Oklahoma sued by ESA and EMA

I hope that this bill IS struck down. It's completely irrelevant to today's society. If the parent decides that a game is suitable to the child, then that parent shouldn't be limited to lawful deeds. Sheez. When will leaders of the free world learn that life will find a way???

Just another example of where society is headed! When will people realize that it's not the games influencing today's criminals?

Games and movies can influence a kid in every aspect of his personality. I hope that it doesn't get struct down. Games get too violent, especially when the game has you going around blowing away inocent people and cops.

Sorry, but I have to disagree with ya there. I don't believe for one second that any crime is influenced by video games....that is just a cop out used by the pathetic people taking part in it. People are just reaching for an excuse and this is where they end up...blaming it on video games. Sorry, just had to retort on this, as I feel it's a load of crap!

oops, cant let the kiddies veiw the violence of this videogame better turn on tv or something. *tunes TV to local brodcast* AH SHIT! "Violent TV show" is on and the kiddies just veiwed images of a bank robbery and the bank guard got shot. CRAP better change the channel to cartoons. great, road runner just pushed the coyote off another cliff. what is the world comming to? this is rediculous. before we know it the only channel that is going to be on the air is TVLand, and i think those shows even have the "V-Chip" ratings now dont they? @Kjvsword - do you play games? did you play games as a kid? are you a violent criminal?

"""especially when the game has you going around blowing away inocent people and cops.""" Read my thread Ballpyhon, I wasn't talking about all games. The games that I played as a kid can not be compared with the violent games of today. Oh yeh, I'm going to go around trying to find some white dots and ghost to eat(PacMan)? Or better yet find a space ship and blow away some alien bugs or astroids in outer space(Galaga, Galaxian, Astroids)?

Whether we like it or not, violence does affect some of us, specifically those who are unstable, usually copycat certain depictions of violence in videogames or movies. However, what it boils down to is control, and the fear that our youth shall one day imitate the protagonist in king kong, and spear us to death. lol

I have to agree. Video games do cause violence. We all know Hitler played through GTA before taking over Europe. How many people have died in the name of video games? How about money? NOW how about religion? Get real. Personally when I get to snipe people in GTA it stops me from sniping people in real life.

Your mind is like a computer, garbage in, garbage out.

Thats a horrible analogy.

I see Louisiana isn't the only place overrun by Legislative Idiots. Not much must be happening there, since this is a really pressing (Depressing) issue.

kjvsword seems your really old man and out of touch. Video games cause as much violence as disco and pot did to peoples of your era.

If your Momma and Poppa raised you right and kicked your A$$ when it needed to be, then violent video games shouldn't be a problem. I'll admit when I was growing up (if I ever did LOL) we had maybe 3 TV channels to watch and we played outside until they made come inside. Most of us baby boomers turned out ok.

If kids can't go see an "R" or "X" rated movie then shouldn't that also apply to video games? Also I have to agree that watching or playing violent games for hours on end does influence you to a point so get over yourselves about it not.

Quote:

---

If your Momma and Poppa raised you right and kicked your A$$ when it needed to be, then violent video games shouldn't be a problem.

---

I couldn't agree with you more! Video games don't produce real-life violence!!

plutonash wrote "kjvsword seems your really old man and out of touch. Video games cause as much violence as disco and pot did to peoples of your era." Oh just because I don't play games like GTA, I'm outa touch? I have some friends and family that has played such games hours on end, and I see how it has affected there lives. Fiji5555 wrote "If kids can't go see an "R" or "X" rated movie then shouldn't that also apply to video games?" I aggree!!!!

Unless that person has psychological problems, violent videogames may be influential and counterproductive to his or her wellbeing. A man actually hanged himself because he lost at an RPG game on the PS2... Therefore, my theory, makes sense, it does affect those with psychological problems in a negative way. And what does Hitler have to do with GTA lol. Cooky comparisons.

@hot ice: I agree with your sentiment, as far as unstable people go. That's exactly what I'm saying. I just don't see how it has any mental effects on a sane person...

Quote:

---

"If kids can't go see an "R" or "X" rated movie then shouldn't that also apply to video games?"

---

That is why they have ratings on games. You had to be 18 to get GTA: SA.

If you put too much garbage(violence) in, guess what comes out? And what does Hitler have to do with GTA? "It also gives us a very special, secret pleasure to see how unaware the people around us are of what is really happening to them. " --Adolf Hitler: "If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it." --Adolf Hitler: "Through clever and constant application of propaganda people can be made to see paradise as hell, and also the other way around, to consider the most wretched sort of life as paradise." --Adolf Hitler 1923: "What good fortune for those in power that the people do not think." --Adolf Hitler:

all i can say is Violence today IS NOT a product violent video games. the first video game was produced in the late 70's right? was there violence before that? of course there was. what about before TV? was there violence before TV was invented? YES! please correct me if i am mistaken, but people did commit Violence prior to the invention of the TV, So why is it that video games are to blame now a days? BECAUSE IT IS CONVENIENT TO DO SO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

"And what does Hitler have to do with GTA?" video games made him violent. thats what. Violence has been around long before video games and tv and movies. excuses excuses. Actually the time we live in now are not as bad as the previously violent times. Did manhunt inspire John Wayne Gacy, Son of Sam, jack the ripper? violent people don't need inspiration. They would be violent either way they just may copy what they see from a game.

video games encourage violence.they should be banned.LOL. ok, what do u say about socities who hardly play video games and probably never heard of GTA ie. bangladesh, north korea, columbia and so on. i am sure these nations are without violence and that their ppl never fight or argue because they don't play video games. Get Real !! one more thing, y do ppl associate video games exclusively with kids? this is a myth. the video game industry is part of the entertainment industry and caters to both the needs of kids (mario, harry potter, soccer games) and to needs of adults (gta, bmx xxx, etc). @cypha, the fact is that secular reasons have killed more than religion. ie. the World Wars. furthermore, when religion is used in war, it is for secular reasons ie. world domination but religion is used to give it a holy colour.so, religion is merely cover up rather than the actual reasons. i am sorry to have ranted soo much.

Asking most folks here whether they think that videogames cause violence is like asking a drug addict if he thinks he has a problem. Of course he's going to say NO. I've seen enough studies, real-life situations, and even my own personal experience to know otherwise: Yes, they do inspire people to be more aggressive and violent.

In any event, I believe that a depiction of violence does affect us on some level, look at videogames, television, newspapers, etc. Whether we act on that violence being portrayed, is a different story. Therefore, it boils down to mental health. Have there been a single act of suicide due to a videogame? Yes. Have there been murders due to videogames? No. I don't think videogames are a direct cause of a harm to a person, they are just a variable in an equation of negative things, a person with psychological problems, may be exposed to and affected.

@Dunker You'd be surprised there are a number of us that don't play video games here. I still say No. Most of the trash out there causing all the violence and murders have never sat down and played any game.

HMM last time I checked weren't PARENTS responsible for the upbringing of children Instead of using videogames and TV and movies as a babysitter? It seems everytime there's a shooting a murder or robbery or (insert crime here) it's almost always blamed on videogames or whatnot. I've played many violent games in my time and I'm not a serial killer or rapist. Because my parents instilled in me something called morals, what is right and what is wrong and what would happen if I did the wrong thing. (not to mention a tour of a prison when i was in highschool) Sure some people who play videogames do commit violent acts, but 99% of the time the criminals are wired wrong, sociopathic or psychopathic long before they played (or even played) a violent game, so this whole "videogame = violence" argument holds no water with me. notice it gets a lot of attention when it's close or it's an election year? Can u kids say "hillary clinton"? can u say "bullshit"? and can you use it in a sentence? yes I believe you can!

@xenon - you couldn't have hit the nail on the head any more square than that. I am a parent and i could not agree with your more. IT IS THE PARENTS JOB to make sure children are not completely emerged in video games and tv/movies all the time. they are the first line of defence to the videogame tv/movie violence blame game.

it is not simply a matter of dumping responsibility on one party/group. We are a shared society, a community, a group, neighbours, friends, families etc. We all share responsibilities. Just because some of you wish to get your rocks off on fake violence because you lack the balls to live life don't come up with half-baked notions to justify your jollies. Try getting off your asses and going outside once or twice. Also practice using your minds rationally instead of taking snippets of knowledge in and mashing it to a useless pulp.

Hot_ice "" shall one day imitate the protagonist in king kong, and spear us to death. lol "" And soem want to ban gays to 0-o *dont ask,this is what my brain thought of when I read your comment,soemtiems my brain goes 2+2=5 LOL* I agree with for the most part however goverment has no place in saying who can see what,a desent Age asoition sheme with soem indutry enforcemnt is always better hollywood has been showen to do a weaker job at "protection the childeren" and we all know the goverment will not make a universal rateing system for all media not if hollywood will have anythign to say about it.. Dunker Key word "inspire" Inspration can lead to one feeling more energtic and depnding on how one is riased one can put that engery into a chore or job or beat the crap out of soemone....it realy dose come down to parenting and that we in the US are failing at. Tashammer So becuse it "upsets soicty" you want to ban it? no wonder you guys are going after games,gays,free speech and file shareing. (I dont mean to generilize merely trying to share the thought thats lsot in the void of my mind). ----------------------------- I think a universal rateing system could be done but....the main problem with doing it is gettign a indapented group of smart people togather to hash it out.Since it could be easily coupderted one way or the other its pointless at this time,becuse we have free speech in the contry you cant simply ban this or that even the obsurce anti porn laws in some statees are being overturned becuse they gobyond protecting minors from it. Moive Industy They try to rate stuff but I have seen the od a crappy job at it and they are about as half effective at keeping TeH content from minors than tthe game industry Game industry Theya re doing a ok job but sicne they are in the sights of the haters they will never get any rest,this also helps to keep them on thier toes. TV industry I cant tell whats what anymore ,it seems they like to use obcusre genreailtes to rate shows....I still love the fact that fck is a PG13 freindly word now adays,altho if you look at pop culture word meanings are soemtiems changed look at the word ni@@er for 20 or so years after the 50s the word was a commen "BAD" word over the years Black culture took and changed its meaning its not the word it used to be it now has 2 or more meanings.....oh well I never understood censoreship anyway shit,hell,damn,fck,ni@@er are now commen words,after watchign anime for so long I and understanding alittle japanase I see that words are meaningless without context. The Music industy is so afraid of loseing a dime they wont make one for music (Use meaning+discription+words X CONTEXT = as the main basis for the rateing take a 1900 song about killing your GF/wife the words are simple non offensive non sexaul soem might have a double meaning makeing them PG for the most part,take any generic rap song with offensive words wife/GF beating/killing and you get a PG13 to a R depanding on whats what. ) Mmm anyone intrested in talking abotu rateings and how to balance them out for music ? I had a thread in gamepolitics.com site but not alot tlaked about it no one wanted to hash thoughts out other than to say music is a holy grail and not soemthign to rate,I say frist off if the aprent is going to block it tis oging to be bloked,the age rateign is jsut a generilaztion to help dimwits understand the potental offenive content in soemthing not to "BAN/BLOCK",to keep questionable stuff out of the hands of minors is a ok goal but if you are unwilling to do it to all media and do it with soem balance forget it....after all the point of it is to guide parents not and have the retailers try and not sell it to minors,but as thigns are today there is no blance there is no peace....*falls asleep from writeing to damn much*

@zips That's the thing Zippy, the Government controls just about everything, but as for the issue of kids, most parents do a lousy job raising them, I don't know about you, but I've noticed how unruly some of them can get. Anyways, Maury is a perfect example of this, even though it's probably staged.

@hot_ice. true I've seen kids totally out of control, and what happens afterwards? They get a "time out" all that does is let the child know that "hey I can keep on doing this and the only consequence is a time out in the corner" when I was younger when i did something wrong I got a smack on the ass. and NO it did not turn me into a bad person who's violent, anti-social, and maladjusted like some people claim it does. And hot ice don't forget Jerry Springer. if that ain't staged then I dunno what is!

I've never had a timeout. I don't know who's the genius that came out with the idea of timeout, but obviously it isn't working. Kids these days, based on some reports, are having sex at 9 years old, drinking alcohol, smoking cigarettes, and using drugs at around that age, believe it or not. Oh! Wilma! Let's put sex and weed smoking 9 year old Harry in timeout. Ya right. Timeout doesn't work, you have to be an authoritarian figure, spank your kid on the buttocks, like this to avoid any injury, and tell them why you spanked them:"if they ask why, tell them it's because I love you and I will explain when you are older." The neighbor with his kids does it all the time, and his kids turned out just fine. If there isn't discipline and respect, how do you expect a kid to turn out, a quire boy that helps the elderly and is an exemplary citizen. No way. Therefore, I think timeout, or the concept thereof, should get a timeout, permanently.

@xenon I think Jerry Springer denied allegations that his show was fake. lol

ZIppyDSM - PLEASE, try using a spell checker OK? I could hardly follow your thoughts because I was shaking my head so much from wondering what school allowed you to pass to the next grade level, over and over and over..... without interdiction into your written language skills. Video games? Violence? A few days ago, it was cartoons that were turning out freaks of nature who would go about their business of maming and murdering because they watched Mighty Mouse, Captain Midnight, etc. Blaming video games for violence is like blaming guns for all murders committed. The phrase "guns don't kill people, people kill people" can equally be applied to video games. Imagine a world without video games. Seriously. What would the violence and meyhem be blamed on? Not enough corn flakes for breakfast? Or, maybe, dad forgot to say "good-bye" when he left for work that morning. Those that misplace the reasoning or blame objects for the acts of a certain few people, should themselves be misplaced by society to the appropriate island to live out their mindless existance so as not to further degrade the already weakened gene pool. And, let's hope that Hillary is there to welcome you as you step off the boat!!

hot_ice *nods* krklek it boils down to parents teaching thier kids what to do with the energy they get from sugar caffien and watching shit.

@krklek Guns were initially designed for what purpose? As a weapon, that's what, a weapon that kills human beings. It's like saying a nuclear bomb was doesn't kill people, people kill people. Ya right, that's just about the same rhetoric garbage Charles Heston splurts out.

Okay, there is a huge argument here, and honestly, BOTH sides seem to be far out of whack. Can violent video games encourage violent or irritable tendencies? Yes. It has been proven. Do they? Now that is a different question entirely. First off, one has to examine the mental status of the individual you use to claim that video game violence does or does not have such an affect. Because people have their own pre set tendencies before exposure to these things. A pacifist who plays GTA is still a pacifist. It is proven that depending on the exposure length, they may likely be irritable or easily upset for some length of time, but not that they will by any means be at all likely to strike out violently. If you take a young adult growing up in a home, with little parental supervision, who is raised mostly by local culture, MTV, or video games and movies..... Well, we don't need to analyze where these influences can take someone in that state. But it is important to remember that that doesn't mean living in a place with poor culture makes you a deadhead. That doesn't mean that if you watch MTV you'll turn into the drama freakshows they seem to air all day (I swear, every show they air sickens me at this point), and it doesn't mean that watching violent movies and playing gta and Narc(Truly terrible title, but often reference on news reports about this) will turn someone into an epicly violent antisocialite. Do video games have an effect? Yes. If you think otherwise you need to seriously re-analyze yourself. Music, movies, images, games, even COLORS are proven to have effects on you, some stronger than others. Will these same things cause you to commit violence or even genocide? No. If you come to this point, any sane person can agree that there are much bigger problems in your life. Things like unchecked anger and aggression issues. Things like family problems. Alchoholism, drugs, etc. But a video game has never been scientifically hardlinked to violent crimes. Both sides of this argument are too extreme, but the scientifically proven middle line is here. Hopefully this will sort things out.

When I first saw this headline on the newsletter ,for a minute I thought it said Osama sued by ESA and EMA. ROFL!!

hot_ice why is gun owening in the constentuistion,to keep the goverment from becoem a dictator ship however in this time of money = power what good will a large group of cictzens have asigt the army or the coperations..basily the only good of havieng indavenaul owen guns is to have the undergrand awashed in them to the point where the crooks are as or out gunned to the cops..hell the coperations sure aernt doing anythign asgist questionable dealers and even if they know that XXX dealers weapons wind up in the undergrand in any desent qauilty they cant tell the FBI its alaw to protect the coperations....fcking helll moeny is power,power corupts and the coperations rule without oversight....hell we dont even have oversight in the goverment much anymore......*sigh* my little brain sees the tip of the ice berg and knowing whats underneth fries it so very much... krklek forget a spell checker my grammer can be so out of whack what I need is a cute writeing asstaint to write for me and marry me :P handsom As always a great post,well as long as its not abotu the Xbox :P j/k! j/k!! LOL However we alway know that kids poorly raised are going to be more less cohesive in socity,it boils down to parenting and how aprents teach kids to deal with the energy and stress they get from shows and life.. while I dont mnd them trying to keep M raed stuff out of the hands of kids should we as a socity start baning things from kids whats going to stop us from protecting adults from un cohesive thoughts....the constenution is not written in stone and it will only take a few brainless morons to throw us into choas.....

@ZIppyDSM Thanks for the compliment! Unfortunately, it has always been true that one or two elements of chaos or unpredictability (Particularly with children and teens in this case) causes a mass of people to come to completely unreasonable conclusions. There ARE censorship methods in place through the ESRB, and most retailers DO enforce them. However, more checkups should be done to ensure that we are really sure retailers are using the correct policy. Point in case- Most retailers ARE careful about M-Rated games: A fairly large company, which recently(in the last year) swallowed it's competitor, and shall remain unnamed, had an interesting incident happen. A local news team set up a 'sting' of sorts on one of their branches. They sent in a ten year old, and told him to purchase a specific M-Rated title. This title was slightly worse (morally and playwise) than GTA. The child walked in at a busy time, handed an employee the game, and purchased it without question. The employee was busy, and not paying attention, so he sold it to the kid. The kid walked out with it, and less than a minute later, two cameras, three microphones, and a couple reporters flew into the store, bombarding him at the counter. In a way, I feel bad for him. He lost his job over it. And when the store manager told the reporters to leave, they painted him to be the bad guy, making it look as though HE sold these games to minors on a regular basis. It was really overdone. This one event has been re-aired on the local news a good number of times since it happened less than a year ago. I know this very well, because I had just gotten hired, and I ended up taking his position in the store. In this event, and ones like it, there are two necessary things to be pointed out: -Not all retail employees know/understand/care about the rating system, and why it is in place. I do feel that more enforcement is never a bad thing. I do feel that employees should be informed of it with more severity. And as harsh as it is, I have come to the conclusion that the best way to really monitor this, is to enforce a zero tolerance policy. If an employee is caught supplying these innapropriate materials to a minor, withut parental consent, I honestly feel they should be terminated from employment. After working in that environment, I can say with honesty, that it's effective. Again, it's not nearly as common as you might think, but there are more things that can be done to control the few 'cracks' in the rating system. -The media LOVES to find these somewhat rare cases, and make it look like game companies and retailers WANT to sell kids the next GTA while they're in grade school. Newsflash, they don't. In fact, most retailers take this VERY seriously. Realistically, I believe that ultimately only the parents(or gaurdians) can really control this problem. And it's up to them to make sure that their kids aren't getting these materials. A lot of people have come up with excuses for why they don't or "can't" keep track of this, the excuses are numerous, but if you are going to have a device like a PS2, etc. in your child's use, You should make sure you are capable of controlling what your child can do with it. Most of these systems have the ability to physically lock out underage users from innapropriate materials, and some stores even use this as a selling point, but it is up to parents to learn how they work. And it honestly isn't all that difficult.

handsom and thats why entrapment dosent work look at the floida would be bombers...oy vay talk abotu a bunch of nthing......the chaosI am talking abotu is the kind that starts us on the slipery slope of porecting the kids then goes to protecting adults from thoughts and ideas that might make some unhappy with how the goverment dose things or simpley keeps knowalge of thigns away from the public (bomb makeing,anarchy) and other gray aera or other tpyes of metrail like porn or hate properganda. Case in point drugs protect adults from soemthign of thier choice that only hurts them in most cases..its vauge and silly...pot is the perfect exsample of a drug we need more of its a A class stomtch medicine that can help thos who cant eat has good relaxtion abilty it deved into more I bent it could be used for anti anixty and not kill your FING liver...(most depresstion and anxity drugs do ahrm the liver)sure you might get stone on it but its ahell of alot better on you then booze..unless you smoke it heavly *L* Pot is a wonder drug they wont touch becuse the coperations cant hvae they way with it ,also Pot tea has a bonus of haveing anixosdants in it but damn I bet its a bit to strong in taste and ...rr....power *L* And the BS about pot killing brain cells is ripe....youth brain cells grow at a stedy pace,its the lack of effort ut into stuides that might harm you (rasie hand) oy.....I wish I put more effort into thigns when I was young......BTW no I never did pot with all the crapy laws they ahve agist it its not worth loseing stuff over...the stupidty of man is thrumped by his inabilty to change.....

Quote:

---

Guns were initially designed for what purpose? As a weapon, that's what, a weapon that kills human beings. It's like saying a nuclear bomb was doesn't kill people, people kill people. Ya right, that's just about the same rhetoric garbage Charles Heston splurts out.

---

Guns are designed to protect people. That's why jsut about every police officer carries one. That's why some postal police are armed. That's why some dairy inspectors are armed. If guns were really designed to kill, then there is no way we could justify paying public servants to carry them, outside the military. And even then maybe not. The logic that guns are design to kill is like saying video games are designed to train killers. They can do that, they do do that, but it's relatively rare compared to the number of people who have them and few people would be stupid enough to possess or sell them for that express purpose lest they get sued out of business by victims of violence or get thrown in prison.

Dunker Guns were made for war and killing,Stunguns and Mace and other sprays were made for protection and non kill take downs. Guns are simple easy to make and deadly as all hell,becsue they are easy to make and theres alot of them police have them,also sicne it can be to easy to get them any idoit can have one to try and steal and other crap,it is becuse we are awash in them there are so many crimes commited with them.....the question becoems how can we still ahve the right to bare arms and have less arms in public at the same time...ban certain types,ban/restric upgrades that make killing more than 1 person at a time,restrict most gun types to milltray and police,no private citiezen needs a uzi or a .50 cal sniper rifle..or extended cartidges,machine guns,any bullet type that dose more damage people unless you can pay for the insurance on it...heres another thought cars kill or harm and most states have a no insurance no driver licnes why not do it with guns? If you want to be a collector you ned to ahve a clean recored and such,any armed crime will make you lose your collection. A armed populas is a quaint idea but without a constant oversight why restric any gun........

Guns are more restricted now than they have ever been at any point in our history. Prior to 1994 there was no mandatory background check and half the states didn't have one. For 150 years we had easy gun availability. Until 1986 it was legal to buy a machine gun (albeit they were restricted.) Up until 1968 you could buy a gun, any gun except a machine gun or short-barrelled rifle or shotgun, delivered to your door with ammo by mail order, no questions asked. There were no restrictions on Ak-47s or M-1s (which were extremely common, especially as war trophies.) Prior to the 1970s (or late 1960's, depending on your state) it was common for kids to take guns to school, particularly in rural and semi-rural areas. Why, then, didn't we have too many 12-year-olds killing each other then? Why, then, didn't we have too many people going postal? Frankly, the only factor that's changed is media availability and media violence. Human nature hasn't changed. Drugs haven't changed that drastically (Meth and heroin were common in the 50's and 70's, respectively, and in the 50's, meth was legal). Sure, maybe some other factor is to blame. Maybe there's something in the water. But if you want to blame inanimate objects, a far stronger case can be made to restrict or outlaw violent media than most other factors. I'm not endorsing that, and most pro-gun folks are as opposed to restricting the first amendment as the second, but I'm simply showing the flaws in the logic of blaming inanimate objects rather than the actions of people. P.S. I'm better-trained than all of the cops I know (which is many). What, pray tell, makes them safer even though I know more about the law than all of them put together and I can outshoot any of them with my eyes closed? The LAST thing we need is to restrict certain gun types to police-only; many civilian training programs are better than many police ones.

Quote:

---

A armed populas is a quaint idea but without a constant oversight why restric any gun........

---

An even stronger case can be made about "freedom of speech", especially in a time of war, as being quaint. And it certainly is without legislative oversight. What's interesting is that gun control is the perfect template for commonsense media control.

Dunker thigns are as now the same as they have ever been....these mornic half assed restrictions need to go,also more oversight is need on dealers. As I said cops/milatray (whitch can included private seceruity and private armies) 3 or 4 tears of preotestion to get guns away from the crimnals is not such a bad thing A 1.Miltary 2.Police 3.Private Secirty/Armay B 1.Collectors(Collectors are specail nitch) 2.Hunter/Collector C Hunters and Recreational (handguns) Hunters (rifles only) D Recreational Mmm altho we have already a multi tteared system...what we need to do even tho it might be to late is double the desuction of illict arms as well as simple say we have enouhg weapons we dont need new ones and ban the import or sale of new weapons (curent models that are still manufotred and newer models) for 5-10. altho I am very hard on guns and might be unblanced in my thuoght prossess,the system from what I have is badly thought out and INefficeant as any goverment agentcy is,if you could rework it how would you balance the system out? BTW a stupid question do they make rubber bullets with less effiant gunpowder so as not to put the bullet threw a preson at 5 feet? *L* I was watchign the discovery of nitro gliceryn when added to gun podwer in soem way took guns from black podwer to gunpoweder and how it gave bullets almost 3-5 times more pentrateing force.

While I'm not about to get into that discussion (Me + Politics = Ugly, no matter who's side I'm on. I made my boss cry, by playing the devil's advocate in an argument, just to upset her..... And it was fun.) but I really think the bottom line with these laws, is that a lot of people see this as an opportunity to make the public think that they're doing everyone a great justice by passing more regulations, and feeding off of the ignorance of the public. These regulations have been in place for quite some time. Some companies have even threatened not to allow companies (the ones selling M titles to minors) to sell their games anymore. It's a big deal not just to the public, but to the companies that MAKE the games as well. Rockstar screwed up with Hot Coffee, but their publisher, Take2 is making very sure not to let anything like this happen. They have actually funded the ESA in making people aware of the ratings, and why they are in place. Not to mention the fact that they seem to be 'controlling' rockstar in a way. Bully, which has been confirmed as a completed title, continues being pushed back with no given reason, and the only new title from them lately seems to be "Table Tennis". It seems that their publisher is trying to let the public cool off after Hot Coffee. And that's a good thing, the media needs to calm down about this stuff, before Rockstar releases their next big 'topic of discussion'. Otherwise people get a little too nutty, particularly with the help of people like Jack Thompson. But we're not here to get started on him. He has some cooky quotes going around, but I will say that it would benefit a lot of people (gamers in particular) to find his interview online, and listen to it, I believe it's about 25 minutes long, and it's really interesting. He doesn't come across as crazy as most people think, but he does seem misinformed on several points. The bottom line is that he sees something that he feels is a problem, and has chosen not to acknowledge certain solutions that have been in place for years. But again, I'm not getting started on him. This issue wouldn't be so bad, if it weren't for the news media. They love to exploit these stories, it's like sweet sweet candy for them. Some kid goes off the hook in Iowa, yells that he wants to kill someone (Is it because he plays video games? No. It's because he's mentally unstable? YES.) and then the media all across the USA goes nuts and covers this like crazy, and announces that it's because he played Doom on his 200Mhz pc. That *had* to be it. Right. What bugs me the most is that a lot of the 'experts' shown in these specials have no related qualifications to these instances, most of them have no real ability to make the claims they do. And this ignorance is hurting us, and potentially, a lot of our freedoms. I don't want game control to reach the same point as gun control. My entertainment is my freedom, and it is the responsibility of families everywhere to be aware and in control of what their children absorb mentally, and how often. So, yeah, I've rambled enough, and hopefully made a LOT of points.... If anybody actually read all that, I feel very strongly on this topic, and I've taken the time to learn a lot about it, so hopefully other people will as well. IMO, this is a fight against ignorance, and the only way to protect our freedoms in this case, is to fight back with REAL, PROVEN facts and information.

First of all, if you believe that police should be armed, then you cannot honestly believe that guns kill, because it does not stand to reason that you would intentionally, willingly allow, much less pay, people to go out into your own community and kill. As far as restrictions, we have the ultimate restriction - total bans in some places. And, surprise! those places have the highest overall violent crime like DC and Chicago. That's even true of a lot of countries too; Google International Crime Victimization Survey (ICVS). Here's a quick summary that's a little dated but apparently still reasoanbly accurate now: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2001/02/23/n... Anyway, you didn't list the most important reason: Self-defense, which should be in the first tier. As far as licensing, I'm in a bit of an ideological quandary there. I compared the first and second amendments for a reason: For every reason you can give to justify more restrictions on the second, I can give to justify restrictions on the first and possibly others. I wasn't kidding when I said gun control is the perfect template for media/speech control laws. The kicker is, they'd probably actually work, unlike gun control, but that's a dangerous path to go down. With respect to licensing, the last thing we need is to give bureaucrats the power to approve or deny our civil rights. So it's a bit of a double-standard for anyone to support licensing for gun ownership but oppose licensive for the exercise of free speech, especially given that the pen IS much mightier than the sword. A possible compromise is to provide proof-of-training when purchasing a gun which gets paperclipped to your federal paperwork. That'll take care of the primary excuse used to justify licensing - to make sure gun owners know what they are doing and are thus safe. There are two problems with this: First, ideologically, I would want the same standard for those who want to exercise free speech and other liberties. Second, gun control advocates are historically untrustworthy. If you give them an inch, they'll take a mile. That's proven itself true time and again, just about the whole world over. So, ultimately, there can be no gun restrictions. And to answer your idea about reworking the system - eliminate all restrictions on the books, except for a prohibition on violent felons and mentally-incapacitated owning guns, which has long been the law (although privacy laws in most states strictly forbid the use of mental-health records for background checks; this has been a big issue and is going to be again, and not just with guns, but in general.) Be more like Switzerland, perhaps! :) As far as rubber bullets, I was talking to one of my cop friends about this recently actually, and they apparently use just a tiny bit of cellulose powder, or just a primer cap (a primer is ignites the gunpowder and is the same stuff that's on a match stick). Ditto for bean-bag rounds. But even a rubber bullet can do you in if it hits you in the right place. Modern smokeless powders produce more velocity mainly because, unlike black powder, they *aren't* an explosive, it just burns quickly. Just like dynamite explodes and gasoline burns, but you can't use dynamite to run your car. A physics professor back in grad school explained it to me this way: try to move a chair by pushing on a leg or the seat horizontally, using nice, slow, steady pressure. It will move. Then try punching it with short, sharp jabs. It probably won't move as much and certainly not as efficiently.

"Guns are designed to protect people. That's why jsut about every police officer carries one. That's why some postal police are armed. That's why some dairy inspectors are armed. If guns were really designed to kill, then there is no way we could justify paying public servants to carry them, outside the military. And even then maybe not. The logic that guns are design to kill is like saying video games are designed to train killers. They can do that, they do do that, but it's relatively rare compared to the number of people who have them and few people would be stupid enough to possess or sell them for that express purpose lest they get sued out of business by victims of violence or get thrown in prison." Dunker, and how do they protect people? By either causing them harm or killing them, let's face it, it's not a toy, and in the wrong hands it is a dangerous weapon. But let's face it, cops have misused them in a black man's killing, military in Iraq in the whole debacle have allegedly used them to murder whole families etc (notice I did say allegedly). On the other hand however, the second amendment was passed to guarantee the American people's safety just in case the government became a tyranny. Therefore, guns like most things in our society, have pro's and con's attributed to them. As for video games, they might influence unstable people, but there hasn't been a murder, copycat or otherwise, influenced by video games. Therefore, there is only speculation and worry on the issue...

Dunker Guns were made for killign and war,anyhtign else is 2ndy to it no matter how high the goal. Self defence is not a good enough reason to ahve the street filled with illect guns..... self defence would be in the hunters/receration part becuse 80% of all selfdefance guns are handguns thus eiser to hide thus higer than normal hunting licnece,you have a point about them frist takeing guns away than to take free speech away...after all its all on the protecting ourselfs from ourselfs slope *L* As I think it is hard and almost moot to overhaul the gun system sicne we are awashed in illect and unsold guns thier not going to jsut up and disspare...Switzerland...??? eeewwww...he and hillaery are the msot wishy washy vote mongering politions I have ever seen. I see so youd rather it be state by state than a fedarl type thing *nods intently on the rubberbullet and such stuff* I pretty much know the newer stuff has a chemical reaction not just a phsical one as in buring quickly,still its neeat stuff,until they get voltage or sound to transment wirelessly and with enough power to take out a preson rubber bullets and its close counterparts are here to stay for non/less leathal take downs. Hot_ice "*hands you the award for good well balance posting"* LOL ^^

Quote:

---

Dunker, and how do they protect people? By either causing them harm or killing them, let's face it, it's not a toy, and in the wrong hands it is a dangerous weapon.

---

Their presence is a threat to potential wrongdoers and by wounding (and, relatively rarely, killing) perpetrators. Guns are used about 2.5 million times a year in self-defense (and that's a more conservative study - some show more). Yet there are only <10000 homicides. And while not all those defenses are life-saving (most estimates are about 400,000, based on circumstances), that's still a 40:1 ratio. There was a study done for the DoJ by Dr. James D. Wright and Peter Rossi (IIRC the name). They interviewed incarcerated felons in the late 70s and found that a substantial majority said they were more deterred from committing a crime because of the fear their would-be victim was armed than due to any other factor. In other words, the deterrence effect is extremely strong.

Quote:

---

As for video games, they might influence unstable people, but there hasn't been a murder, copycat or otherwise, influenced by video games.

---

Actually, quite a few have been linked to video games, not the least of which was the Paducah school shooting because, according to media reports, the shooter had never held a real gun before, but managed to get IIRC 5 out of 8 headshots. That isn't easy, not with a real gun, even for an experienced shooter. So there is some evidence that not only do games incite people to violence, but help train them to carry it out effectively. Columbine and others have also been linked to video game playing by the actors involved. Can we say for sure they they caused them? It's probably about as provable as anything else in the mental-health field. The best you can do is look for correlations.

Dunker and quite a few muders have been linked to gun useage and illect guns :P BTW another dumb question if guns cant be made illeage then about bullets? altho with said how hard is it to make somelike black powder *L* I mean they put restrictions on the elemnts needed for makeing the Okahomla city bomb of corse you need a few tons to amkeing anythign worth while 0_o damn it must be true you can make soemthign fool proof and a better fool will always come along 0-o

Quote:

---

and quite a few muders have been linked to gun useage and illect guns :P

---

Yet there are more DGUs than deaths. I'm not aware of any instances of a video game being used to prevent a rape or murder.

Quote:

---

BTW another dumb question if guns cant be made illeage then about bullets?

---

Nope, and the courts have held that ammo restrictions are the same as gun restrictions. Besides, ammo is even easier to manufacture at home than bullets; almost all competitive shooters do it for cost and quality reasons

Quote:

---

altho with said how hard is it to make somelike black powder *L*

---

Actually, IIRC, it's just powdered sulfer, salt peter, and charcoal. My high school chemistry teacher told us how to make it though we didn't (and I suspect a few people did, though not me.) Modern smokeless powder is apparently even easier although I never did it either; commercially-produced stuff works out to less than a penny a round so it usually doesn't pay to make your own. But there are some real cheap asses who do.

Dunker sicne its so easy to make why not ban the sell and trade of it and let people make thier own?? 0-o If you did do it like that,it would be intresting,sicne bullets would be gone thru faster than the guns themselfs...mmmm oh well its always soemthign ^^

@Dunker I was going to leave your gun control arguments alone. I don't know why they were in here. I really don't. But that much aside, you just tread into my topic, and I am going to tear some things apart right now:

Quote:

---

Actually, quite a few have been linked to video games, not the least of which was the Paducah school shooting because, according to media reports, the shooter had never held a real gun before, but managed to get IIRC 5 out of 8 headshots. That isn't easy, not with a real gun, even for an experienced shooter. So there is some evidence that not only do games incite people to violence, but help train them to carry it out effectively.

---

Good call. Because really, GTA shows you exactly how to hold a gun. It shows you how to aim. And apparently, moving a reticle that has one solid, unrealistically even pace of aiming can show you how to be a crack shot with a pistol. Sorry, I'll buy that as quickly as I'll buy some ABC gum on the streetcorner. Now, I know where this argument is going next. I've seen it before, and the next step of the argument is where a lot of people drop out of this debate on my side. But I'm ready to stick with it. Generally speaking, the next "Bullet Point" if you will for someone on your side of this argument is the use of "Gun Games", particularly those seen in most arcades. Now, at least this argument SOUNDS good at first. Unlike yours. Some parents feel that these games, which attempt to simulate pistols, sniper rifles, and automatic weapons; can serve to 'train' children, and more concerningly TEENS, to use weapons, to enjoy the feel of them, and to feel comfortable holding them. When I first heard this argument, my jaw dropped, because that's some scary stuff to hear. Really scary. But over the years since someone presented this strong argument (And for reasons I will explain, it has lost a lot of it's pull since then) I have come along other facts which largely nullify it. So I am going to pre-emptively run through this, which presumably is your next attempt at a logical point, and tear it down as well. Why? Because your argument is that predictable. You would be a big fan of Jack Thompson if you heard him speak. -First off: Home use. Systems like the Nintendo, made the idea of the home console light gun into a popular idea. The original playstation game console had the fortune of being chosen to utilize the popular 'Guncon' setup, which is preferred by most "Gun Game" enthusiasts. It did very well for itself in the 8-9 years it was on the public market, available to consumers more than it ever had been. This was truly the coup de grace for "Gun Game" afficiandos. But you should take into account a few factors you may not realize. The PS1, the most popular home gaming console EVER produced made this so widely available to hundreds of millions of gamers in the USA, not to mention worldwide(The UK actually did very well selling these.) But the odd factor is how available they were, and the fact that in the 8 or 9 years they were so widely available, with the largest collection of "Gun Games" ever assembled on one platform, to this day; only around 20,000 guncon units were sold. What does that mean? That means out of the tens of millions of gamers who owned a PS1, less than 1% of them owned this spectacular unit, or one of it's many cheaper competitors. Later, the Dreamcast attempted a revival of sorts on this medium. They launched with a widely popular "Gun Game" called "House of the Dead 2". The game demo was packed in with the system for all the units sold in the entire first year and a half. EVERYONE with a dreamcast played this game. The system launched with it's own sega branded gun. As well as a popular alternative from Mad Catz and Interact. Both were cheaper and better than the original. For the first time ever, a good, complete "Gun Game" setup was available to the general public, at the low price of $40 or less for both the game AND the "gun". Yet the title was deemed unprofitable, and the system (Which also attempted a re-launch of the arcade smash hit "Virtua Cop 2") failed miserably. Since then, the Guncon has attempted re-launching on the PS2, to abismal sales every time, but Namco occasionally still tries again. The XBox saw a third HotD title, as well as a Mad Catz branded gun, that few users were even aware EXISTED. Even fewer users were aware of the 'Silent Scope' collection that launched with a specialized "gun" accessory, which could effectively be used as a pistol, a shotgun, or a full (over)sized sniper rifle. Again, a miserable failure, now sold for less than $10 in some stores. The Gamecube made no such effort, assumably as Nintendo tends to lean a bit more toward 'Family Entertainment' in general. No "gun game" has seen decent sales since. And even the forementioned titles are hard to call 'successful'. -The individuals involved in these 'linked' crimes were deemed sociopathic, intraverted, and antisocial. And I think that looking at all of the crimes that the media has so kindly 'linked' for us, we can all agree on that statement, without exception. I was in the third big school shooting since 1999. There was Columbine, then in 2001 Santana High School, located near San Diego, CA (Lakeside, to be exact) suffered a tragic loss, when a student shot and killed to classmates during passing period. No one was prepared, and I spent that night at a youth group full of crying students. So, whatever you procede to argue next, I suggest my lack of knowledge and 'feeling' on this topic not be it. Two weeks later, there was a second one in the same school district. Granite Hills High School, located in El Cajon, CA (Also just outside of San Diego). This one involved no fatalities, although one student somehow suffered a direct bullet wound to the head, and yet lived. The target had been one of the vice principals, ironically he was considered to be the 'nice' one. Around 1pm, I heard what sounded like someone kicking a vending machine, a few minutes later, one of the campus aids was struggling to hustle another student with blood all over his head past our window. This has an effect on you. But it isn't the effect that the media likes to show so much of. They like to show hysterics. Why? Because hysterics are contagious. Hysterics insight a greater sense of urgency. Hysterics keep viewers. However, this was not the majority consensus. The majority who knew the shooter (Who will remain unnamed out of respect for the deceased. The individual later hanged himself on his own bed sheets, while awaiting his trial. Many students were angry, some were sympathetic.) knew why this happened. The individual was loud, protestive, and antogonistic. He was a miserable individual, living in what is assumed after psychiatric analysis, to be an abusive home, with little or no parental guidance. He had heard earlier (Exact time not specified, somewhere in the prior 48 hours) that he would not be admitted into the Navy, due to a slight hearing problem in one of his ears. Apparently, he had decided that a career in the Navy was his last, and only hope in life. When he lost that, he decided to strike out against those who had an affect on him at the school. The VP he specifically targeted had seen him on several occasions, when he had been sent there on discipline related reasonings. And it is assumed for this reason, he was targeted. Again, this VP was considered to be the 'friendliest' of them all. He did not give anyone a hard time about anything. He was a very unfortunate victim, I don't know if there could honestly be a staff member there, who was less deserving. All that said about who he was, and his victims, the media immediately, like with Columbine, and as with Santana, went off to linking violent video games and movies. Why? Because it's fun. And man, is it easy. The individual had a game console in his living room, which the media went on to speculate he used often for 'violence simulation'. The fact of the matter is that the parents do not know how much time he might have used it. Of the students who had classes with, no one could say that he ever even used it. He reflected no knowledge of video games, or how they were played. In fact, he was more interested in getting into the Navy, and throwing his computer mouse at people's head in computer class. He was a grade A lunatic. Andy Williams? Santana. Any video game connection? None. I challenge you to find otherwise. The individual went 'off his rocker' from being teased. He was a social outcast, and apparently a huge target for many fellow students. When he commited his atrocity, not one person could link him or his crime with games. Not one. -Assuming the last fact, because I challenge you to prove me wrong on this, let's look at the biggest known haven for these "Gun Games". The arcades. Most of us on this site fondly remember the arcades, myself, I was a DDR geek back when the first japanese imports were hitting arcades (Way back, further than you think), and I used to love them. They were great, no matter what mall I was at. (It's San Diego, there are many malls within minutes of eachother, and apparently, they don't consider this to be too close) I would hang out with my friends, we would challenge eachother on DDR, play a few rounds of Star Wars Trilogy (When it was new) or play some Mortal Kombat. It was really fun. But there are some things to notice about these places, and they are pertinent, because this is the only market left for these "Gun Games" anymore. ---Subpoint A: These arcades are indeed a haven for the individuals seeking more of an 'experience' than some gaming. People come to play games with their friends, and enjoy some of the best gaming that there is. Unfortunately, this creates a connection that a lot of the media won't discuss. The fact that these gamers aren't anti-social, sociopathic, or anything but normal kids and teens. They come to arcades not just to play games (Inlcuding "Gun Games"), but also to hang out with friends. Which means that the one last haven for these sociopath, antisocial, and violent individuals to get their "Gun Games" is a place they would never have any interest in going. Because frankly, you can't go to an arcade regularly, and be a depressed person. Too many people are having too good a time, and quite frankly, over time, it is an experience that rubs off on you. Not to mention that when you play the same game (Or game genre) you get very good. And in an arcade environment, gamers stop to watch other gamers constantly, and honestly, they offer eachother a lot of compliments freely "You're pretty good" "Can I play too?" are very common phrases. Honestly, most "Gun Games"(Almost every one of them.) have, and strongly encourage, teamwork. They bolster two players to work together, generally for a greater good. Which means that this haven for the "Gun Gamers" is the opposite of an environment that encourages violent outlashes and antisocialism. ---Subpoint B: These arcades, while such a haven for many young gamers, and the only place to find "gun games" anymore, are becoming rare, even here in San Diego, where we still have so many malls and public places that used to have them. They are becoming few and far in between. There is literally only ONE arcade in my city(Which is within the San Diego county limits). Let's face it, the location for these "Gun Games" is virtually non-existent. -Next major point, the realism affect. We've all played these "Gun Games" they've been around since the 80's. And we've all enjoyed them. Most gamers have taken the time to waste many, many quarters going all the way through at least one of them. I've got a lot of time on my hands over the years, so I've completed a good number of them. These games have always been aimed at teens, usually right around late junior high school and early to mid high school. And yet, as these, one of the strongest arguments against gaming, and supposedly proving the violent connection, never caused an incident. Crimes and violence in the 80's and well into the mid 90's were not associated with video game violence, and it's not to say that it wasn't present and just as bad back then. Mortal Kombat and Area 51 were both titles featuring ultra violent gameplay, and strongly gory visuals, encouraging players to act without reason or regard with violence. And these games were phased out, because gamers got tired of this, favoring more sensible experiences with more multi-player oriented gameplay. So, hopefully, you won't try to push any of the prior destroyed topics further, because if you think this is extensive, I am glad to supply more detail, and indication of these points, which I have very strong knowledge of, and am glad to continue with. I've held this ground for years, and I challenge anyone to bring me a new counterpoint on it.

Quote:

---

Columbine and others have also been linked to video game playing by the actors involved. Can we say for sure they they caused them? It's probably about as provable as anything else in the mental-health field. The best you can do is look for correlations.

---

Strangely this statement is correct. Unfortunately, the person making it... 'Dunker' didn't do his homework on this.... At all. In fact, after what I am about to say, 'Dunker' is going to be wallowing in the ignorance of it. When the columbine shooters were linked to video game violence, it was realized that they did not have a gaming system of any sort. The only thing that one of them had, was a very old pc. Equipped with the original Doom. Yes, Doom, as in a decade old game about large red, bajillion eyed demons. Bravo, this clearly links video games to real world violence. It's so realistic. It shows you how to hold the gun, how to use it, and who to shoot. Again, bravo on this one Dunker. Great work on that catch. Now, I know that "Gun Games" may not have been your direct next argument, but whether you realize it or not, it was in your lineup, it always is. And now, we both know why these games are NOT the cause of these violent outbreaks. So, yes, you can 'link' violent video games all you like, the media loves it after all. But I challenge you to find any kind of 'proof' of this, as you know, due to the nature of it, something of your argument's nature can only be 'speculated' by those who clearly haven't considered most of their own arguments. There are a lot of beligerent responses that I get at this point, and that's alright. My curiosity is whether you will actually have a valid response to the arguments listed above, other than to deny that you were even going to bring up "Gun Games". The fact of the matter is that whether you would or would not eventually bring this up over the argument (And yes, you would. It's not a thing against you, but it's always the final, big argument point), the fact is actually that there really isn't a better argument you will ever be able to conceive than the one that I just completely deconstructed, piece by piece. Have fun with that one. I have my own opinions on gun control, and I'm not here to discuss them, because they have nothing to do with why I post on this board. But I do hope that your posts regarding the 'links' between video games and violent outbreaks come across more specifically educated with actual case evidence, rather than ungrounded, and uncalled for media speculation. Have a good day.

I've given it some thought, and I believe violence isn't a fragmented phenomena, but rather an ubiquitous one in our society. If we are to measure violence, and how it affects or influences people, we can only come to use video games as a variable of a larger equation, the larger equation being, television, internet, etc.

@hot_ice *THAT* statement, I can wholeheartedly agree with. That is a VERY valid point, and I do appreciate hearing that from somewhere else. I'm tired of feeling like I'm the only one who says it. The unfortunate problem is that these 'studies' and 'links' are bad science. And I don't mean that in any slang or casual sort of way. I mean it in the very literal sense. In effect, these studies and connections that the media and several unqulaified 'doctors' are doing are a scientific experiment. And again, I mean this in a very legitimate sense, so please don't take this as a comparison. Because I mean that if you physically look up how this research is done, it actually IS through the use of scientific method. How this works is that they 'study' and collect information on a large group or 'sample' of individuals. They try to either concentrate on one age group, or they try to get just a couple from several age ranges. The second type of sampling, btw, is much less effective and useful. It is known to produce intensely spurratic results. So, you get a select group, or several that you can categorize in a very set way. Then you sample them with and without exposure to said element, aka violent video games. This way, you have at least two, but preferrably more samples with and without said exposure. The larger numbers, the more averaged, and usually accurate, result you get. The element of difference in the experiment is referred to as the 'control'. By changing this one thing, in a large sampling, you get a very good idea of what effect is had, and how strong it is. This is why current scientific method has been around for ages, it is tried, and proven effective. But there's a problem in the formula being used for these media reports. There are actually a few, but they can all be summed up quite simply: In scientific method, there has to be, and I mean *has* to be one and only one 'control' element. That means there can be only one variant, or it is essentially a void result. This is because as small as something may seem to you, some other element may have a huge factor of difference in the results. So, all but one thing must be the same. In many serious medical studies, doctors realize that this is not possible, because human beings are all completely different. We have different blood types, different immunites, allergies, and reactions. We have different lifestyles, history, genes. To combat this with accuracy, scientists doing human research will test on a HUGE sampling of people, collecting seemingly unreasonable amounts of data on every subjects, so as to plot any other possible elements that have an effect. When I say huge, I fear that I may not be properly explaining the case. In an actual yearly case study, a major pharmacy company does a study on what they plan to give out for a nasal version of the flu shot each year. Because, technically speaking, it is a different formula each time, that very unlikely, but still potentially, could pose harm to customers and patients. So, every year, to get FDA approval to distribute the new formula, they start in the Summer, by doing a large sampling of 100,000 citizens across the US. They collect extensive information on lifestyle, eating, exercise, geneology, allergies, stress, EVERYTHING. And they give all of these individuals a flu shot at hundreds of sites across the US. This means that while they can never have true 100% accuracy on these tests, they get about as close as possible, and using the data they collect, patterns can be found and investigated further through more pinpointed scientific method. It's very complicated process, just to get some basic information, that is pretty much known to begin with. My point is that in these studies, in these media reports, they don't do broad samplings like this. Some of the biggest case studies have been a few hundred people. And they base off of information collected in interviews (generally with psychiatrist), rather than physical data. Psychiatrists are left to see if there is a cognitive connection between violence in games, and violence in people. Some of these studies have shown higher levels of aggrivation, irritation and aggression threshold. Ironically though, not one study has ever linked a violent video, or movie for that matter; to an actual shooting. The media has kindly implied it very thoroughly, which I take quite kindly to, given they have no evidence. Some psychiatrists speculate there is a connection, but one has never been found. Media specials tend to use a sampling of around a whopping ten people, if that. Why? Because they aren't interested in investing the funds to really investigate long term. They don't need to, they can air a special specualting large harm, and people will watch out of the fear effect. It's been this way for decades. The only difference now, is that the media is using it to wield a sort of political weapon. And because people don't take the time to think for themselves, they don't take the time to investigate these things, to find out the facts for themselves; the media is winning the public's favor in this. I really hope that this ends. But I fear it may not. Violent outbreaks can't be blamed on one thing. I don't care what it is. It's not video games, it's not music, it's not movies or television, it's not someone's neighborhood, it's not their hobbies, it's not their geneology. It's several things, compounded to cause a horrible event. And you can't blame one thing for it. Life doesn't work that way. Blaming game companies for influencing violence in video games that they print clear warning labels on, is pure idiocy. Narc wasn't advertised during Power Rangers commercials. GTA ads weren't aired during Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles, and I've certainly never seen an ad for Liesure Suit Larry in Highlights for Kids. Game companies do what they can to enforce and encourage these guidelines, it is up to retailers, and moreover PARENTS and FAMILIES to pay attention to what their children are enjoying. Working in a video store for a few years; I had a huge pet peeve, and it was something that I was confronted with more than regularly. About one in ever three to four customers was renting a game. And usually, for a child. And the GTA series was a frequent title for them. So, we would literally see a ten year old kid renting GTA, because his parent didn't look at it. To make matters worse, I took a bit of extra responsibility here, to favor helping parents do a better job with understanding the ratings. I was always helping on that end. When parents brought up M-Rated titles, I would actually look at the content descriptor (If I didn't already know it, as I am somewhat of an avid gamer) and I would actually explain to parents: "This title is rated M. That means it is the equivalent, and often times far more graphic than an R-rated movie. It contains strong violence, language, gore, drug use, sexuality, nudity. All of that is in this game, and it may not be appropriate for your kid." Yeah. I went that far, I did it while working in a game store too. Going on that, I was able to deter some parents, others even asked me how to know; and I was able to help raise a tiny bit of awareness on the ESRB ratings system. Unfortunately, this was not the mass response. The mass response was "I don't care", "He'll just go play it at a friends house anyways" or, my favorite, was the parent who was shocked, told the kid to get another game, and then gave in when the kid whined about it. And that last one was very common. I'm sorry, that's just bad parenting. Plain and simple. If you give in to something that will potentially damage your young childs moral capacity (Because younger children are much more succeptable to these effects in the longrun), because your kid might whimper about it... If you are a parent, and your willpower to control, guide, and discipline your child is THAT low... You shouldn't have one. And that's not meant as a mean statement, to bring people down. I'm sure that most the people on this site understand the rating system, and why it's in place. And that's good. But a parent who will subject their child to these things at an age of less than ten, for fear that he might throw a temper tantrum... That just makes me sick. It's one thing when parents aren't concerned about certain topics or ideas for their kids. Some parents aren't worried about nudity, or language. Some don't mind the violence. But if you have a moral objection to your own child being exposed to something you feel is morally harmful to them, and you give up for fear of your own child's reaction.... That's an ugly place to be. Anyways, I'm done rambling. I want to point out that I don't believe this is solely the fault of parents. Because it isn't. Not by a longshot. Parents, for the large majority are unaware that the ratings system even EXISTS. And more education needs to be available on this, so that parents are better equipped to handle this. Retailers have rules in place, and they are largely enforced. But parents and families aren't usually made aware of WHY they are in place, or what to look out for. The only people who seem to know are gamers, and the kids who know they have to buy GTA with their parents around, because it's a bad game, and the parents don't honestly know any better. I don't blame people for being ingorant to the ratings, it's not their fault. I'm glad to hear that the ESA is funding an ESRB ad campaign, to publicize the ratings system, and what it means. The artists at Penny-Arcade have actually been doing a series of ads for them, which should be releasing soon, hopefully to catch the eye of a more mass public, hopefully creating an awareness of these ratings, and how to understand them. So, there's my rant. I guess I initially wanted to bolster hot_ice's post, because he brought up a valid point, and I like hearing it.

I think if anything Handsome, human beings are socialized in an environment where it is conducive to depictions of violence. Therefore, video games are hardly if anything, to blame for an epidemic of violence within our society. That's my conclusion.

handsom I have a air BB gun its eaier to hit milk jugs are 5-9 feet at 50 it gets tricky a gun will have 2 thigns mroe than a oc gun,wieght and kick back,games that use the mosue to aim is what they re bitcign at,altho it can only show you so muh you need pratice in order to do it. And I was the one who asked about his thoughts on gun controll of lack there of *L* @ handsom and hot_ice even drunker san has a few coherant points..I could learn a thing or 2 from you all ^^ Damn you guys are good ^^

Now I understand WHY the gun control conversation was going on. And yes, Dunker had some points. My rants, as harsh as they sometimes are, honestly are never to personally insult someone, which means: Dunker, if I was personally insulting in my rants and responses, I apologize, this was not my intent. As for the topic, I do feel the way I do for many reasons, most of which are stated in this thread. Yes, most games include kickback, which teaches the player that a gun WILL have some force behind it, but films do this as well. Not to mention, if you've held a real gun before (In most cases) you'll find that a game has yet to achieve a 'real' sort of kickback effect. I'm going to attempt a really strethed comparison: Have you ever watched a hunting show? I mean the serious kind; where people wait in the bushes for hours, waiting for prey, when they spot the prey, they get the prey in their sights, they allow for wind factor, distance, gravity, etc... And they can hit targets from hiding in a forest brush, clear across the next two plains PERFECTLY. I could watch these for HOURS(I have HDTV, so it's much more amazing). But no matter how much I watch it, no matter how much they tell me what ammo to use, the best way to clean the rifle, where to find good prey, etc, etc, etc... I'm still not going to be able to adequately go hunting next week if I want to. It's not the real thing. And while it may contain a lot of information ABOUT the real thing, that shows me how it's used, etc, I still won't be able, based solely on that information, to go on a successful hunting trip. The same goes for fishing, or any other game sport, because these actually seem to make a pretty good comparison. I don't care how long you play GTA. You're never going to be able to take down a tank with a shot gun. It's just not going to happen. Far Cry isn't really going to show you how to hold a gun and aim; and even Rainbow Six isn't going to show you how to REALLY use a flashbang (aka willy-pete, if you're an online player.) None of these games, as realistic as they may seem, are going to serve as adequate training for real life scenarios. Many people like to point out that the military has used computer games for training. And there is truth to this. In the early 90's, they used a heavily modified version of the Doom engine, for a largely failing 'simulator', which was quickly deemed completely innefficient as anything other than morale training. Later they did use a tactical simulator, which was well re-created with the PC Gaming title 'real war' based off of the actual TACTICAL training simulator. That means that this RTS was used to improve upon, demonstrate, and better understand TACTICS, and tactics only. The US military force has been training killers for decades upon decades, while I won't go into other nationalities, I am only covering what I know here; so if you are from another country, please don't be offended. But if this nation has been training (successfully) controlled, kill-capable, machines out of regular people for this long, it's safe to say, they've got a pretty good idea of what works. If they don't believe that these simulations are useful for training people to kill and handle a weapon; it's a pretty good bet that they just aren't. Look at how much has been poured into the "America's Army" title; with (At launch) the most cutting edge graphics engine available. And yet, they won't use it for real training purposes of any kind. These people know their stuff, and it seems that this fact only bolsters my point. @Dunker You have made some valid points, and I have taken them into account, before responding. For all I know, you may have more, only time will tell. But don't let people like me stop you from voicing them, so long as you've thought them out well. @hot_ice Again, I agree with you whole-heartedly. While I will never say that games have no impact (Because they do, just not the kind many people would like you to believe), I will say that they are dwarfed in comparison to the effects created by this world, people's families, and everything else that they deal with and encounter in their life. Video games have an effect, just like everything else, but to say they are the 'cause' in any way, shape, or form is where the problem lies. I don't believe a person who is unstable should expose themselves to things like that. But that is one of the unfortunate consequences of living in a country with the freedoms that we have. Hopefully as time goes on, we will mature as a nation, and accept responsiblity in other ways that make more sense. I only hope that certain freedoms aren't lost in the process.

Anyways, if anything violence is the real problem, and the real issues to discuss here, are the motivations of violence, and the psyche of the individual in question.

Well, in short response to your posts, they go into some good details about the history of the games, but they don't cover the reality. As far as sight picture, stance, etc. I can tell you first-hand that these games teach you this stuff, and teach it well. You may wish to take a training course to discover this yourself - a decent concealed-weapon course (if they are offered where you live, 38 states do) cost under $100 and give you range time. Go to a local shooting range and find out yourself. You'll find that even the professional courses like Frontsight are much like the video games. You learn sight picture, stance, rapid and off-sight target detection, identification and prioritorization, and other valuable skills. It's not surprising, then, that video games are used as a training tool as well as a recruitment tool. As far as With respect to Andy Williams, I never said every school shooting was linked to video games, just some. And they seem to be the ones with the highest body counts. As far as the popularity of "gun games", you'll notice that first-person shooters have been the most popular for well over a decade. I believe the first one I played was Castle Wolfenstein 3 and that came out, IIRC, in the early 90s. While the arcade "gun games" have largely gone away, the lack of a good gun system for home games I think is the reason. I haven't seen many guns available for PC or console games, at least not any that aren't total junk, like the "Bio" gun. I suspect a reason also for the decline of the use of external guns is the convenience and the willingness of users to grip the thing for extended periods. But whether it's economics or interest in the external gun, first-person shooter games is where it's at now. While the loss of the external gun reduces realism a little, the more-important skills are still taught by these games - movement-spotting, target acquisition, identifcation, prioritorization, etc. Some still teach sight picture too. These are vital combat skills, and the games are well-suited to teaching them. But the fact that video games teach one to carry out violence effectively is only part of the story; more important is that violent games increase aggression dramatically. I personally have noticed that I tend to be more aggressive after playing them. I've also noticed since I almost never play them anymore, I'm more laid-back. Almost everybody I know who still plays them also tends to be more aggressive. There is some evidence, though, that heavy players stay aggressive afterwards (Anderson/Dlll, http://www.apa.org/releases/videogames.html) and some suggest that those aggressive tendencies stay long afterwards. Moreover, some studies suggest the link between videogame usage and violence to be causal, not merely correlational, as the subjects, detail, and sample sizes grow and researchers are using more lab-based methods. (See D.A. Gentile, The Effects of Violent Video Game Habits on Adolescent Aggressive Attitudes and Behaviors). So, the link between videogame violence and real-life violence is pretty strong. Moreover, that *some* (notice I didn't say ALL) videogames also teach you how to carry out that violence more effectively. One other point I'd like to make. If you had asked me when I was 18 or 19 whether music or videogames cause violence, I'd probably have said, 'no fing way!' As I've gotten older (and stopped playing them), I do see some linkage to violence and aggression. It seems to me that asking adolescents and active videogame players whether games cause violence is sort of like asking a drug addict if he has a problem. Of course, he's going to say no. Good summary of research: http://www.psychology.iastate.edu/faculty/caa/abstracts/2000-2004...

Hmm, I've read Dunker's response, and I have something to add: to grasp the notion of "violence", I decided to closely scrutinize the inner workings of society itself. As you may know, society can only come to thrive, if there is control within it on all fronts: with control comes order, with control comes justice, with control comes etiquette, with control comes folkways and mores, and so on. Therefore, I think the question of violence, is a notion intertwined with control itself. The notion of self-control, first and foremost applies here, since video games, give you perhaps momentarily, a feeling of "letting loose" so to speak, outside the normal boundaries, or conformist notions of self-control. Hence, control is the culprit of the issue in my opinion.

Again hot_ice, great addition to the discussion. And Dunker, thank you for bringing some hard facts to the table, that makes your argument so much more valid. It's good to see people on either side of the fence, who actually have some real idea of what they are talking about. Video games do teach you to detect and target movement quite well. And *some* of them teach you about stance. Honestly though, most of them don't; which can be summed up with the phrase "First Person Shooter" meaning you don't see the person you are playing as. Games such as GTA (While being a trademark series) are actually unusual in the fact that they take a third person perspective, showing how the character stands while holding the gun, etc. That's not to say there aren't popular series that do, other than GTA; because let's all be honest, GTA isn't the only one. And that serves to further Dunker's point. My counterpoint there is comparitively how many first person shooters that often outsell the third person shooters are released regularly. First person shooters DO show (sometimes, but for the sake of argument, we will say always) proper gun handling. Having married into a family with HUGE interest in guns, and hunting. I've been to a local shooting range a few times in the last year, and while some similarities are had, there's no substitute for a steady hand, practice, and accuracy. Those are things don't come from a video game. I think it's also important to realize in some of these instances, that these students have actually had practice. Most of these are not the first time they have held a gun. Many (I won't say all, or even half, considering that no one could pretend to know THAT much) of these cases were precognitive, with intent, and sometimes even practice. So, I would like to stress that these kids aren't learning how to use weapons JUST from a video game. There are other sources of information they are seeking out. Regardless of whether it's practice, or how to handle the gun, or reload, etc; it is clear that ALL of the information isn't coming from games. There are clearly other sources that are involved. Not to mention mental instability. As for the moods, etc, like I said. There is a direct link there. Anyone saying otherwise is full of it. However, mood does not entirely dictate a person's actions. I play many first person shooters; and I'm one of the most friendly, not to mention passive, people that you may ever encounter. Maybe I'm unusual (If you met me, you would probably agree, lol), but over the years; I've had a lot of experiences that have made me what I am. There are plenty of kids who manage to come up with screwed up ideas on their own. Even without video games. And I mean completely without video games, or even violent images on television and movies. There are simply some people in this world that will seek out information and tools needed to do harmful things. There are other factors than the violent images. Again, that's not to say that these images aren't having an effect. But I very strongly feel that in nearly every case, there are much stronger ties to things like family, friends, etc. Those things have a much more profound effect on someone than a couple hours of playstation. Those things are what really emotionally drives someone to these actions.

Handsom: you bring up a lot of good and valid points. And another point (i think anyway) is most "gun" games fail to teach you how to calculate the range of the target or how to counteract the effects of the environment (ie wind speeds and direction)You just point and shoot. Like the game "silent scope" (sniper style gun game) and its sequels. I've played them a few times and there's no way I'd be able to headshot anyone in real life if i was so inclined like the way this game does so easily. You'd actually have to be taught these things either through a gun club (a scoped out rifle) or through the military. Also the psychological issues as well. If you bully and pick on someone long enough and they will snap eventually. (The movie Full Metal Jacket for example. although it was only a movie it still brought up what happens when you drive a person to the edge)

Let's face it, gun games aren't realistic at all. In the first instance, you have to consider wind factor, handling, recoil, aiming at a distance, which video games don't really address, and the list goes on and on. That being said, video games give you a feel, or a conception, of how it would be like to handle a gun, but regardless, a feeling can't contribute to anything real. Most people armed with AK-47 couldn't shoot you even if they tried from a distance, that's what the U.S. military understands. They lack the training, the expertise, the know how, and experience. The U.S. military has virtual reality programs, that delve in on tactics and reaction time to perceived threats. However, gun fire in virtual reality, although impressive, isn't quite as accurate as you would hope for... These soldiers have to train countless hours, and actually get a feel of their weapon, before actually knowing how to effectively use their gun. I will use a poor example here, but when the Somalians tried to assassinate U.S. special forces, most of them didn't know how to use their AK-47's, etc. Hence, video games are only meant for what they truly are, entertainment value, and that's as far as it goes with the gun issue. In regards to viewing violence, yes, it does affect us, play a video game for 6 hours straight, with explicit violence and gore, and let's see how you come out of the room once you're done...lol Video games and arcades, do no such thing,

Oops, what a mistake at the end, I think I was ranting, so much so, I failed to see what I wrote at the end. Or as my dyslexic friend would say:" Stop Blabbebling" So true...

hot_ice Stop babbleing :P LOL bah come out after 6 hours of any game and it snot a pretty sight,unless its a near prefct game (dtory and control wise thus givieng you that after glow of joy)

Play a game for six hours continuously, and one should consider getting some better things to do....

handsom its funny I have to force myself to paly the last few games I have been palying (onimusha 3,legaia 2,FFX2,GOW) I think metroid prime held me down for as long as 3+ hours a shot...

Anyways, if anything, my conclusion was fairly simple, video games do not reflect reality in any way, they are only fantasy based. Therefore, we have two players, one that realizes that this is solely based on fiction, and the other, granted with mental issues, that thinks this is an extension of reality. Hence, violence is a question engrained within our society, therefore making it a strict sociological phenomena, to be scrutinized and studied, and not some politician to give his or her two cents on the issue.