Uncensored Media Considered Harmless

The word "Internet" was uttered precisely once in last night's presidential debate, and I don't have to tell you the context. You already know the topic was Columbine, and you already know the Net was being blamed for mass murder. What our Republican candidate failed to mention is that his party's bogeymen, the evil Internet and its evil twin violent entertainment, have brought about a new era of peace. If we really want less violence in our schools, we obviously need more violence on our Internet.

"Columbine spoke to a larger issue, and it's really a matter of culture. It's a culture that somewhere along the line we begun to disrespect life, where a child can walk in and have their heart turn dark as a result of being on the Internet, and walk in and decide to take somebody else's life."
- George W. Bush, presidential debate, October 11, 2000

The term we're looking for is "manufactured crisis." That's what we need to start calling it, this supposed violence in our schools.

I don't need to provide you with more quotes from Bush, Gore, Cheney and especially Lieberman about how disgustingly violent our culture has become. You can't pick up a paper without seeing at least three people moaning about violent movies, the violent internet, and worst of all violent video games. They're infecting the minds of our children, don't'cha know. It'd be the new national pastime if it weren't 200 years old: grumping about those damn kids.

Let's counter disinformation with some real numbers. Here's an annotated timeline showing the increase in violent imagery, and the corresponding decrease in actual violence.

1993
Students' nonfatal violent crimes: 1,438,200.
Victims of violent crime per 1,000 population, all ages: 49.1.

Let's consider 1993 our baseline year, the pre-Doom year. That blockbuster was not released until December 1993, so I think we are safe to assume that it did not begin darkening hearts until 1994 or later. By the end of 1993, the internet's two million host machines include 500 webservers.

Demolition Man, Kalifornia and Falling Down are in the theaters.

1994
Students' nonfatal violent crimes: 1,424,200: a 1% decrease from the previous year.
Victims of violent crime per 1,000 population, all ages: 51.2: a 4% increase from the previous year.

In 1994, shareware Doom, downloadable from the evil internet, shatters existing gaming records. Its bloody graphics and Satanic imagery shock and offend many who are easily shocked and offended. In an era where 200,000 is a great-selling title, 1994 sees the first of fifteen million gamers who download and play Doom.

Meanwhile, the web grows at an annual rate of 341,000%, becoming the 2nd-most popular type of data; among the three million machines on the net, there are too many webservers to count.

The movies Pulp Fiction, Timecop, True Lies, Children of the CornIII, and the politicans' favorite Natural Born Killers are all released in 1994.

1995
Students' nonfatal violent crimes: 1,290,000: a 9% decrease from the previous year.
Total under-18 murderers: 2,169.
Victims of violent crime per 1,000 population, all ages: 46.1: a 10% decrease from the previous year.

In 1995, the web becomes the most popular internet service among the net's four million machines. Shareware Doom continues to rack up downloads. Doom II: Hell On Earth, released last October, takes over as the violentest game ever, with an initial release of half a million units.

The Basketball Diaries, Braveheart, Se7en, and Die Hard3 are released.

1996
Students' nonfatal violent crimes: 1,134,400: a 12% decrease from the previous year.
Total under-18 murderers: 1,683: a 22% decrease from the previous year.
Victims of violent crime per 1,000 population, all ages: 41.6: a 10% decrease from the previous year.

1996 is a banner year for violent images. Doom II continues on its track to eventually sell two million copies. Duke Nukem 3D, aimed at the young teenage male market, gives our nation's young boys a healthy mix of strippers, jokes, and mass slaughter with machine guns. Soon after, the breakthrough title Quake offers unprecedented visual accuracy: blood, gore, and murder are now illustrated with detail that makes Doom and Duke Nukem look cartoony.

Scream is released in theaters to tremendous success, along with Broken Arrow, CrowII, Sling Blade, and the excellent Fargo. Meanwhile, there are now 9 million hosts on the net.

The effects of all that horrible media violence in 1996 appear in 1997's statistics...

1997
Students' nonfatal violent crimes: 1,055,200: a 7% decrease from the previous year.
Total under-18 murderers: 1,457: a 13% decrease from the previous year.
Victims of violent crime per 1,000 population, all ages: 38.8: a 7% decrease from the previous year.

In 1997, there are 16 million hosts on the net. At year's end, QuakeII is released, and is quickly banned in Germany for its even-more-realistic violence. And Con Air, Face/Off, Starship Troopers, and Scream2 are released in theaters.

1998
Total under-18 murderers: 1,169: a 20% decrease from the previous year.
Victims of violent crime per 1,000 population, all ages: 36.0: a 7% decrease from the previous year.

In 1998, Quake II hits its sales stride and begins corrupting young minds. Grand Theft Auto, one of the more vilified and censored video games, is released. The web crosses the 300-million-page mark.

Brace yourself for the movie list: Lethal Weapon4, Saving Private Ryan, American HistoryX, Lock, Stock and Two Smoking Barrels, Ronin, Urban Legend, Blade, and the crappy remake of Psycho hit the theaters.

The result?

1999
Victims of violent crime per 1,000 population, all ages: 32.1: an 11% decrease from the previous year.

There it is. In the four years between the release of Doom and Quake II, the number of killers under the age of 18 in this country plummeted. A drop of 46% in just four years is nothing short of astonishing.

Long-term graphs are even more valuable. Click through to these, they're small and quick:

• The homicide rate, 1900-1998. We are experiencing the longest and steepest sustained dropoff in violence since the Great Depression.
• Homicide offenders grouped by age, 1976-1998. The number of teenage killers is steadily falling.
• Average age of homicide offenders, 1976-1998. The average age of the American killer has been rising since 1993.

Last month, I watched CNN as my friend Bennett Haselton got grilled opposite Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-Ala.). After CNN's introduction telling us what to think - cutting straight from footage of Doom to footage of crying Columbine students - the Senator explained how violent games cause children to commit violent actions. He wants to keep dangerous weapons like Quake away from our kids.

That's how the Senator - who voted against secure handgun storage, and twice against child safety locks - positioned himself as our noble defender of children.

How do the posturing panderers justify their crisis-du-jour? How'd we end up with the phantom of media-created child violence as a major election issue, while violence plummets?

The facts speak for themselves. If seeing violence has any effect on children's actions, it obviously makes them calm and peaceful.

So here's the slogan for my campaign: our kids deserve the best in first-person shooters. In my America, every family will have free movie tickets, 300 megatexels, and low-ping broadband. Let's put an end to frame rates under 30Hz. For our country - for our safety - we can leave no child behind.

(Sources: US DOJ 1, 2, 3; OJJDP 1, 2, 3; FBI UCR; Blues News; crime.org; poynter.org.)

Comments

The Government Wants Control Over All Media

[d.valued]

"What violence is in a dictatorship, propaganda is in a democracy." During war time, the information available was deliberately limited to pre-edited propaganda reels and edited front-line reels. Then, came Vietnam. The Television media was somewhat edited, but was raw. This swayed public opinion against the war. Watergate as well brought the people against the government and made people believe the media more redily. Then, you have Reagan, an actor who knew how to play the cameras. He was trustworthy, because he knew how to be. And Bush showed The Perfect Political War, the Iraqi Attacks. 90+% opinion polls. Now, we have the Internet. A technology which crosses boundries, which crosses nations with a dot-uk, dot-gr, dot-iq, dot-cn, dot-ru, dot-cd, dot-whatever-two-letter-ISO-code. You can see the rest of the world through a different nation's set(s) of eyes, and in a nation like ours where the media is highly controlled and pro-gorment and pro-megacorp, this is dangerous. China's solution was the Great Firewall, one of whose major crackers I had the priviledge of seeing a few months ago. However, in a nation of free-speech and free-media guaranteed by law, this is impossible. So what's the solution? Condemnation. The internet's bad, and naughty, and rotten, and filled with violence, and lies, and porn. And because people still believe the megacorporate media, they believe the lies more readily than the truth because of the infallibility of the source. Jello Biafra of Dead Kennedys said that the best way to combat the media is to becaome the media. I guess that's one of the purposes of Slashdot.

So... What does cause violence?

[cr0sh]

As someone who pretends to be at least semi-intelligent, I know that video games, the media, and the internet do not cause violence, nor do they promote crime.

This is my opinion.

However, if these things don't cause crime or violence, I must ask myself - what does?

Actually, I must not ask myself what causes violence and crime, I must instead ask myself "Why am I not violent and/or a criminal?"...

This is the root question. I am not saying I don't get angry, that I never throw things out of anger, that I don't ever yell - indeed, I have done all of these things, and will probably do them again in the future. However, overall, I am not a criminal, nor am I violent. So, why not?

I think (personally) it comes down to one thing, and one thing only:

Respect.

I am not violent because I respect myself and others. I am not criminal because I respect others and their property.

One thing I have noticed, growing up, is that respect seems (for a lot of people - not all) to come with age and wisdom. It is also something that can be taught. In fact, I would argue that even if respect is instilled at an early age, you still gain more respect as grow older. What makes me say this?

I have seen interviews on TV done with older individuals who, as younger teens and adults, commited various attrocious crimes (murder, rape, etc), but now see the error of what they have done (many times after spending long amounts of time in prison), and are trying to get youths around their neighborhoods to change, to be better individuals. I have also personally seen individuals who, as they got older, gained more respect.

Recently, I got my first driving ticket, for speeding. I was doing 85 in a 75 mph zone. What does this have to do with anything? Well, when the cop hit his lights, I looked at my speed, saw that I was speeding - and thus rightfully deserved the ticket. No prob there. After I got home (knowing that I typically speeded all the time, even going 15 miles to/from work), I decided to do an experiment:

For one week, I would try going the speed limit, and see how it was. I would respect my fellow drivers, and drive more safely. So, what did I find?

First, I found that speeding didn't help me any in the first place at such short distances - and extra 10-15 mph only saves a few minutes, if that, on trips of such short distances.

But most intriguingly (perhaps because before, I was one among many), was the blatent display of lack of respect of other drivers. Now, these same drivers would "get on my tail", urging me to go faster, plus I tended to notice more of the "insane" drivers on the road. I also noticed the ones who gave the same respect as I was now giving.

After the week was up, I continued driving at the more conservative speed. I have since found (it has been over a month now) that I find it less stressful driving to and from work - less stressful driving everywhere, in fact - since I am not having to concentrate as hard as I did driving at major speeds. I can also spot the less respectful drivers on the road quicker, and get out of their way, as well.

Lack of respect - this is what causes the majority of violence and crime in America.

I support the EFF - do you?

Enter The Sarchasm

[Effugas]

Sarchasm: The distance in understanding between a person who makes a sarcastic remark, and the person who completely fails to grasp the slightest clue of what the speaker meant.

I don't usually flame Slashdot commenters en masse.

I'll make an exception for every single one of you who paid way too much attention in Stats class and far too little attention in English.

Jamie's point wasn't that we need more violence. I don't care what he said; it doesn't take more than a few moments of reflection to realize Jamie's point was to brutally shred the conjecture that A) Video games have turned our kids into bloodthirsty murderous beasts and B) The people wishing to blame everything on violent games have any legitimate intention of truly protecting our children(as opposed to just trying to make a quick political buck).

Seriously, folks. Figure it out.

Yours Truly,

Dan Kaminsky
DoxPara Research
http://www.doxpara.com

Re:what we REALLY need.

[Shadowlion]

we need better parents!

I think the Onion said it best:

FBI to Require Background Checks On Child-Care Providers; Child-Havers Unaffected.


--

Great. Now prove the two are connected.

[Thag]

The problem I have with this is that you're basically doing the same thing that the people who blame the internet for violence are doing: spouting off statistics without proving a relationship between them.

Is it really Doom that caused the drop in crime rates? Or is it better law enforcement at the state and local levels? Is it mandatory sentencing? Was it caused by things that happened 15 years ago? PROVE IT, or you are as bad as they are.

I have to say that Bush's quote about the Columbine shootings being related to the internet was weak. It certainly sounded like he was blaming the net, at least in the sound bite that got picked up on the radio this morning.

(On the other hand, I have to point out that Gore's assertion that more gun control would have prevented Columbine is absurd. The killers broke something like 19 different laws getting their guns, the problem was that they didn't get CAUGHT doing it. It was a failure of enforcement, by the police, and the schools, and the families, not a problem of not having enough laws on the books. But with Gore, as with all gun control types, all it will take is just one more little law, and one more little right surrendered. Then everything will be fine and the sun will shine 24 hours a day. And when that doesn't work, they'll do it again. This is off-topic, I know, but I had to say it.)

Jon

Logically

[CMU_Nort]

If Al Gore created the internet, and the internet causes violent crime, then logically Al Gore causes violent crime!

Come to think of it, I don't really remember to many school shootings before Clinton and Gore came to power.

Censorship is inevitable

[ronfar]

We do have a serious problem in our culture. Tipper and I have worked on the problem of violence and entertainment aimed at children. She's worked on it longer than I have, but I feel very strongly about that. And if I'm elected president, I will do something about that. But I think that we -- I think we have to start with better parenting. -- Al Gore, The Same Debate

The truth is that Americans, en masse, have decided that they want to give up the benefits of living in a free society in exchange for the "benefits" of living in an autocratic state.

The truth is that the Republicans decide, after the string of school shootings that the best way for them to defend their positions on guns was to ratchet up the Culture War. The Democratic presidential ticket is just as right wing on the Culture War as the Republicans are, there is no significant difference between the two tickets on the First Amendment.

I'm probably tilting at windmills with my Libertarian vote, but as far as I'm concerned a vote for the two party system is a wasted vote, and I don't feel like sitting home on election day feeling irrelevant as the Democratic and Republican sharks circle around the US Constitution deciding with part to chomp off next.

As a game developer recently wrote in Computer Gaming monthly, games are going to take the fall for Hollywood, because Hollywood has more clout with the old men than the Gaming Industry. The studies which supposedly "prove" that violent video-games lead to violence in real life are junk science (see my sig), but that won't matter to people who believe that creation science is not an oxymoron. (Or even to some others, who may scoff at people who believe in creation science but will choose to believe the nonsense behind these studies because it fits in with their world view, or gets them money and political power.)

America is not a free country, it is only free compared to worse places. When you go to a movie, you don't see the same one they can show unedited in Europe. When you play a game, you play a different version than they play in Japan. It's a new age of censorship, with the government putting legal muscle behind region based censorship.

We will continue to hear, from the fascists who now populate the Republican and Democratic parties that "all is for the best in the best of all possible worlds." If you can put aside the reality of life in modern America and believe that, I envy you. Unfortunately, I am incapable of destroying my powers of reason to the point where I can agree with such a statement.

We are heading into a new dark age, and no one is putting on the brakes. Where is a public voice against censorship? Where is a cry for reason over emotion?

Not in American political life, that's for sure!

School shootings

[CMU_Nort]

The problem is not the growing number of school shootings, but the growing number of school shootings of white teenagers against other white teenagers.

I lived in Philly most of my life growing up, and there were always lots of shootings and incidents in the city schools. But they were predominately in the black schools, and so nobody put up much of a fuss about it. I think it just goes to show how the media is still an ethnocentric device of the majority race of this country.

Re:School shootings

[Bob Uhl]

Predominantly in poor schools. Race is not an issue--it is, as it ever has been, a class issue. The dupes are the racists on both sides who want it to be a race issue.

Nobody cares much about violence among the lower classes because one can show that certain kinds of violence have always been common amongst them--just as certain kinds of violence have been common amongst the upper classes and no-one cares much about that either. It is when the middle classes--traditionally, the most contented and least violent and criminal--see an increase that there is an issue.

The upper and the lower classes have always been violent, immoral and criminal. It is when the middle class goes the same way that there is cause for concern.

Not that the middle class is much better; it lacks the style of the upper and the honesty of the lower...

Re:The Real Issue

[The Man]

Of course it is. And neither of the individuals you can watch on network TV support the Constitution, public safety, integrity, or the freedom of the Internet or of anything else. Both of those candidates stand for continued increase in the size and scope the federal government, and the corresponding decrease in liberty and increase in taxation.

What to do? Well, I'm voting for a candidate who supports my right to buy whatever games I want, play then whenever I want, send or receive any form of communication via the Internet or any other medium without being intercepted by government agents, rent or buy any film I want, and do all of this without paying any federal income or sales taxes. Sound good? If so, then check out Harry Browne. He's on the ballot in all 50 states and - I'm not 100% sure, but - hold your breath - I think he's actually read the Constitution at some point in time!

If you don't want your Net to be taxed (Gore) or censored (Bush), vote for the candidate who actually supports your views, not just the lesser evil of the two drones you may have watched last night. Blatant plug? Sure. Offtopic? No damn way. If you vote for Gore, you're saying that you support higher taxes (and censorship - Lieberman, anyone?). If you vote for Bush, you're saying that you support censorship (and higher taxes - come on, do you really see this guy resisting money coming his way?). Well...do you?

What's wrong with this post.

[rkent]

One of the first things you should learn (in any social science class, anyway) is that correlation does not imply causality. Wait a minute. Apparently someone doesn't get that. I'll say it again.

Correlation does not imply causality.

Saying "what we really need is more violence in the media" is a lot like Herrstein and Murray's conclusion in the Bell Curve that non-white people really *are* less intelligent. They conveniently forgot, as apparently you have as well, to look at confounding factors, and so they assigned race as a causative factor of low intellligence.

Now, I'm not accusing you of being a racist. I understand that what you probably MEANT was that "hey, the increase in media violence has not caused a corresponding increase in actual violence." I just wish you'd SAID that. Because what you DID say is that media violence somehow decreases actual violence. Which is preposterous, and not supported by anything.

what we REALLY need.

[laserjet]

I think most people are influenced too much by the various forms of the media out there. I am not trying to start a flame war, but we don't need less violence in video games or the internet or anything else... this may come as a shocker, but:

we need better parents!

now, I am not blaiming anyone here, but where are the parents at in all of these instances? violence prevention starts at home, with the morals and values that are instilled by our parents and peers.

people need to leave our internet, video games, literature, etc. alone and be responsible for the life they bring into this world.

The Real Issue

[Steve B]

This campaign speaks to a larger issue, and it's really a matter of culture. It's a culture that somewhere along the line, we have begun to disrespect the Constitution, where a "public servant" can walk in and have their heart turn dark as a result of being in Washington, and walk in and decide to take over everybody else's life.
/.

Re:The Real Issue

[bughunter]

You're right. It is a matter of culture.

This first example is becoming cliche, but stick with me a moment: In Japan, acts of violence and depravity are commonplace in anime and manga, and are accepted... yadda yadda. And their people commit one of the lowest rates of real violence in the world.

Contrast that with Germany, where entertainment that depicts violence committed by one human against another is verboten. Command and Conquer had to be retouched and its manual rewritten to depict its soldiers as robots, not people. Even then, it was sold only to adults. Forget about playing Panzer General. And God Forbid you even link to a web page that mentions Nazis in anything but a contemptful light. This is a reaction to their Fascist era, a time when elected German leaders executed 6 million minority citizens.

So yes. It is cultural. IANASociologist, so I won't get all Jungian and speculate about archetypes and cultural personality, but each society has to find what works -- and what doesn't -- for them. And in every society except stagnant, isolated ones, it's an ongoing search.

Now I'm going to use a word that will make a lot of you want to invoke Godwin's Law. But I'm not using that word in the sense in which Godwin usually encountered it. I'm going to use it in it's original sense. It's important that we, as informed citizens, be able to talk about this word, and know what it really means.

Get out your dictionary and look up the first definition of fascism - it's not about goosestepping and stiffarm saluting and gassing minorities. It's about efficiency. Fascism is the principle that any order, any rule, any law, is justified if it means the state will benefit: be more efficient, run smoother, be safer. Beginning to sound familiar? It should.

Because that's exactly what a lot of legislators have aimed for lately, without regard for individual liberty: anti-smoking laws, censorship of violence in media, drug wars, gun control, three strikes mandatory sentencing. Even worse, if it hasn't been effective at safety and efficiency, it's been successfully sold as such.

And it's not only state-oriented fascism, it's corporate-oriented fascism. Washington legislators are more than happy to exchan ge votes for the contributions of major corporations in order that they may run more efficiently. Laws are continually passed "for the good of the people" when they are really just good for business. To hell with the constitution, there's a buck to be made.

It's scary how the children of men who fought against fascism in WW2 are so willing to embrace it. It's scary how easily we've forgotten. Too many liberals, conservatives, and moderates alike are willing to sacrifice our liberties for safety and efficiency. My grandfather, a WW2 B-29 pilot, is probably pounding the walls of his coffin in frustration.

But that's the dark corners of the big picture. We still have defenders of the liberties endowed upon us by the constitution: From the EFF to the NRA. The entire state of Nevada and most of Texas. From PETA and Greenpeace to Larry Flynt. The Libertarian Party and even Nader. Anyone who argues for the rights of anything other than big business and "what's best for the country."

We aren't going to wind up like modern Germany. There's an equilibrium somewhere between libertarian anarchy and fascism, and we're seeking it. There are too many of us who paid attention in high school Civics class and know what's in the bill of rights. There are too many of us who own guns and know how to use them properly... and accurately. There are too many of us who entertain ourselves simulating small unit combat and tactics...

So you see, in the end, FPS and RTS games are one of the weapons in our arsenal against bad government. They fit right in alongside free press and the right to bear arms. No wonder they're being condemned by government. I suggest that these games -- weapon and combat simulators, really -- should be protected under the second amendment, as well as the first.

Re:The Real Issue

[Hard_Code]

I agree with many of your sentiments. The "two party" system is a crock. The two "major" candidates are corporate clones of slightly different flavors. I also agree with a lot of the Libertarian philosophy, however, I believe being a pure libertarian verges on plain irresponsibility. I believe government can and should play a positive role in providing certain fundamental services to citizens, if we architect the system to resist corruption. Therefore I am voting for Mr. Nader of the Green party. To me he has many of the pluses of the libertarian ideals, plus the added bonus of a passion for social justice, which this world and country has far too little of.

But in general, to all those undecideds, independents, and progressives out there, I say: Please, take a moment, analyse the third party candidates, and ask yourself who you really trust and who you would really like in office. Elections are not horse-races or soda tasting contests; you should vote your conscience. For anybody that dissuades you from voting on your conscience on the basis that the candidate "doesn't have a chance", you should immediately discard their persuasions - apparently *they* have already given up and have settled for the lesser of two evils.

(and some facts to nudge you: 1) the election is decided not by popular vote, but by the electoral college. In all but a handful of battleground states, you can vote "freely" for a third party. While it may not have a large effect on who eventually carries that state, it will send a message, and will help build your third party so that *next* time, we can't be ignored; 2) for those liberals or conservatives out there that think that the opposing major candidate will go against your opinions as far as abortion and the supreme court: since abortion was instituted, the most liberal judges were appointed by conservative administrations, and conservative judges by liberal administrations...don't fall into their scare tactic)

No, that's just a symptom

[OlympicSponsor]

"we need better parents!"

Yes, we do. But you can't just make that happen by saying it. Here's the REAL issue:

We need a more intelligent, better-educated populace!

Education is known to increase IQ plus it is a lot easier to control the quality of (unless you want to have a Genetic Screening Board) so that is the area we need to focus on. Intelligent, educated people will make smart choices, including raising intelligent children intelligently.

I'm all for defense and "military readiness"--but can't we take 3% of the defence budget in order to triple (or more?) our education spending? More teachers, higher standards (for both teachers AND students), public involvement, PR work to counter anti-intellectualism, etc. Get smart, the rest will follow.
--
An abstained vote is a vote for Bush and Gore.

Post hoc, ergo propter hoc

[leereyno]

While I do agree that to draw a link between the presence of violent movies, games, music etc, and real violence is absurd. It is just as absurd to say that the presence of violence in games and movies caused the drop in real world violence.

With 2 million convicts in our prisons, an increase of 1 million from a decade ago, and the proliferation of firearms in the hands of honest citizens, I can't see how violent crime can do anything but go down. Those most likely to commit violent crimes are either in prison or smart enough to refrain so they don't get shot. Those who are neither are dead.

Youth have always been a great convenience for those who want to manipulate the public. Talk about how much something or another is going to hurt someone's kids and how you plan to stop it and you've got their attention if not their outright support. Whether or not that something is harmful to anyone at all is irrelevant if you can paint a dark enough picture of it. The internet is merely another "new threat" in a long list of other supposed threats that have been used over the years to dupe the stupid among our nations voters.

As someone who knows his ass from a hole in the ground, I'm really quite angered by Bush's comment about someone having "their heart turn dark as a result of being on the Internet." What planet is he on? Or a better question might be what planet are the people on who he is obviously pandering to? Politicians repeat back what they think the public believes, not what they themselves believe. He's pandering to people who vote and who are not online. As a group, the elderly vote more than anyone else. They are also least likely to be online and most distrustful of new technologies and social change. So whats that add up to? Attacking the internet makes grandpa more likely to vote for you instead of Gore.

A new technology which has social impact will always demonized by those who don't understand it. The more quickly a new technology is adopted, the more vigorously it will be attacked.

The internet is simply the latest victim of this mentality. These attacks remind me very much of what happened when television became popular, or rock music. In both cases there was a "moral outcry" from people who didn't have a clue about either one. Television was figuratively demonized, and rock music was literally demonized. Television expanded our horizons, even if most people did watch the Gong show instead of Nova. Today very few people believe that television is inherently harmful to anyone, yet at one time many people believed just that.

The simple truth is that those guys in Colorado didn't kill anyone because of the internet. One was crazy, the other easily led. Psychologists have been working and trying for a very long time to understand the nature and causes of psychosis and other dangerous mental disorders. Last time I checked use of the internet wasn't among their leading theories.

Things like this just go to show you that quite a few people in this world are truly not very bright. I never used to believe that. I liked to think that most people were intelligent. I'd still like to believe that, but I can't. If the average IQ is 100, then close to 50% of the population has a double digit IQ. I don't think the IQ tests have been recalibrated anytime recently, so the average may be 110 for all I know. I do know that for every intelligent person out there, there is another person who is not too bright. It seems to me that our only real hope in the long run is genetic engineering. Imagine if the average IQ were 150 and pretty much no one had an IQ below 125. How much better the world would be without cretins dragging the rest of us down. I think it would be a very good world indeed.

Lee Reynolds

Re:Attack on the internet

[Chiasmus_]

You know, it's funny, but most of the people shooting each other over heroin and cocaine prohibition don't have computers.

I'm going to make a social observation. Normally, one prefaces social observations with, "I am not a racist; these are just the facts." However, what I'm going to say is probably somehow racist, so I will make no such disclaimer.

Anyone who's read the numbers know that upper-middle class kids with internet access do not commit the majority of crimes. The majority of crimes, actually, are committed by underclass minorities who do not have internet access.

Occasionally, a fairly well-to-do kid will snap after being picked on for long enough, and will pump bullets into everyone he sees. In 1991, two years before Doom, when the most violent game I had was probably either SPACEWAR.EXE or Pool of Radiance, I was actively plotting to drive my mom's SUV through my middle school playground at 80 MPH. You beat a kid up every day for long enough, and he's going to want to kill you. I don't think his cultural influences matter one bit.

Two points: Japan and FPS/Guns

[Anonymous Coward]

Note that Japan, which has an extremely low rate of violent crime is one of the richest in cultural violence. Gore and sex filled movies, anime, manga (comic books), and tv series are quite prevalent in Japan. Of course, there is significant social conditioning to repress your feelings as well, but it is an interesting correlation. On a slightly different note my brother recently got the opportunity to shoot a real rifle for the first time. Considering that none of my friends or his friends have shot anything more than an bb gun he did pretty well. Bullseye's with a scope and inner diamond using raw sights. He attributes it largely to playing hundreds of hours of Action Quake and Counterstrike. So there are two correlations that would be interesting to see. If the more violent outlets you have the less likely society as a whole is to have occurences of violent crime. And if practicing 'murder simulators' translates to improvments in real world firearms/tactical situations.

Virtual Violence

[hachiman]

As a Brit, we have had similar tragedies, but not to the extent that the US has. True, we have had Dunblane, but that was due to a lunatic with several unregistered firearms.

I _is_ interesting that the two people that the US is planning on letting run the country have chosen to tie the internet to teenage violence. Ok, so there is a possiblity that people who can't distinguish reality from games like Quake might get carried away, but there is a substantial chunk of evidence that shows that games of that nature actually aid reaction times and concentration. Who amongst us has sat down for a quick five minute game of AvP and stood up four hours later? I certainly have.

After a couple of hours playing Gran Turismo on the PSX my driving is pretty ropey, but if I sit down for an hour and talk with my friends before I drive, it isn't a problem. When I get in my car, It actually feels more responsive and I certainly notice more of what is happening around me. In some ways, I concentrate more on what I am doing simply because I _know_ it is not a game.

I totally disagree that the internet is to blame for violence and subversion. The internet simply _is_, it is the people that choose to use the information or can't handle that volume of information that are to blame. In some case, it may be the people that let them use it, but as it's free, who can say where to draw the line? I'm not going to.

Gun Safety

[Xenu]

That's how the Senator - who voted against secure handgun storage, and twice against child safety locks - positioned himself as our noble defender of children.

If you think Handgun Control Inc. has anything to do with gun safety, you have been smoking too much weed. Anyone who opposes their gun ban agenda is branded as being "against the children". The one program that has been proven to work, the NRA's "Eddie Eagle" program, has faced bitter opposition from the so-called gun safety advocates.

Look, apples and oranges!

[mblase]

I appreciate the tongue-in-cheek commentary on political hype, but correllating an increase in violent games and movies to a decrease in violent statistics is just as bad as what the politicians are claiming. I just fundamentally dislike using bad statistics to back up any argument.

I listen to NPR just about every morning and evening, and violent gaming seems to have a surprisingly objective review there. Just yesterday was an interview with one family on why Diablo II is so popular, with audio quotes from two young boys maintaining that "It's just a game!", and that they can distinguish cartoon/videogame violence from the real thing.

But then, a couple of months ago, they had another discussion about a pre-teen kid esperienced with first-person shooters, and his first experience with shooting a real handgun. The adult observer commented on how steady his hand was, how careful his eyes, how his hesitation at shooting a target was nonexistent -- and then pointed out that these games are so good at training individuals to use real weapons that the Army now uses the same technology toward the same goal.

Do realistically violent games and movies desensitize kids to the real thing? No doubt. Does it do so to the point where actual violence is much, much easier to commit? Unprovable. There are plenty of things that can cause a decrease in crime statistics, from better policing to bad reporting. But claming that there's no correlation at all between virtual and actual violence, even in sarcasm, is just dodging the issue and irresponsible in the extreme.

Re:jamie, jamie, jamie

[phantomlord]

I don't see how securing your guns at home, or putting safetly locks on them so that kids can't opperate them infrindge on your right to own/use them.

Back in 1991 (I was the ripe old age of 14), my mom's new husband raped her, grabbed a gun and told her he was coming to kill my dad, sister and me. Upon notifying he cops of his threat, they said they couldn't do anything until he actually came after us. My Dad and I loaded our shotguns, turned off the lights and waited for him to show up (which he never did since my mom filed charges and he was picked up on the rape count on the way here). Sure, we ended up not needing the gun in this case when our lives were threatened but what about people who've received anonymous death threats and the police refuse to help? Should they be forced to keep their gun locked away where they can't get to it? What happens when a (illegally obtained) gun-wielding thug breaks into your house at night to rob you? "hold on Mr. Robber, let me take my gunlock off before you shoot me." Even if the crook didn't have a gun, he could just as likely have a knife, baseball bat, pipe, whatever. Millions of crimes are PREVENTED each year because of the threat of a gun wielding defender.

I'm all for the 2nd amendment, and i think by law all head of households should be required to take a gun saftey course, and own a gun w/ammo.

Take this a step further. Teach kids in schools what guns actually do. We have fire prevention week in most schools and one day the fire department will come in and explain fire escape techniques. Why can't we have an officer come in and talk about gun safety one day a year? He doesn't need to teach kids how to clean a gun, aim effectively, etc... just teach them that guns kill and when you kill someone, they don't come back - EVER. One of the most effective things you can do is set a watermelon out in a field and shoot it to show what happens when a bullet hits someone's head.

But requiring that they be locked in a closet? That would only seem to be the common sense thing to do if you have guns and kids....my dad did it so i wouldn't play with something i didn't understand.

I grew up with guns in the house. My earliest memories of them were my dad telling me to NEVER touch them unless he was around and gave me permission. I was taught exactly what they did and how they worked. I learned to respect the awesome amount of damage they can do. I saw first-hand what a 12 gauge slug can do to a living body (deer). He gave me my first gun( a 22 rifle ) at age 7. I respected it as a tool of death and didn't screw with it like it was a toy. Why? I knew better. I was brought up in a culture that respected guns and educated me about them. Locking something away and pretending they don't exist(security by obscurity) NEVER really works... education(open review) is the best answer.

Internet and Crime

[Life Blood]

The idea that 3D shooters are some form of katharsis for America's youth is ludicrous. It has been psychologically disproven, you cannot compartmentalize violence in this way. Embracing violent behavior in one location tends to create violent behavior everywhere else as well.

Why is adolescent violence going down then? Because most adolescent violence is caused by people who don't have a sense of "belonging". This is not to say that being a loner means you are a killer, but a common thread in a lot of these teen shootings is that the shooter didn't have many/any close friends. Interviews with the other students go like this "I didn't know him very well but he was always very nice." Getting the picture. The internet changed all that because now, while a young geek can't find people like him at school, he can find them on the net. He "belongs" somewhere in cyberspace. Hence the drop in violence.

Note I am not advocating geek profiling or anything like that. I am saying most school shootings involve loners. It is an observable trend. Thanks to the internet non-social loners in meatspace are much more likely to have a social life in cyberspace.