experienced what walking into a Fleet Farm, KMart, or any number of other weapons trades stores is like, Khel, they're as casually trade retail on display there as opposed to closed door, rigid license requirement, few and far between stores that they are here in Australia, or you're over simplifying how opaque the influence is with his kind of item being somewhat cheaper than going to an electronics store and buying, i dunno a Nintendo Switch for example. In fact you could buy an AR, receiver and rail attachments and probably a handgun as well for about the same price, with of course bullets being the high cost of owning the weapon the active use cost factor, like any other consumable for a hobby.

i just heard that the gun store owner where this guy bought it have told the media that they want this class of weapon banned from sale, the background checks and cross referencing for automatic rifles are too limp to enforce the responsibility of being rigid as f*** for owning that class of rifle.

Khel
Posted 11:03pm 16/2/18
You're right, that does sound like a big problem and is probably one of the underlying issues that needs addressing. It's also entirely unrelated to violent videogames.
Steve Farrelly
Posted 11:03pm 16/2/18
trillion, are you suggesting I'm solely in the defense of games because it's my bread-winning industry? Your initial response sort of made no sense.

Our original piece centres, specifically, around gun control. It also utilises research and professional input from various sources of note that, causally, there's no definitive link between gun violence and videogames. To Khel's point, the rest of the world with stricter gun control and the same kinds of games being released experience, I dunno, less than 1% of what the US does in terms of mass shootings... and a mass shooting is classified as four or more deceased, so that isn't even taking into account other incidents.

I'm just not sure what you're railing?
trillion
Posted 12:11am 17/2/18
don't be ridiculous, if i were to be pointedly insinuating that you were knowingly throwing up this statistical evidence that's painting an emotionally driven response from at politician to acknowledge the parents who 2 days ago had living children with futures ahead of them to defend an industry that produces certain types of games that possibly influence and align with cultural pressures that can be perceived to correlate to taking actions that are blinded by hatred, obviously an astute journalist isn't the beneficiary of the likes of a producer or an IP right's holder.

correlation not being causation, obviously there can be no direct link's to influence being sustained from any particular media type.

however, anyone who's played a number of games and seen the kind of meme media that goes around in the consumers of this media has seen, rage quitting and elitism in various core types of competitive games can't be disregarded as completely devoid of influence on someone who's motivations would otherwise not be fueled by playing the more hardcore competitive genres. specifically i'm relating this to pretty unfriendly games i've played of Titanfall 2 in various regions, possibly PUBG although I bored of it quickly.

Steve if you can remember how gaming was as a player when games were more rudimentary graphics and embedded story driven experiences, along with the engineering multiplayer networking component that makes for great fun or very engaging and competitive games from the comfort of your own home, the culture and influences have changed iteratively without restriction mostly without the empathy of community spirit in good sporting fun, it's no longer big business on the rise as it was in the early 90's, it's normalised consumption of influential culture, with indifference to what it's teaching to young consumers

and unlike reading media, visual media or radio, games nowdays are a direct visual responsive feedback loop system that enable somewhat of a freedom of thought and action that otherwise hasn't ever been developed before the 1990's, and that's at my earliest memories of the somewhat rudimentary graphics developments.
Steve Farrelly
Posted 12:34am 17/2/18
So, to be clear. You see no correlation between countries selling the same games, and their lack of repeated mass shootings, against a country who holds an archaic and largely redundant amendment (interesting qualifier there), and chooses not to, at least, look at access to said weapons of... I don't know, literal death. And continues to not just see a problem, but does very little to stem the tide.

My argument isn't FOR games, it's AGAINST a lack of control over high-powered weapons freely, or easily, available to practically anyone.

IF games are causal to behaviour becoming death, then the instrument of death - first and foremost - needs to be addressed, games, media, propaganda etc, secondary
trillion
Posted 02:12am 17/2/18
of course, that went without saying. although the way in which you are presenting or understand that correlation is somewhat skewed to recent pattern incidents and doesn't account for the change in gun consumer and possibly the wave of media influences these consumers were raised with. that in particular i don't know from being naturalised in the culture there, but the blindness to the change that i see in the news by pro-gun activists seems to be a manipulation of the 2nd amendment enabled by the legacy of consumer rights and the power of the NRA supplying retailers

i only ever tagged along as a youngster on deer hunts, basically it was too much for me to walk on long hunts and i would hangout by salt licks on trails while the big people went ahead and i would faff around for a while until they came back down the trails. i dunno, hunting was a part of the culture there given the means to be out there with something more than just a bow & arrows, and if you think about that at the time before proliferation of media has put the pressure cooker of hate into a more distilled form must be part of the unforeseen consequences of the older society understanding of the laws, maybe old hunters would be turning in their grave over
Hogfather
Posted 03:07pm 17/2/18
Be wary Steve, trillion is a little fractured.. !
infi
Posted 04:36pm 17/2/18
Yeah, guns are definitely to blame, that's why every other country in the world with substantial gun ownership also have frequent mass shootings.
image

and blaming video games? the violent video game industry is HUGE. what about violent movies, what about violent news? gimme a break. blaming everyone but the person themself. this is about mental illness.

what makes a woman murder her baby? what makes a man kill his kids with his estranged wife on the phone? what makes anyone do something counter to our genetic coding which is to multiply? mental illness.

blaming it on video games is a cop out.
Spook
Posted 04:46pm 17/2/18
yer, its not about mental illness.

its about guns bro.
infi
Posted 05:01pm 17/2/18
So it's only mental illness when an attacker uses a car or knife or bomb. When they use a gun, it's guns. I'm clear now.
fpot
Posted 05:03pm 17/2/18
So it's only mental illness when an attacker uses a car or knife or bomb. When they use a gun, it's guns. I'm clear now.
No, then it's the car, or knife, or bomb.

What sort of mental illnesses are you referring to specifically?
trillion
Posted 05:32pm 17/2/18
oh f*** off Hoggy :)

what i'm trying to explain from a long ago memory is that a gun bought by someone who's been influenced to buy that weapon with the boredom to show off on social media should never have been able to pay to remove it from the store which trades in them to begin with.

when have you ever met any 19 year old who you'd thought "oh yeah he could definitely be responsible to use that Assault Rifle for the greater good"
Dan
Posted 05:35pm 17/2/18
Hey guys, remember all those times that a 19 year old killed 17 people at school with a bat, and that other time with a rope, and that other time with a knife. GG infi.
fpot
Posted 05:40pm 17/2/18
when have you ever met any 19 year old who you'd thought "oh yeah he could definitely be responsible to use that Assault Rifle for the greater good"
Spook
Posted 05:53pm 17/2/18
Hey guys, remember all those times that a 19 year old killed 17 people at school with a bat, and that other time with a rope, and that other time with a knife. GG infi.


maybe that was a different kind of mental illness? like not as severe!

like all the mental illnesses we have in australia, which dont result in multiple deaths.
Vash
Posted 06:48pm 17/2/18


This classic needs to be seen again. While the cause is mental illness, enforcing stricter gun laws will reduce suicide & mass shootings as it did here.
simul
Posted 07:48pm 17/2/18
I see more mentally ill people where I live in the US daily than I would see in Australia in months. Worse, the people clearly have no carers, and are left wandering by themselves. Mental illness is insanely stupid here, and society completely ignores it (there was a woman on the bus home from work today who was screaming at everyone and everyone just pretended she didn't exist, including myself).

The problem is two fold:
a) there is a metric s***-ton of crazy people walking around the US with no support, police leave them alone
b) anyone can walk into a corner store and buy a weapon that can kill people on mass

When you combine a with b, bad s*** happens. It is f*****g insane. Whats terrifying is that it surprising that it doesn't happen more often. Guns by themselves aren't the problem, but they allow crazy people to kill people on mass.
Scooter
Posted 07:59pm 17/2/18
I think Infi is half right, it's about both. Mentally ill and the easy access to fireamrs.
Luckily Americans don't care about either.

They don't want to spend any money on supporting those in need (mentally ill, via a properly funded public health system) and they also don't want to enact sensible firearm legislation because of 'Muh Guns!'

They fail at both.
trillion
Posted 09:31pm 17/2/18
yeah sure, John Howard

banned gun ownership because someone shot up a bunch of coffee drinkers in Tasmania, followed the USA under Bush & Cheyne into a war on Weapons of Mass Destruction, or was that 9/11 ?

are still there 17 years later

would have privatised the health system probably completely had he not ran out of time before becoming a fossil



sLaps_Forehead
Posted 11:45pm 17/2/18
Give a mentally ill nutter a baseball bat or a knife and he will probably be able to kill or maim a hand full of people before he is stopped. Give the same nutjob a modern automatic/ semi automatic firearm and he will take out many multiples of victims in short amount of time.... that's the difference
taggs
Posted 11:56pm 17/2/18
It's about access to guns, full stop.

Having said that no one I have ever seen has offered a viable action that factors in USA's current situation i.e. current gun circulation/volume, culture, Constitution and crime.

If anyone has an answer please shout out because you'd be solving a problem millions of well-meaning people have been agonising over for decades.

Until then it would be great if people from other cultures would stop smugly asking when the USA would "do something" about it. Most solutions the zeitgeist assume would work really wouldn't.

Happy to be proven wrong. Honestly.
trillion
Posted 12:51am 18/2/18
what must a gun store clerk think after each customer walk's out with an AR-15

imagine the guilt you'd be racked with when the serial number on the thing from a mass shooting comes down on your boss
Spook
Posted 05:27am 18/2/18
It's about access to guns, full stop.

Having said that no one I have ever seen has offered a viable action that factors in USA's current situation i.e. current gun circulation/volume, culture, Constitution and crime.

If anyone has an answer please shout out because you'd be solving a problem millions of well-meaning people have been agonising over for decades.

Until then it would be great if people from other cultures would stop smugly asking when the USA would "do something" about it. Most solutions the zeitgeist assume would work really wouldn't.

Happy to be proven wrong. Honestly.


making it more difficult to get guns isnt going to work straight away, but in time it could make a difference.

doing nothing isnt making any difference at all.
taggs
Posted 07:36am 18/2/18
making it more difficult to get guns isnt going to work straight away, but in time it could make a difference.


Yeah but what does that look like in terms of a specific policy proposal?

I get the desire to "do something". It's just not all as simple as many people think.
Arpey
Posted 09:06am 18/2/18
Guns don't kill people, Americans kill people.
Spook
Posted 10:06am 18/2/18
I get the desire to "do something". It's just not all as simple as many people think.


surely background checks and a cooling off period is a start?

why cant they do that? (for a start)
E.T.
Posted 11:02am 18/2/18
If you look at Florida in Isolation, you will see just how f***ed up things are there. They haven't even bothered to cover the very basics which is not so much sad, but pathetic beyond belief.

* No license required to purchase
* No license required to own
* No background checks required for private sales
* No registration of weapons required (Florida has gone to the extent of making it a Felony to create, maintain or publish any list or registry of firearms or their owners)
* No laws specific to assault weapons
* No magazine capacity restrictions

These are the obvious places to start.
taggs
Posted 01:38pm 18/2/18
Background checks are undertaken on all purchases other than private sales iirc.
Spook
Posted 08:46pm 18/2/18
ok, that is correct, last old mate passed his background check.

perhaps they need to be more indepth or thorough.
Hogfather
Posted 10:54pm 18/2/18
I find it curious that simulating gunplay is more corruptive than the real thing, but whatever America, you do you.
Background checks are undertaken on all purchases other than private sales iirc.

So we see private sellers running faires and s*** with shops and hundreds of weapons available for purchase.

How are you a private seller if you run a shop?
fpot
Posted 11:01pm 18/2/18
I get the desire to "do something". It's just not all as simple as many people think.
Depends how you look at it. For me there is no solution to the problem but there are ways to minimise the damage. More regulations in regards to gun ownership via the use of deeper and more extensive background checks, more intrusive laws for the people who do choose to own a gun. Make it harder to manufacture guns, make it harder to sell guns, make it harder to own a gun. Ban the marketing of guns and provide increased gun education. Update the constitution to reflect current day technology and ideals.

The particulars of the things I mentioned? An incredibly complex and hard to implement solution to a problem that must be solved. You can't seriously suggest that nothing should be done. Because that's what people mean when they say do something - that some thing has to be done. The current government and Fox News want to shift blame elsewhere and open up a big can of red herrings. Lack of god I think is my most favourite, just add more guns is my least.

It would take dozens of people months to come up with specific plans and ways to implement them. They would also come up against serious resistance. Have you seen the videos the NRA have been producing lately? They are partly to blame for the out of control gun culture in the USA but you knew that already. They need to be neutered somehow because they're more or less a toxic roadblock in the way of any sort of meaningful change occurring.

These are the sort of dramatic changes that needed to happen yesterday. Instead, well...
PornoPete
Posted 07:23am 19/2/18
You can't seriously suggest that nothing should be done. Because that's what people mean when they say do something - that some thing has to be done.


fox news, current government, NRA.

BINGO!

Until then it would be great if people from other cultures would stop smugly asking when the USA would "do something" about it. Most solutions the zeitgeist assume would work really wouldn't.


Probably a bit much to ask old boy.
Vash
Posted 08:37am 19/2/18
image

4d chess
PornoPete
Posted 08:53am 19/2/18
The ACLU campaigned against that law, because it was discriminatory and captured people with manageable conditions.

But don't let me get on the way of a round of moral superiority backslapping
Vash
Posted 09:08am 19/2/18
Im glad some Republicans wisened up. Unfortunately they seem to be the minority.
Tollaz0r!
Posted 09:18am 19/2/18
Trying to pin the violent school shootings on video games is essentially Victim Blaming.

It's your fault your school was shot up, because you all play violent video games.

It's your fault you got shot up, because you didn't carry firearms on you at the time of the shooting, as that has worked to significantly reduce and/or prevent death and injury each and every time there has been a mass shooting.
Tollaz0r!
Posted 09:32am 19/2/18

I get the desire to "do something". It's just not all as simple as many people think.


It really is simple to start. It really is simple to 'do something'.

You know what is a super simple start?
The leader of their country stating clearly:

'I'm America, and I have a gun problem.'

That. That simple sentence, probably exactly as written, uttered by the leader of the country addressed to the people of the country.

8 Words. Couldn't be much simpler really.

What happens after that .. oh probably the entire range of human emotion expressed by a nation of people.. Complexity's for sure.

However, admitting to the problem is often the first step needed to overcome the problem.

Obaha tried something similar.

If Trump uttered those words and carried the emotion with them, it would be a very powerful statement, coming from Trump in particular would be monumental. He has surely captured the attention of the most staunch gun enthusiasts, I suspect those type of people are the ones who he is talking to with his 'fake news' and all that.
To have their Mighty Leader admit to the country having a gun problem ... that would be special.


We have the Left admitting to a Gun problem with Obhama, if Trump could say it, that would be the Right admitting to it too. Then maybe, just maybe, real change could happen.

This could be Trump's chance to have his name in the history books, for good reasons. Imagine the ego-inflation he could have from that, he could bulls*** his way forward for the rest of his life telling the world how great he is for ending gun violence in America (of course it wouldn't be ended, but you he goes on about this kind of stuff). So it'd be a Win for Trump, and for America.

A simple start .. can he do it? Sadly, I don't think so. I hope he surprises.



taggs
Posted 10:13am 19/2/18
How are you a private seller if you run a shop?


You're not. My understanding is that the majority of sellers at gun shows have a FFL. Running a commercial enterprise selling firearms requires a FFL and doing so without one is breaching federal law.

You can't seriously suggest that nothing should be done.


I don't think you'll find that I have. That's certainly not how my post was intended to be interpreted.

What I have done is suggest that people who don't have a strong understanding of the context and complexities of the issue in america not preach about what needs to be done. Call me cynical but your idea of having some smart people think about it for a while to come up with some policy implementations is at best somewhat naive. It's not like there haven't been many, many smart people from all across the political spectrum trying to find some sort of compromise on this many-faceted issue for decades.

Everything you have suggested would, and has already in various guises, run into either constitutional or cultural issues. Amending the Constitution is so out of the realm of possibility that no serious gun reform advocate even has that on their agenda. I'm not saying people should stop trying to find actionable policies that may help - I'm saying that people who don't know really know what they're talking about (particularly those who aren't American and have no first-hand understanding of the deeply rooted firearm culture in the States) should lay off the sermonizing.

'I'm America, and I have a gun problem.'


That probably seems like a very easy start to you as a non-American. I can totally understand how frustrating it can look from the outside looking in.

However, I would hazard a guess once you dug below the superficial nature of that statement and started to try and define what "gun problem" means let alone how you might start to think about attacking it you'd very quickly lose any semblance of cohesion or majority.

That could potentially be a good start but a political cynic like me couldn't help but think that if you make a grand statement like that but aren't able to follow through with viable action (from a political, cultural, legal, etc perspective) than you might do more harm than good by introducing yet more politicisation, apathy and cynicism into an already ridiculously complex issue.
fpot
Posted 06:56pm 19/2/18
Call me cynical but your idea of having some smart people think about it for a while to come up with some policy implementations is at best somewhat naive.
The disinformation campaign run by the NRA and promoted by certain elements of the media has won. Enough people actually believe that guns are a necessary safety net against tyranny and that to give them up/take them away would put them at risk.

The only way to combat lies like that is of course the truth. I don't really know the most delicate way to let Cletus know that if the government all of a sudden did become hostile towards them that they'd be f***ed no matter how many guns they have locked in their safe under their pillows. I'm bringing this point up because it is the most common rebuttal I see when gun control measures are suggested.

I loathe to name other hot button political issues in a thread that's already about guns, but it seems to me 'far too late, far too complicated, impossible to do, stop talking about it' is a pretty common thread amongst them. That to me is total bulls***. Here's some first steps - stop electing (or not electing kekeke) governments who have demonstrated a complete incapacity or willingness to implement plans that will make things better but instead rely on the fears and prejudices of people to get elected, admit there is a problem with guns and get someone with a f*****g spine in charge rather than an orangey blubbery baby who couldn't blow the froth of a f*****g beer.

Mass student walk outs is also a good start. Mass civil unrest/disruption would be a good continuation if that's ineffective.
PornoPete
Posted 07:22pm 19/2/18
pro gun control data scientist finds minimal empirical support for "common sense" gun control.. Turns out gun control is a bit more complicated than it looks. But who knew. It's only a problem that won't go away.


The only way to combat lies like that is of course the truth. I don't really know the most delicate way to let Cletus know that if the government all of a sudden did become hostile towards them that they'd be f***ed no matter how many guns they have locked in their safe under their pillows. I'm bringing this point up because it is the most common rebuttal I see when gun control measures are suggested.


I wonder if you can draw a line between an attitude like this and the impossibility of changing the 2A?

Well played taggs.
Viper119
Posted 07:49pm 19/2/18
So, it's a cultural problem? Cultural change is tough no doubt, but it's not impossible by any stretch.

Aus is actually a decent example of that, there was outrage and strong resistance from many parts of the country over the gun laws and buyback, yet they pushed through it. His faults aside, credit to Howard for doing that despite it enraging a bunch of his base, that's some political spine. My godfather who is a bit of a gun nut still believes Port Arthur was orchestrated by the government to take their guns away. Ironically, he is still able to own a bunch of guns, which he uses for hunting.

I thought it'd happen in the US after Sandy Hook where you had toddlers being shot, seems not. I imagine the bloodshed will need to get materially worse before Americans enact the cultural change required to fix this issue. Or is it just culture? Last poll I saw said the majority of American voters were in favour of more gun regulation. It's the 'paid for by the NRA' congress that's stopping it.

‘No Way To Prevent This,’ Says Only Nation Where This Regularly Happens

The Onion just keeps reposting this same article with the event details updated.

DLJP8F3XkAAU9Fc.jpg:small

imo, Americans need to take their country back. Seems to me the majority of the government has been co-opted by various corrupt influences. You can see it in their failings across healthcare, food regulation, education, the prison system, to gun control. The apparent widespread voter apathy certainly doesn't help.
PornoPete
Posted 08:11pm 19/2/18
Last poll I saw said the majority of American voters were in favour of more gun regulation. It's the 'paid for by the NRA' congress that's stopping it.


Yeah maybe. I suspect taggs is probably right, in that when you push beyond "abstract gun control that will definitely prevent kindergartens getting shot up" reality might start making life difficult.

If you poll something like "should the 2A be repealed" I'll bet the polling doesn't look so hot.
Viper119
Posted 10:43pm 19/2/18
Sounds about right. From what I've gathered the whole 2A repeal or anything similarly 'government takeover' related is a rather deeply entrenched thing in the average American psyche. I suppose that's part of tagg's point, I'd say they've gotta change that psyche!

If you ask Americans how they feel about specific gun control measures, they will often say that they support them. According to Pew Research Center surveys, most people in the US support background checks, bans on assault-style weapons, bans on high-capacity ammunition clips, bans on online sales of ammunition, and a federal database to track gun sales. So why don't these measures ever get turned into law? That's because they run into another political issue: Americans, increasingly in recent years, tend to support the abstract idea of the right to own guns.


This Vox article seems pretty robust. America's gun problem, explained

Thought this was interesting given the mental illness argument:

Opponents of gun control tend to point to other factors to explain America's unusual levels of gun violence — particularly mental illness. But people with mental illnesses are more likely to be victims, not perpetrators, of violence. And Michael Stone, a psychiatrist at Columbia University who maintains a database of mass shooters, wrote in a 2015 analysis that only 52 out of the 235 killers in the database, or about 22 percent, were mentally ill. "The mentally ill should not bear the burden of being regarded as the ‘chief’ perpetrators of mass murder," Stone concluded. Other research has backed this up.
PornoPete
Posted 06:54am 20/2/18
You need to be careful with those databases of "mass shooters". Some of them use ridiculous definitions.

As an example one lobby group claimed there had been 18 school shootings in 2018. But they included any shooting that happened on any school property. So a dude who committed suicide with a gun in the carpark of an abandoned school got included as a "school shooter".

FWIW I also don't find the mental illness angle persuasive. What I do find troubling is the mass / school shooting drawing up all the oxygen from seeing the problem clearly.

Obviously they are terrible events, but last year around 300 people died by rifles of any kind, including so called assault rifles. The single largest group was young men killed by pistols in gang/street violence and they number in the thousands.
To me that would be a logical place to start. And you could probably make inroads without any gun control at all. But I've never seem that issue discussed on this forum. Much less intelligently. It's easier to wax lyrical about how rednecks are comfortable with children being shot.
sLaps_Forehead
Posted 10:15pm 21/2/18
Viper119
Posted 10:46pm 21/2/18
That gun is cool af, but I totes don't want anyone in the general public having access to it or guns like it.

Even without the full auto from the bump stock, it's a pretty devastating weapon in a civilian situation.
FrustratedReader
Posted 12:19am 22/2/18
Hey I get that you may have experienced violence but how are you remotely linking games to violence trillion?
Proper gun control is what negates issues like the recent shootings. The same number of shooters thereabouts is released each year but already its how many shootings at schools etc this year for the US? And prior to the usual game release season no less?

I tire of people using the "what if you lost someone" argument when its crystal bleeding clear that there is no basis for these allegations that gaming and violent games will make someone more violent. I grew up in abusive households and was taken from my family and yes I played Doom Wolfenstein 3D etc yet here I am not going on a rampage with guns. How about lets look at the US and its history of dismissing mental health? I could go on but hey trillion might be worth doing some research before you poke your head out and comment plz
Nick
Posted 12:19pm 22/2/18
Why not movies? Why not Books? Why just video games??

People have been killing people for a very long time, over shoes, food and mostly religion...

Americans love guns, and will try anything to keep their guns...

@ trillion If a child of mine was shot, I would blame the human being that shot them, not the gun or the games they played or movies they watched!

Turn on the news at 6pm its way worse than any game or movie as its real life!
Spock
Posted 08:46pm 22/2/18
What if the child was shot 40 times in the space of 8 seconds?
Insom
Posted 10:46pm 22/2/18
sadly if nothing changed after Sandy Hook (except for a few local measures) then nothing will happen now

in fact the "Concealed Carry Reciprocity" bill has a real chance of being passed, which would essentially make a concealed carry permit issued anywhere in the country legal everywhere in the country, overriding state and local laws

I would pretty much have given up caring if I didn't have family there
Khel
Posted 11:55am 23/2/18
What if the child was shot 40 times in the space of 8 seconds?


Depends, how tight was the grouping?
Raven
Posted 12:50pm 23/2/18
Depends, how tight was the grouping?

I'm not sure how that changes things. Both ends of the spectrum are equally bad in different ways.
sLaps_Forehead
Posted 11:02am 25/2/18
No no its not the fact that you can buy a military assault rifle over the counter with minimal back ground checks ... ITS TEH EVIL SMARTPHONES!!!!

Vash
Posted 05:52pm 25/2/18
Muh freedom. why cant i build a nuclear bomb, i need to defend myself from the state, its in the constitution!@&
fpot
Posted 06:53pm 25/2/18
Loving the companies severing ties with the NRA. Loving the students taking a stand. One of the few benefits of a malevolent force like trump is that people finally wake up and stand up. Can't believe he is actually going with the comedy option of arming teachers. He's a living joke.
sLaps_Forehead
Posted 08:42pm 25/2/18
No he's just a whore. Just like the bought politicians owned by the NRA
infi
Posted 09:38pm 25/2/18
If the gun control movements gets too c***y this will end in civil war. US society is very attached to its guns. Just look at how many states have relaxed regulations on open carry laws over the last 30 years.

America is awash with constitutionally protected guns. Govt may try to introduce sensible regulations about gun ownership, but expecting US society will be disarmed is like expecting the sun to stop shining.

Better to develop some sunscreen and other barrier protection. That's called duty of care.
fpot
Posted 11:34pm 25/2/18
Those pesky teenagers not wanting to get murdered while they're at school! This time they've gone too far! I declare a civil war that will costs hundreds of thousands of lives! - a rational thinker who has not at all been radicalised by an extremist right-wing government.
infi
Posted 11:44pm 25/2/18
You don't seem to understand that in the US the right to bear arms is constitutionally protected and how that means it is a fundamental right of citizens. The gun control movement seems to think Congress can ban guns. The Courts have broadly interpreted the 2nd amendment so unless there is a referendum amending that right America's 300m guns are here to stay. So best to start thinking about protective strategies instead of going "erm arrrr, but all the gunnnnns!"

Banks and airports have armed guards, chemists, courts, govt buildings etc. I don't see what the hassle is with placing them in schools (ones that actually fire on school shooters, that is). One incidental benefit is that it can be a growth employment industry for those who have lost their jobs through automation.
Vash
Posted 12:02am 26/2/18
It's a 'gun control' movement, not a gun ban movement. The constitution clearly states a 'well regulated militia' and doesn't indicate citizens should own high powered weapons of war.

The solution seems to be to too many guns, is put more guns in places that are meant to be safe (Schools) indicates you have a big cultural problem that needs to be resolved with legislation.

It's not impeding on constitutional rights to ban more guns that are capable of killing masses amount of people.
fpot
Posted 12:12am 26/2/18
No I do understand that. What I don't understand is that if bearing arms is such an unalienable right why is the existence of the NRA necessary? Now I'm wasting my f*****g time talking about this with you aren't I, because you're about to say that the NRA are a good thing, and that they're gallantly protecting the rights of citizens from the very real threat of creeping socialism. What they're actually doing is polluting the political processes that should have been put in place sometime around April 21st 1999 with money and influence causing the deaths of untold thousands.

The reason you don't see the hassle is because you're really dumb, and you read the words and listen to the speech that comes out of certain people's mouths, and instead of internalising it and considering it's worth with how it will actually work in a practical sense you simply decide whether it supports your myopic view of the world or not.

The USA is quickly becoming a pretty good textbook on what not to do. Maybe they should build a northern wall as well to keep it from leaking out.
PornoPete
Posted 08:30am 26/2/18
What they're actually doing is polluting the political processes that should have been put in place sometime around April 21st 1999 with money and influence causing the deaths of untold thousands.
The reason you don't see the hassle is because you're really dumb, and you read the words and listen to the speech that comes out of certain people's mouths, and instead of internalising it and considering it's worth with how it will actually work in a practical sense you simply decide whether it supports your myopic view of the world or not.


Delicious. So creamy.
sLaps_Forehead
Posted 09:11am 26/2/18
The polarisation o this topic is such fear mongering bulls***.

The gun 'control' (not ban) in Australia is awesome. If you want a basic firearm you can apply and get one. It just means unlike America a nutter can't buy a AR15 Semi automatic assault rifle over the counter.
So if you are a sporting Shooter or Farmer you can get a bolt action rifle.
Vash
Posted 10:45am 26/2/18
The polarisation o this topic is such fear mongering bulls***.

The gun 'control' (not ban) in Australia is awesome. If you want a basic firearm you can apply and get one. It just means unlike America a nutter can't buy a AR15 Semi automatic assault rifle over the counter.
So if you are a sporting Shooter or Farmer you can get a bolt action rifle.


Exactly. An Australian conservative PM made a smart move, it doesn't happen often but yeah, credit where it's due.
And even if our laws were implemented in the U.S, it still wouldn't be against the 2nd amendment. People still have the right to bare arms here.
dranged
Posted 09:33am 27/2/18
I thought this was a good article on the AR-15 (clinical perspective).



Insom
Posted 12:27am 28/2/18
Fox's strawman is that any gun control measure from the so-called elite must necessarily entail a wholesale confiscation of firearms from the American people

this is dishonest, but what do you expect?

oh, and the NRA aren't just totally, into guns, they also oppose net neutrality like that's any of their goddamn business
trillion
Posted 04:06pm 11/3/18
fpot
Posted 06:26pm 12/3/18
Paragraphs would be nice.
trillion
Posted 08:18pm 12/3/18
yeah young people and their notes these days, no regard for the appreciation of format
Viper119
Posted 01:55am 13/3/18
A little grammar wouldn't kill you.. oh :o
Phooks
Posted 02:10am 20/3/18
Had a quick read, sadly another case of science journalism misinterpreting science.

Sorry to spoil the fun guys but playing violent video games is a predictor of violent intentions & aggressive behaviour, especially for young people & in the short term, stronger with repeated use, etc.

Hearing things that go against your worldview is difficult, so let's flip the switch with a quick example.

How do you feel about pro-social games and their outcomes, or the positive effects of gaming? 'Improvements' in problem solving, spatial and hand-eye coordination skills or other knowledge?

Think about it.

If you don't think violent or antisocial games affect/influence violent or antisocial behaviour (they do) you forfeit the right to argue that prosocial or skill-based games affect/influence prosocial or skill-based tasks related e.g. success rates of video-game playing surgeons (they do)
Phooks
Posted 02:45am 20/3/18


Video games are visceral and interactive. This can be a good thing, or a bad thing. They cause violence like processed meat causes cancer - not a massively strong effect like smoking, but the evidence for a causal relationship is there.
PornoPete
Posted 09:05am 20/3/18
Don't forget to cup trumps balls phooks. To show how much you love him. No homophobe.
taggs
Posted 01:04pm 20/3/18
NRA has come out in support of gun violence restraining orders which from what I've seen appear to be a sensible, bottom-up/community focused, seemingly constitutional approach which conservatives and libertarians should support, imo.
Khel
Posted 01:29pm 20/3/18
Video games are visceral and interactive. This can be a good thing, or a bad thing. They cause violence like processed meat causes cancer - not a massively strong effect like smoking, but the evidence for a causal relationship is there.


How about showing us some of this evidence then? Because as far as I'm aware theres been plenty of research done into it and no such link has ever been found, so if you have evidence to the contrary, I would be interested to see it. Also, the whole "it has a greater impact because its interactive" argument was pretty much debunked years ago too, the last time we went through this song and dance, back when Jack Thompson was suing everyone in his crusade to save the world from violent video games.

Like I said though, if you have evidence to the contrary please share it, I want to be sure I'm as educated as I can be on the issue and have the full picture
Phooks
Posted 01:52pm 20/3/18

https://scholar.google.com.au/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C5&q=violent+video+games+meta&btnG=

It's not a surprising effect really. Video games are a great medium for learning - what varies is what's getting practiced, in what way and how much

E.g. If you watch mortal combat slow-motion x-ray 'torture porn' killings multiple times a day, you're going to get pretty used to the sight of blood and screams of pain and likely better at extending that to different contexts. Maybe good for a trainee forensic video/evidence reviewing cop, who needs to be desensitised in a 'gamified' way. Maybe not as good for a young kid in a domestic abuse/bullying situation. For 30 y/o fighting game junkies it's probably pretty harmless. It's about context
PornoPete
Posted 08:37am 21/3/18
large longitudinal study finds no link between violent video game use and violent or criminal behaviour.

It's obvious really. Video games have been ubiquitous for 2 decades and all forms of violence have unambiguously dropped in the same period.

Make sure you don't ignore the base of the shaft phooks.

It's interesting how completely conservative sjws are.
Viper119
Posted 08:43pm 21/3/18
I feel like we've been through this all before since the first widely reported mass shootings, didn't the Columbine kids play Doom or similar? And there's never been any legit evidence linking them.

Besides, if you think video games are the issue, you've obvs never seen NRA TV.

trog
Posted 10:34pm 21/3/18
Because as far as I'm aware theres been plenty of research done into it and no such link has ever been found, so if you have evidence to the contrary, I would be interested to see it.
I asked my former London flatmate about this; he did a PhD on this subject (we interviewed him about his research several years ago) & keeps up with it although he's not actively working in this space any more (he's cited in several of the articles in Phook's broad meta search).

Here is his response which I found interesting:
The real question, which I never got to address in my PhD, is whether violence in video games is unique in comparison to other conceivably aggression-inducing stimuli from the real-world, i.e. searching for a car-park on Christmas. People (scientists, media, laypersons) are quick to talk about real-world effects of violent video games, but really any effect is going to probably only exist in the lab, or be completely washed out in the real-world.

If I were ever to do another violent video game study, I use experience sampling to measure the longevity of any lab-based effect (e.g. have people come into the lab, play violent games to demonstrate the aggression effect (if possible), and use a mobile app to measure that aggression over the following days). In no scenario could I imagine that effect lasting more than a couple minutes.
Many of the meta studies show no evidence (some actually show the opposite effect!)... but basically there is no scientific consensus on this topic.

But it seems totally reasonable to me to think about it from a relative perspective as suggested above - if video games /do/ cause violence (no strong evidence to show they do) then do they do it out of proportion with all the other stuff that you do in your life?
Phooks
Posted 01:19am 22/3/18
No strong evidence to say they do? Or no strong evidence to say they don't? Be sure not to make points that support your own view immediately after declaring that there is 'no scientific consensus'.

do they do it out of proportion with all the other stuff that you do in your life?


What does proportional even mean here? Are you trying to find a point where violent video games' contribution makes it 'worthwhile' to regulate? To which I would reply with the same argument regarding you needing to first acknowledge that if video games can be any 'good' or even 'worthwhile' to exist in society at all, then they can, by their nature, be 'bad' too.

The we can talk about whether the unique agression-inducing nature of games, which is a real thing that exists, is worth further research or policy discussion/regulation, but people ITT are too busy saying there is no effect at all.

Im running out of points before I would be repeating myself, so let's spitball instead.

I would be interested to see where you think 'the line' is. Absolutely no effect whatsoever?

If there is no effect, especially for kids shooting up schools or what have you, should we be concerned with the numbers of kids playing ma15+ or R games, if at all? Why even have ratings? Are kids somehow impressionable in ways that adults (see; 15-18y/o) are completely immune to? Why or why not?

Is violence different to sexual violence in any way? Why? How many hours a day of playing the latest VR rape simulators is too many?
PornoPete
Posted 09:19am 22/3/18
To which I would reply with the same argument regarding you needing to first acknowledge that if video games can be any 'good' or even 'worthwhile' to exist in society at all, then they can, by their nature, be 'bad' too.


Why don't you explain what this means? Is anyone making the claim that they are 'good' beyond providing a form of entertainment?

why don't you run us through the bad side of sudoku? it has a positive effect on brain function apparently. where are it's inevitable bad sides phooks?
Khel
Posted 12:30pm 22/3/18
Its not about a 'line', its about whether they have any more impact on your mood or aggression than a hundred other things you come into contact with in your daily life. Annoying clients at work, traffic, loud neighbours, people chewing with their mouths open, people talking in the movies, reality tv, all of these things have a bigger impact on my mood and aggression than games ever have, should we regulate and ban all of them too?

You can't just study games in a vaccuum and come to the conclusion they're the source of the problem
Phooks
Posted 07:02pm 22/3/18
Yes it is. There is already a line (ESRB ratings for one). Public health and policy considerations are important in understanding and addressing risk factors, especially for vulnerable populations (young people, mentally ill, ethnic minorities etc)

I'm not on the Bible bashing ban all video games bandwagon. I'm on the science-based policy bandwagon.

There are a myriad of negative effects of video games. Addiction, microtransactions-as-gambling, agression-inducing and modelling, etc.

You can't just study games in a vaccuum and come to the conclusion they're the source of the problem


Ok. For your reference;

The conclusions we reached are based on the combination of methods used across studies performed in multiple countries by multiple disciplines and multiple unique researchers. We note That our strategy of inference based on a combination of studies using complementary methods has been well documented in many fields of public health science. On the basis of the body of empirical evidence, we concluded that the impact of exposure to violent video game use on aggressive outcomes is robust.

violent video game use has an effect on aggression. This effect is manifested both as an increase in negative outcomes such as aggressive behavior, cognitions, and affect and as a decrease in positive outcomes such as prosocial behavior, empathy, and sensitivity to aggression.
The link between violent video game exposure and aggressive behavior is one of the most studied and best established. Since the earlier meta-analyses, this link continues to be a reliable finding and shows good multi-method consistency across various representations of both violent video game exposure and aggressive behavior

WHEREAS research suggests that the relation between violent video game use and increased aggressive outcomes remains after considering other known risk factors associated with aggressive outcomes;
WHEREAS although the number of studies directly examining the association between the amount of violent video game use and amount of change in adverse outcomes is still limited, existing research suggests that higher amounts of exposure are associated with higher levels of aggression and other adverse outcomes;
It is therefore the content of gaming, rather than the medium itself, which is concerning. Many games contain extreme violence and players often engage in gaming for many hours at a time, maximising their exposure. Violence and sexualisation are often presented together in video gaming. Content that involves sexualisation of women and often violence against women has led to the “R” classification of some games. Games may also promote racism and negative stereotypes.
Aside from content of games, they have the potential to become psychologically addictive. A new ‘Internet Gaming Disorder’ has recently been added to the DSM V.


Some restriction of personal choice is always required to ensure both individuals and the broader community are protected from harmful material, for example material that is overly sexualised and/or violent. Such material has been linked to unhealthy relationship expectations, desensitisation to violence and broader social Expectations about the use of violence in everyday situations.


There is also a myriad of positive effects of video games - those with good 'content'. Short term stress relief, pattern recognition, prosociality, interactive therapy games, etc. The industry has used these valuable effects to grow tremendously, they have have lead to new jobs and businesses, research, innovation, therapuetic techniques etc. Nobody seems to be debating that ITT.

But for some reason, people are blindly arguing that no negative effects exist, or if they do, it's not really significant - which is not correct.
PornoPete
Posted 07:34pm 22/3/18
Well gee thanks for that phooks

they find that there is an increase in aggressive cognitions.

Here is how they describe aggressive cognitions

Aggressive cognitions Numerous laboratory and longitudinal studies have assessed the impact of violent video game use on aggressive cognitions, which includes both self-reports and direct measures of cognitive processes. Aggressive cognition measures included hostile attributions and expectations, word completion, Implicit Association Test responses, aggressive intentions, aggressive cognitions about the world being a hostile place, dehumanization, and pro-violence attitudes. These measures are important because they inform an understanding of the psychological processes through which violent video game use might have an impact on behavior.


Why don't you start describing what a policy would look like that took seriously "thinking the world is a hostile place" is something that needs to be addressed? You want science-based policy. describe what you would do to address the "problem" of people "thinking the world is a hostile place". Sorry having "aggressive cognitions about the world being a hostile place". Even better, why don't you apply it to a minority who thinks that?

While you're at it why don't you start describing the current debate around implicit association tests? Maybe include some of the policies that have been enacted on it, and how effective those policies have been.

Let me follow that up by saying if you can't explain it to a layperson you don't understand it end of discussion.

Make sure you don't over work trumps head.
Khel
Posted 08:29pm 24/3/18
Like I said though, those studies are just looking at do violent video games have an affect on aggression, but in a vacuum, not in any kind of real life scenario where there are many, many, many other factors at play.

So in a lab they showed video games increased aggression, ok, so by how much? How long does the increased aggression last? How much more likely does it make a person to commit a violent act? And how is it relative to other things like watching a violent movie, playing a game of paintball, playing a game of rugby, getting into a shouting argument with your spouse, being stuck in traffic, getting back to your car and finding out someone has put a huge scratch in it, losing your job? Just saying video games cause an increase in aggression is, by itself, such a vague finding it's nigh on useless.

Unless it's a proving to be a significantly bigger problem and a bigger trigger than all the other s*** going on in people's lives that can make them angry and violent, why is this even a discussion worth having? This is just a bulls*** scapegoat to use to muddy the issue and kill the discussion on issues that actually matter, and what do you know, it worked.
PornoPete
Posted 09:09pm 24/3/18
So in a lab they showed video games increased aggression, ok, so by how much?


No I think some precision is needed here Khel.

They showed an increase in self reported aggressive thoughts. They couldn't establish an increase in behaviour. Just thoughts, nothing that translated into real world action.

The most you could possibly infer is that if someone was presented with a situation that may, among other options, be resolved by violence, they might have an elevated chance of electing to use violence provided they had played a particular type of violent video game within a half hour before the choice arose.

And that's if you accept they have the slightest idea what they are actually measuring. This is a nontrivial problem in psychology.

I fail to see how imposing censorship on the strength of any thing phooks has posted doesn't straight forwardly amount to thought policing.
Phooks
Posted 09:39pm 24/3/18
I know it's hard to hear things that go against your core beliefs, but your comprehension of my last post could be improved so please read the sources I posted. This is not some PhD student trog talked to once, this is a nonpartisan task force of academic and public policy experts put together by the largest peak body of psychologists in the developed world, held to standards of quality and ethics, and which was created specifically to answer the questions you guys are asking.

Why don't you start describing what a policy would look like that took seriously "thinking the world is a hostile place" is something that needs to be addressed?


Psycho-education

Sorry having "aggressive cognitions about the world being a hostile place". Even better, why don't you apply it to a minority who thinks that?


judging by your s***posting on the politics thread I'm guessing you mean extremist muslims here so, you know, your broader racism aside you'd be proving my point

the current debate around implicit association tests?


Yeah IAT is a fun one, not aware of policies you're talking about but it's a decent predictor in selection batteries for certain organisational roles over and above personality and cog ability (high safety operators IIRC)

So in a lab they showed video games increased aggression, ok, so by how much? How long does the increased aggression last? How much more likely does it make a person to commit a violent act? And how is it relative to other things like watching a violent movie, playing a game of paintball, playing a game of rugby, getting into a shouting argument with your spouse, being stuck in traffic, getting back to your car and finding out someone has put a huge scratch in it, losing your job? Just saying video games cause an increase in aggression is, by itself, such a vague finding it's nigh on useless.


So I don't quite know why you keep saying 'in a lab'. Can you explain to me your understanding of these experiments and perhaps why you seem to think their generalisability is lacking -even if only for the effects of violent videogames-? Again I will repeat, video games in general are an engaging and interactive form of learning - both with good and bad consequences, depending on the content.

Unless it's a proving to be a significantly bigger problem and a bigger trigger than all the other s*** going on in people's lives that can make them angry and violent, why is this even a discussion worth having? This is just a bulls*** scapegoat to use to muddy the issue and kill the discussion on issues that actually matter,


So, perhaps I can explain this with your own definitions?

Issues that actually matter:
1) Violence

Issues that are well-studied and clearly identified as risk factors that contribute directly to 'issues that actually matter' (See; 1), over and above other risk factors:
A) Violent video games (& violent media)

Ways in which A loads on to 1:
- Increase in negative outcomes such as aggressive: 1 behavior (doing), 2 cognitions (thinking), and 3 affect (feeling) and as a decrease in positive outcomes such as prosocial behavior, empathy, and sensitivity to aggression.
- Higher amounts of exposure are associated with higher levels of aggression and other adverse outcomes (also see; Behavioural addiction)
PornoPete
Posted 10:31pm 24/3/18
Psycho-education


No I said what would the policy look like.



judging by your s***posting on the politics thread I'm guessing you mean extremist muslims here so, you know, your broader racism aside you'd be proving my point


You judge wrong. Because you're an idiot. But please tell me how my "racism" (showing you to be an idiot) demonstrates video games produce aggressive behaviour.

Yeah IAT is a fun one, not aware of policies you're talking about but it's a decent predictor in selection batteries for certain organisational roles over and above personality and cog ability (high safety operators IIRC)


Why don't you start telling us about how IAT for racism is ambiguous in what it measures. How about IAT is in no way predictive of racist behaviour.

I'm not surprised you can't point to policies that undermine your point. You're an idiot.

Here is what they define as aggressive behaviour

Aggressive behavior measures included experimental proxy paradigms, such as the administration of hot sauce or a noise blast to a confederate, self-report questionnaires, peer nomination, and teacher rating of aggressiveness.


Its well established violent video games make you more willing to give a confederate hot sauce. F***en hell.

This is not some PhD student trog talked to once, this is a nonpartisan task force of academic and public policy experts put together by the largest peak body of psychologists in the developed world, held to standards of quality and ethics, and which was created specifically to answer the questions you guys are asking.


Yeah and if giving people hot sauce is a standard they hold themselves to, we can safely ignore them
Phooks
Posted 10:36pm 24/3/18
Yeah which is pretty significant when choose the noise blast that's enough to cause permanent hearing damage (they didn't actually blast people)
PornoPete
Posted 10:40pm 24/3/18
What if it's not. Was it clearly explained you'll be causing permanent hearing damage? Or was it a willingness among friends (sorry "confederates") to cause perceived discomfort. you know like the hot sauce example.

Have you ever worked in a kitchen? getting newbies to taste unpleasant base ingredients is a form of bonding. But I guess we could recast it as cooking produces aggressive behaviour by this standard.
Phooks
Posted 10:45pm 24/3/18
Don't know about you and your mates PP but giving a total stranger permanent hearing damage would be in the 'illegal hazing' spectrum of aggressive behaviour for most people
Phooks
Posted 10:47pm 24/3/18
so whats all this about policy then. you want me to draft a violent video game policy? or something about implicit association and racism? how is that relevant
PornoPete
Posted 10:53pm 24/3/18
You link to the study that says players of violent video games thought they gave a total stranger permanent hearing damage phooks.

That report says they were willing to give a confederate (so not a total stranger by definition) a noise blast. It does not say, they knew they were giving a total stranger a permanent injury and did it anyway because video games.

so whats all this about policy then. you want me to draft a violent video game policy? or something about implicit association and racism? how is that relevant


I'm sure you can piece it together phooks. I'm not being cryptic.
Phooks
Posted 11:11pm 24/3/18
eh. ya kinda are
Khel
Posted 11:14pm 24/3/18
So I don't quite know why you keep saying 'in a lab'.


Well I'm assuming they did their tests in a controlled setting, I don't imagine they sent psychologists out to live with gamers and quiz them during and after each gaming session about how they feel? I'd imagine they did it in a controlled setting and minimised the outside influences so that they could properly gauge the impact the games were having on the person's thoughts and behaviour. Which is fine, gives you some interesting academic results to discuss, but it doesn't really apply to real world things like a high school shooting because in the real world, things don't happen in a bubble, theres many factors in play. Saying that studies have shown video games cause some increase aggressive thoughts of behaviour or whatever, and then saying this kid played video games and shot up a school so video games are the problem is just a ridiculous leap of logic.

And when I said issues that matter, I meant you know, things like children having access to automatic weapons to go shoot up their school. Or bullying and cyberbullying which I'd imagine would contribute more to a kid wanting to kill his classmates than playing a videogame would. Or depression and mental health issues which would make a person succeptible to having and acting upon those thoughts in the first place. You know, real actual issues, not bulls*** smokescreen issues.
PornoPete
Posted 11:24am 25/3/18
eh. ya kinda are


I'm really not.

So that would be a no, you can't find research indicating video games cause a willingness to cause permanent disability. I didn' think so.

Here is the wiki entry on implicit association testing. I invite you to respond to the looong criticism section, in which it becomes clear IAT isn't predictive of behaviour, and the creators don't know with any accuracy what they are actually measuring. So I ask again seeing as "aggressive cognitions" were established in that report you linked to by conducting IAT, which is an empirically questionable test at best, where is the scope for an *evidence-based* policy.

but let's meet you half way.

How about all FPS games come with a warning like smokes. We can use the latest research, and say something like "warning: an exposure of an unknown quantity may or may not cause recklessness with Tabasco. results with sriracha have been inconclusive but prudence is advised."

I think it needs to be that, don't you? I think we need to accurately reflect what the research says and not hide behind generic labels like "aggression" which might imply actual violent outcomes rather than teenage boys f*****g with each other.
trog
Posted 08:40pm 25/3/18
edited out my previous post.

It left a bad taste in my mouth to be arguing about minutiae when the actual topic we're trying to address is that children are literally dying. Whether or not video games have any responsibility is, in my opinion, beside the point - the US needs to change it's gun culture first. (Anyone that thinks changing video games is going to be easier than changing guns I think forgets that it will probably run up against the First Amendment which is the probably even more of a big deal to the majority than 2A anyway.)

It was great to see the turnout for gun reform over the weekend. My US-based family marched in support so I'm proud of them.
Phooks
Posted 09:22pm 25/3/18
I fail to see how my tone is not friendly but perhaps I'm using PP as an example of what 'friendly debate' looks like on this forum. But sure I'll try, thanks for pulling me up on it boss.

Well I'm assuming they did their tests in a controlled setting, I don't imagine they sent psychologists out to live with gamers and quiz them during and after each gaming session about how they feel? I'd imagine they did it in a controlled setting and minimised the outside influences so that they could properly gauge the impact the games were having on the person's thoughts and behaviour. Which is fine


Okay I think I see your point now, perhaps it might be helpful to think of it in two different ways - causes of violence, and separately, the effects of violent video games (& media).

Almost nobody has looked at video games being a causes of violence itself (with violence/violent decision-making difficult to study), and it kind of sounds silly because 'games don't kill people, people do - give someone a game & they won't go murder people', but their effects as a risk factor with many negative outcomes are still very clear and measurable. Similarly, in the gun debate -

Almost nobody has looked at guns being a cause of violence itself (with violence/violent decision-making difficult to study), and it kind of sounds silly because 'guns don't kill people, people do - give someone a gun they won't & go murder people', but their effects as a risk factor with many negative outcomes are still very clear and measurable.

How big are the effects? It depends on the game, context, person, motivation, exposure, family, community etc - but we do know children & people with other aggression/violence related risk factors are especially vulnerable.

Not sure if that kind of explains it?

haha only people with PhDs that wrote articles that support your point of view are allowed to be referenced in this discussion?


So lets talk about sources then. Regarding my point of view, it informed by my degrees and experience - much like yours would be if the topic was within the realm of computers/some such.

Regarding my reference choice, this is not a handful of academic articles. It's literally a task force. Like, a royal commission-level review. The APA one is a review of the literature by senior scientists with "exemplary methodological and scientific expertise, who were selected after consulting with the most frequently published researchers in the field, as well as prominent methodologists, theoreticians, and practitioners in behavioral science, pediatrics, communications, and public health. The task force members bring expertise in meta-analyses, child development, learning, digital media, multicultural psychology, violence, and aggression to this effort. " I encourage you to actually read it if you haven't already

Not that arguments from authority or choice of sources should matter as much as an understanding and debate of the literature itself, but you asked.

Khel correctly described the context I was talking about (i.e., no, it isn't).


It's what the entire debate is about in the first place - whether violent video games are 'good' or 'bad' - what's your 'worth it' line? Are no games bad? I'm saying they can be, specifically violent ones. I'm not saying they should be banned or censored or whatever, I'm just not sticking my head in the sand about their effects.

Nonetheless, I think Khel's at a different angle in the debate to yourself. He has been arguing about the generalisability of findings and appears interested in the overall scientific literature (lab vs real life). You're arguing that there is no effect at all, nor evidence/sufficient consensus - which is not what a good faith assessment of the literature would conclude, and to which my response is that you ought to at least start with logic from first principles.

That is, you still fail to acknowledge whether video games have any affect on behaviour, thoughts or emotions at all. Once you decide your stance on that we can go from there.
PornoPete
Posted 07:39am 26/3/18
I fail to see how my tone is not friendly but perhaps I'm using PP as an example of what 'friendly debate' looks like on this forum. But sure I'll try, thanks for pulling me up on it boss.


Own your behaviour phooks.

Regarding my reference choice, this is not a handful of academic articles. It's literally a task force.


It is a task force which is presenting a consensus where is doesn't exist and is being very fast and loose with what behaviour it considers note worthy.
You must be logged in to post a comment. Log in now!
106 Comments
Show