Columbine Video-Games Suit Dismissed

Dr_LHA writes: "This story on Yahoo! reports that the federal judge on Monday dismissed a lawsuit that claimed the influence of video games and movies where what caused the Columbine High School massacre. Obvious to those of us who play GTA3 regularly but still manage to overcome the urge to plough over pedestrains on the way to work in the morning, but good to see someone high up showing some sense."

Comments

Finally, some common sense.

[Tebriel]

It's good to see the courts saying that games don't mitigate culpability.

Now, who's up for a quick game of Global Thermonuclear War?

Re:Finally, some common sense.

[DutchSter]

WHoohoo... Maybe, just maybe, with more rulings like this a little personal responsibility might be in order. I'd love to see the day when those dumb enough to put a hot beverage between their legs and drive around, yet manage to sue for burning themselves in the spill, are told "Yeah, life sucks doesn't it. Dismissed"

It would be funny now for the video game companies to turn around and sue the former plantiffs for affecting their ability to sell a legal product.

Re:Finally, some common sense.

[ethereal]

I agree with your point, but not your example. See Legal Myths: The McDonald's "Hot Coffee" Case for more info. The basic deal is that McDonald's has been serving coffee at an arbitrary high temperature, knew that over the years there had been a number (~700) of injuries due to this, and did nothing to reduce the chance that these injuries would occur. So the question isn't really whether one coffee burn is cause for suit, it's whether a repeated pattern of coffee-related injuries constitutes reckless conduct on the part of McDonald's. Should spilling coffee in your lap make you feel stupid, damp, and very warm? Yes. Should it give you third-degree burns in three seconds? Considering that there's no advantage to serving coffee at that temperature, I would say no.

I agree with your point about personal responsibility, though - a video game doesn't make someone kill; if those kids were killers then it was because of something else that had already made them like that. Perhaps the fact that they could plan the whole thing in a parent's garage without the parent knowing is a good indication of where the problem may lie.

Re:Finally, some common sense.

[IronChef]

The McDonald's coffee case is actually kind of interesting. From what I have read, they deserved to get sued. I've since stopped using this as the classic example of a frivolous lawsuit.

Re:Finally, some common sense.

[andyh1978]

Now, who's up for a quick game of Global Thermonuclear War?

Wouldn't you prefer a good game of chess?

Re:Finally, some common sense.

[keefebert]

In the end, it is always the people that are responsible. I can't wait for the day someone tries to outlaw pencils because someone stabs a teacher or someone with it. Anything can influence someone. The real question is why did that thing influence someone.

Re:Finally, some common sense.

[Shadowlion]

So the question isn't really whether one coffee burn is cause for suit, it's whether a repeated pattern of coffee-related injuries constitutes reckless conduct on the part of McDonald's.

I dunno. It may be a legitimate question to ask, but I think the personal responsibility of the person involved should be a mitigating factor with regards to damages.

It would be one thing if the woman in question was sitting at a table in the restaurant, reading a newspaper, misjudged where the coffee was and spilled it into her lap. It is entirely another thing to have a cup of potentially-scalding hot coffee wedged between your legs while driving (and, frankly, if you aren't assuming that hot coffee can burn you, you are being stupid).

McDonalds was at fault for making their coffee so hot for no good reason; however, I think in this particular case the damages awarded to the woman were totally outrageous considering how negligent she was in the role she played.

Re:Finally, some common sense.

[David Gould]

Now, who's up for a quick game of Global Thermonuclear War?

Wouldn't you prefer a good game of chess?

Right now I'd settle for a nice game of tic-tac-toe.

Re:Finally, some common sense.

[pokeyburro]

I agree; McDonald's apparently had it coming, and to be fair, the penalty was even lessened. What's more, a lot of people seem to be backing off from using this as an example of over-litigation, as you are. So in the end, this seems to be a nice case of the facts overcoming initial media-fueled public outrage.

Re:Finally, some common sense.

[Phanatic1a]

I think the personal responsibility of the person involved should be a mitigating factor with regards to damages.


It was. The jury awarded $200,000 in compensatory damages, but this amount was reduced to $160,000 because the jury also found that Liebeck was 20% at fault for the spill. The massive $2.7 million punitive damages award was, well, punitive, and likely had a helluva lot to do with the 700 claims McDonald's had settled since 1982 involving people scalded by its coffee, was aware that its coffee could cause and had caused serious burns, and was utterly unrepentant of that fact.

McDonald's knew its coffee burned people, and did nothing about it. A quality enforcement manager at McDonald's testified before the court that the coffee was required to be held in the pot at 185 degrees, +/- 5 degrees, and admitted that this would cause burns, but also that McDonald's had no intentions of reducing that holding temperature.

The judge reduced punitive damages to three times the compensatory damages, and called McDonald's conduct "reckless," "callous," and "willful."

It is entirely another thing to have a cup of potentially-scalding hot coffee wedged between your legs while driving.

It is, indeed. But that's not what this woman did. This woman wasn't even driving the goddamned car. She was a passenger. Her son was driving, and he stopped the car at her request so she could take the lid off the coffee and add cream and sugar. She held the coffee between her legs to pry the lid off, at which point it spilled.

She was not driving. She was not holding the coffee between her legs while she was driving. The car was not even MOVING when this incident occurred.

if you aren't assuming that hot coffee can burn you, you are being stupid

Do you routinely assume that beverages served to you for your consumption are capable of inflicting full-thickness third-degree burns in 2-7 seconds should they touch your skin? I'm aware that I should treat my coffee as if it were a hot beverage, not as if it were hydrocholoric fucking acid.

I'm sorry for the off-topic post, but I'm sick and fucking tired of how people who are ignorant of the fundamental facts of this case feel qualified to pronounce judgement upon it.

Re:Finally, some common sense.

[SIGFPE]

Do you routinely assume that beverages served to you for your consumption are capable of inflicting full-thickness third-degree burns in 2-7 seconds should they touch your skin?

Yes. I have always made that assumption. I think I learnt it at a very young age - probably when my age still had single digits. It seems my belief system is well adapted to the world I live in. You may find that you need to adjust yours.

Re:Finally, some common sense.

[Shadowlion]

It was. The jury awarded $200,000 in compensatory damages, but this amount was reduced to $160,000 because the jury also found that Liebeck was 20% at fault for the spill.

That's it? 20%?

I'd crank that up to at _least_ 33%, if not somewhere more in the vicinity of 40% or so.

It is, indeed. But that's not what this woman did. This woman wasn't even driving the goddamned car. She was a passenger. Her son was driving, and he stopped the car at her request so she could take the lid off the coffee and add cream and sugar. She held the coffee between her legs to pry the lid off, at which point it spilled.

I hereby lower my stupidity rating of this woman. However, that still doesn't change the fact that holding a hot beverage in a styrofoam/plastic cup between your legs, in such a manner as to make the liquid free and capable of pouring out of the cup, is not an amazingly bright idea. Hot liquids, flexible cups, and removing the one thing that is holding a flexible cup into its preferred shape, are things that do not mix well (typically, the cover on a cup of coffee is made of more rigid plastic than the cup itself, and therefore is more capable of keeping the cup in a cup-like form).

She was not driving. She was not holding the coffee between her legs while she was driving. The car was not even MOVING when this incident occurred.

See my statement above - it makes me feel slightly better about the intelligence of the average human, but only slightly.

Do you routinely assume that beverages served to you for your consumption are capable of inflicting full-thickness third-degree burns in 2-7 seconds should they touch your skin? I'm aware that I should treat my coffee as if it were a hot beverage, not as if it were hydrocholoric fucking acid.

Yes, frankly, I do. I assume that any hot liquid that is sold to me hot is, well, hot - at least until I can verify the temperature. I don't buy hot chocolate and then take a big gulp, because I don't know exactly how hot that hot chocolate really is.

Furthermore, if the coffee really was as hot as you indicate, then this woman should clearly have known - styrofoam (or plastic) might be a good insulator, but it ain't _that_ good. Unless she handed McDonalds an insulated mug to pour the coffee in, she should have been able to get some rough idea of the temperature of its contents. Hot coffee is bad enough to hold in a styrofoam or plastic cup when it's at a reasonably hot temperature - when it's capable of scalding like you describe, holding that cup ought to be _painful._

Don't even try to convince me that a plastic or styrofoam cup is capable of reducing the temperature of 185-degree coffee to something that doesn't trigger warning bells in the sensory nerves of the average human being.

Re:Finally, some common sense.

[bleckywelcky]

How about saying that everyone is just responsible for their own actions? You come across a hot beverage, therby you know it is hot. How hot is it exactly? Who knows. But you do know one thing - that the beverage is hot. So, you should take all precautions to keep the hot beverage in a contained environment until you can determine the severity of the temperature. So, the fact that she was even opening the beverage in between her legs indicates that it was her fault that her legs were burned with the beverage. Who could have stopped the beverage from being hot? Well, McDs and possibly the lady (she could have let it cool down). But who could have stopped the lady's legs from getting burnt? Just the lady. Her legs getting burnt was her fault. If an attendant had been serving/giving the beverage to the lady and spilled the beverage on the lady, then it would be McD's fault - but that's a whole other situation.

Ya know, you're sick of how people that "are ignorant of the fundamental facts of this case feel qualified to pronounce judgement upon it". Well, I'm sick of all these people who always want to blame the woes in their lives on other people, businesses, the government, aliens, the cat next door, etc.

It's one thing if you are driving down the highway and your tires blow out, and you roll your vehicle and get seriously injured ... it's an entirely different thing if you spill a scolding hot beverage on yourself.

Re:Finally, some common sense.

[Anonymous Coward]

> It's one thing if you are driving down the
> highway and your tires blow out, and you roll
> your vehicle and get seriously injured

A lot of those folks weren't wearing seat belts. Of course, none of the stories mentioned that.

Re:Finally, some common sense.

[Anonymous Coward]

Finally, a good post about this. Here's the deal: if you don't award a big punitive damage, it doesn't make sense for McDonald's to change their ways and make coffee that won't give you 2nd or 3rd degree burns.

Alright, suspend people's right to legal action against large corporations. Oh, your car just burst into flames when you were involved in a collision? That's too bad. You should have been responsible for your own actions.

Re:Finally, some common sense.

[ethereal]

Your SUV shouldn't seriously injure you if operated within normal parameters. Your coffee shouldn't seriously injure you if operated within normal parameters. "Spilling coffee on yourself" is sometimes a normal parameter of use - liquids spill, especially in an automotive environment. By your logic, you could have avoided your SUV's tires blowing out by just not driving an SUV (which would make sense to me - I don't have much sympathy for people that drive them, and it seems to me that driving such a vehicle at highway speeds (at least the way people drive around here) shouldn't be considered "normal operation" :)

There's personal responsibility, and then there's deliberate and sustained recklessness on the part of the product's manufacturer. I'm just pointing out that if a manufacturer knows that a product is unsafe in the normal circumstances of use, and they know that people are getting hurt by it, then it's not unreasonable to expect them to make some changes to that product and not continue on with business as usual. This is just like the exploding Ford Pinto - the manufacturer knew there was a defect that was causing injury, and did nothing to fix it because it was cheaper to just settle the case every time. Large punitive damages are designed to send the message that such a course of action isn't as cheap as it looks. In fact, McDonald's made up the amount of the fine in the next three days of selling coffee.

"Lady was stupid with coffee, confused a jury, and made out like a bandit" is the urban legend, but it's not really all of the facts in this particular case.

Re:Finally, some common sense.

[Phanatic1a]

I generally agree with all that, and, yes, I'd have put her at more than 20% at fault, too. But the compensatory damages were peanutes compared to the punitive ones, which were awarded because of McDonald's actions, not hers, and whenever anybody cites this case as an example of the worst abuses of the legal system, they're always griping about the huge punitive award.

This lady wouldn't have even sued in the first place had McD agreed to cover her medical expenses. That's all she was asking for, not even pain and suffering. Just the medical expenses. McD decided to take it to court, admitted to serving coffee 40-50 degrees hotter than everyone else did, admitted that the wisdom of doing so flew in the face of their own marketing research, admitted that they knew it caused burns, and maintained that no, they weren't interested in changing that.

Yes, I question the woman's wisdom in putting a cup of coffee between her thighs, but fer chrissakes, she was 81 years old! You should well damn recognize that people in that advanced state of age aren't likely to be the sharpest tack in the sack in the first place.

And begging your pardon, but I don't believe that most people treat every hot beverage as if it's almost boiling. If I had reason to suspect that a cup of coffee I've been served is that hot, I wouldn't even drive around in my car with the beverage securely placed in a cup holder. One sudden stop because a kid on a bike jumps out in front of me, and I'm looking at skin grafts. No, the fact that people drive away from drive-throughs with fresh cuppajoes all the time indicates that it's not standard practice to assume 185-degree temperatures for such beverages.

And that's probably because unless you buy your coffee at McDs, it's not anywhere near that hot.

Re:Finally, some common sense.

[Anonymous Coward]

this is ridiculous, there were over 700 other coffee burn incidences in the us. Punative damages are the only stick that you can use aganinst companies, telling a company as huge as McDonalds that they "should" reduce the temp of their coffee does absolutely nothing. That case is all about coporate arrogance and McDonalds deserved every bit of it. The end result is that now we dont get coffee served at 160degrees. On the stand a McDonalds executive was asked to drink a cup of McDonalds coffee and admitted that he could not do so without burning his mouth. If your elderly grandmother recieved 1st 2nd and 3rd on her genitals you would be suing the shit out of McDonalds as well. hugh

Re:Finally, some common sense.

[_ph1ux_]

as long as its battle chess - and I can see my queen beheading your bishops with all the appropriate blood and gore.

Re:Finally, some common sense.

[Chris Burke]

I don't buy hot chocolate and then take a big gulp, because I don't know exactly how hot that hot chololate really is.

Yeah, you normally would do something like take a small sip, or touch your finger to it. Of course if you -did- take a big gulp, in any non-McD scenario you'd only be in pain for a while, not hospitalized.

If you did so, and the coffee/chocolate was 185 degrees, you would end up with a painful burn which would certainly blister. Hopefully your reflex reaction to touching something so painfully hot wouldn't cause you to spill more on yourself.

Of course you could be more careful than that. You could, say, use a thermometer. But since most of the time (or rather every single time, ever in my life) I've not risked serious burns just by touching coffee, I don't bother.

I'm not sure about the styrofoam. You say "styrofoam or plastic", but there is a big difference, since one is a good insulator and the other isn't at all. A hot espresso in a cardboard cup can be uncomfortable to hold (but isn't all that dangerous nevertheless). 185 degree coffee in styrofoam may not be more so. I guess I won't try to convince you though... After all, it really isn't that important to the fact that their product, if used in the proper manner (not spilled on oneself, but ingested), would have resulted in hospitalization.

Re:Finally, some common sense.

[andyh1978]

Right now I'd settle for a nice game of tic-tac-toe.

A strange game. The only winning move is not to play.

Re:Finally, some common sense.

[Anonymous Coward]

Thanks to GTA3 I've been able to redirect my urges to run over pedestrians.

GTA3 has reduced the number of pedestrians run over.

Re:Finally, some common sense.

[Anonymous Coward]

> Her son was driving ... I'm sick and fucking
> tired of how people who are ignorant of the
> fundamental facts of this case feel qualified
> to pronounce judgement upon it.

It was her grandson.

Re:Finally, some common sense.

[bleckywelcky]

Even if you are wearing a seatbelt, if your SUV rolls over while going 70 mph down the highway - you're gonna get hurt. Although obviously not as serious as had you not been wearing your seat belt.

Re:Finally, some common sense.

[Anonymous Coward]

You do know what a third degree burn is, right? I sure don't assume that a hot beverage is capable of burning me to the point of skin grafts and hospital time should I accidentally spill it from it's cheap, flexible, and generally over-full cup.

I suppose I should start assuming the ice cream I buy is the temperature of liquid helium, too.

Re:Finally, some common sense.

[maxwells_deamon]

If you are 81 years old your skin temperature sensors may not be accurate or as sensitive to heat as younger folk

Thus the cup would not seem as hot

Re:Finally, some common sense.

[Anonymous Coward]

The only reason this wasn't laughed out of court is that everyone likes to hate McDonalds. There are plenty of good reasons to hate McDonalds (their food tastes like shit, cutting down rainforest for cheap beef imports etc.), but this isn't one of them.

How have Americans become so *breathtakingly* incapable that they can't drink a cup of hot coffee without maiming themselves? The end result of something that started as a bit of McD-bashing is that everywhere serves luke-warm coffee, just in case some moron decides to pour it over their genitals. Can you say "evolution in action"?

Re:Finally, some common sense.

[ColonBlow]

My dear blecky, the overall issue was not who was responsible for spilling the coffee. Have you ever eaten while driving? Used a cell phone while driving? Changed the radio station? Of course. We do things that aren't the absolute safest things (otherwise we wouldn't even get in a car most times) and sometimes these things come back to bite you. The overall viewpoint as a corporation then is to acknowledge that these events happen. McDonalds knew this and knew that the unnecessarily high temperature of their coffee directly contributed to third degree burns that would not have occurred had they lowered the temp to a more normal level. They knew it and deliberately continued to increase people's risk. This was the behavior the punitive damages seeked to end, not the spilling of coffee, which will continue to happen regardless.

Re:Finally, some common sense.

[ethereal]

Actually, everyone but McDonald's already served their coffee at a non-maiming temperature, because there really was no point to serve it at close to boiling. McDonald's was the only company that had to change.

It's not really "evolution in action" either if an 81-year-old injures herself; she's already done all the breeding she was going to, I imagine.

Re:Finally, some common sense.

[sverdlichenko]

If you put entire BigMac to someone's or your own throat, this man will possibly die. Should McDonalds make their BigMacs not so big? If not, why should they serve cold coffee? I prefer hot.

And yes, everything hot can cause burns. Everything.

Re:Finally, some common sense.

[Anonymous Coward]

Ok, first of all. *NO LIQUID*, unless it were molten fucking metal, can cause 3rd degree burns. Apparently everyone here has lost their minds and forgotten what a 3rd degree burn is. Liquid at 185 degrees can only cause 1st or 2nd degree burns, and 2nd degree is stretching it unless the old hag decided to submerse herself in the fucking coffee for a half hour or so.

Re:Finally, some common sense.

[JimFromJersey]

.. it's an entirely different thing if you spill a scolding hot beverage on yourself

Maybe that was what the punitive damages were for, mental anguish from being scolded by a cup of coffee. Now I know what they mean when they say "they make a mean cup of coffee"

Re:Finally, some common sense.

[WhiteKnight07]

Anyone who puts something that hot that close to a area of there body that is that sensitive is a freaking moron.

Re:Finally, some common sense.

[SIGFPE]

You do know what a third degree burn is, right?

There's nothing special about it. Pour enough liquid at 100C on yourself and that's what you get. I make my tea the British way - I boil the water. I warm the teapot before pouring the water in so it doesn't lose heat. I like to serve it so that it's too hot to drink at the first sip. I guess I come from a different culture. If Brits made their tea disgustingly with lukewarm water they'd probably be surprised to get scalded by a hot drink too.

Is THAT why I ran over all this school children?

[Wizy]

Its a miracle, next the DMCA will be overturned, the SSSCA will be thrown out, and the Windows source code will be GPL'd.

Making it on topic....

[americanFatCat]

Claiming that video games cause violence is like saying that double integrals are the best way to find the area of a square. Most people are going to say, "huh?".

Re:Making it on topic....

[Anonymous Coward]

huh?

Video games cause death?

[ZaneMcAuley]

Naw, I think its more a product of our society.

Video games may actually help vent some anger and frustration out, I know a good game of T2 or UT helps me get rid of anger.

Re:Video games cause death?

[KenSentMe]

I wholeheartedly agree. Those parents are just trying to shift the focus of blame off of them, and onto something else, like media. It's a typical move. They portray the illusion that, somehow, society has failed them by not helping them raise their children. It's wrong, so very wrong.

There is nothing quite like the feeling of having 16-on-16 in a good CounterStrike game.

Re:Video games cause death?

[Carp Flounderson]

Video games absolutely cause death. Everyone whos ever played ANY video game will eventually die. The only logical explanation is that video games cause death.

Re:Video games cause death?

[ZaneMcAuley]

Another good thing about computer games, theyre multiplayer mostly now, so now they can make friends too with similar interests and that would also help in a way. So, I think its more of a positive thing than negative.

Re:Video games cause death?

[Graspee_Leemoor]

Actually, I am immortal, but that's irrelevent here.

As you so rightly point out: (for most people, except people like me) video games cause death. However, the question is not whether video games cause deach, but do they cause the urge to kill? These are clearly different things, young Glaucon.

graspee

Re:Video games cause death?

[Anonymous Coward]

Video games may actually help vent some anger and frustration out, I know a good game of T2 or UT helps me get rid of anger.

I try this thing called "forgiveness", but, hey, whatever works for you...

Re:Video games cause death?

[Pov]

Love your sig. Can't wait to show it to my friends.

Re:Video games cause death?

[flying_triguy]

I disagree somewhat

I do think it is important to differentiate between culpability and influence, but I don't think that we should underestimate the influence that those things that we see everyday have over us.

I only started to know this when I got rid of my cable TV (I still watch DVD's) and realized that my consumer habits changed significantly. Marketers know this well, that is why sometimes it is very hard for "social" commercials trying to influence behaviour to get through. The money and test-screening wasn't there... they don't have as much of an effect on the target audience (or miss the audience entirely)

Understand that I am not advocating sensorship, I am advocating responsible ethical parenting of the kids (all kids, not just the ones who snap, what about the ones who tortured, teased and excluded the ones who snapped). I don't buy for a minute that responsible parents are not able to influence the behaviour of their children, again, it all depends on what you are exposed to. Live an ethical example, practice the difference between right and wrong, and encourage critical thought of choices.

Re:Video games cause death?

[ZaneMcAuley]

Dont most games come with a gore on or off option nowdays which is password protected. Its a parents responsibility to control that for the younger children, also games come with a recommended age nowdays too.

Re:Video games cause death?

[einTier]

It's nice to know that I wasn't the only one listening to Metallica in high school and playing Shadowrun and violent video games to help work out some of the rage I felt on a day to day basis.

I think in earlier times, it was easier to work out this rage, either fighting was more accepted (my parent's time), or you had to actively hunt for food (grandparent's time), or by 13 or 14, you were out fighting [i]real[/i] wars.

I don't think I was an atypical teen, but I had a lot of anger and angst I needed to work out. Luckily I had an outlet for that. I don't think it was unhealthy, most of my angst was about things I couldn't control and didn't have the emotional maturity to deal with yet. Adolescence is a very hard time to deal with. Mine was made better knowing that someone felt the same way I did (or at least did at one time) and there were outlets for my irrational rage and aggression.

Unfortunately, I see many parents trying to take away every one of these outlets, on the idea that they somehow cause violence. They'd like to ban everything from football to video games to violent television, because they aren't comfortable with the violent aspect of them. Somehow, they think if you just take these things away, people will somehow stop being "animals". It doesn't work that way. Man is violent by nature, and I'm sure that's part of the reason we survived to build society. You don't breed that out in a generation or get rid of it by legislation. And, the more you close off the places to get rid of this aggression safely, you will encourage more and more school shootings.

Re:Video games cause death?

[Jeremy Erwin]

Video games absolutely cause death. Everyone whos ever played ANY video game will eventually die.
The only logical explanation is that video games cause death.
Logic Error.

P->Q: All Videogame players will die
Q->P: (death is caused by playing videogames). Proof requires a statement of the form ~Q->~P. (Those who have never played video games will never die), which is not provable.

Re:Video games cause death?

[GMFTatsujin]

Um... a shift in focus there has already happened, sad to say.

That's right, folks: THE TWO KIDS DID IT. Not the games, not society, and (gasp!) not even the parents. They're no more culpable in this whole fscked up mess than the parents of Adolf Hitler were for WWII. No kidding.

Stay on target.
GMFTatsujin

Re:Video games cause death?

[shawnmelliott]

people will somehow stop being "animals".

I agree. What was that in Dune? The Gom Jobbar? It separated the Humans from the Animals. I can just see it now.

Helen Gauis: Jessica, Since you have seen violent holotapes we must give you the Gom Jabbar to see if you are an animal

Mankind is beastlike by nature. Doesn't take Television or Games or Books to teach us how to be cruel... that seems to come naturally.

Re:Video games cause death?

[sketerpot]

Administering the Gom Jabbar (some variation would be necessary, as we don't have a pain box) would be unpleasant, and I don't think it would ever become widespread. What we could use is a reliable test to seperate civilized human types from animal types. The Gom Jabbar probably wouldn't work; it would just select for people who can tolerate pain. Perhaps some test could be devised. I wouldn't know where to start. :=)

Re:Video games cause death?

[RandomPeon]

It's funny, Aristotle thought of this over a few millenia ago. He even created a word for having your emotions validated by fiction - "catharthis".

IMHO, the active nature of gaming provides better catharthis than reading/watching/viewing something, which are entirely passive acts. I saw the original Blade when I was very stressed out and angry and came out the theater feeling quite calm and relaxed.

Of course, the opposite effect is possible. But I think this happens when you interact with a work that's "designed" to make people angry, like a movie that points out some injustice.

But you need a real-world story to make people angry about something in the real world. A movie about police abuses might make someone have a more negative opinion of police. A whole slew of works have been created that are termed "anti-war" or "jingoistic". (For another lesson in ancient aesthetic theory, this effect is Plato's reason for banning artists from the Republic.)

The most cathartic works tend to have the least resemblance to reality - Hamlet, the stock example in academic literature about catharthis, is set in a real country but describes completely fictious people and events. Games tend to take abstraction to the ultimate level, fantasy. It's difficult for me to hate the harmless Protoss across the street whose people slaughtered hundreds of Terrans yesterday. As a writer for Time put it after Columbine, the lesson of Doom is that evil floating red demons are evil and must be destroyed.

The ironic thing is...

[Anonymous Coward]

This ruling will probably generate more anger in a handful of 'concerned' parents groups than all of the anger ever felt by teenagers playing GTA3, Quake, DooM etc.

Re:The ironic thing is...

[sketerpot]

You're right. A lot of "concerned parents" are getting themselves worked up about practically nothing. It is easy to get angry at the computer if it does some blatantly idiotic thing, but it looks much easier for paranoid blame-shifters to get angry that someone isn't doing something to keep these "dangerous and depraved" games from "innocent impressionable children".

Sad

[govtcheez]

It's really sad that people will go this far to try to get money from anywhere they can. I mean, what the hell sort of an argument can you make for this? "If that movie was never made, the teacher would still be alive!"

Please...

One more stupid lawsuit out of the way.

[Mike the Mac Geek]

One more scapegoat for bad parenting taken away.
Now lets work on the rest. All we have to do is wait for some money hungry family to start suing.

Re:One more stupid lawsuit out of the way.

[gwernol]

One more scapegoat for bad parenting taken away.

I agree that bad parenting is often at least partly to blame - I can't talk about Columbine specifically because I don't know the full facts of the case.

However this is a complex issue because of the age of the people involved. At some age people need to take responsibility for their own actions and not blame (parents/society/computer games/whatever). Clearly very young children are not full individuals with full accountability, as adults are.

But where do you draw the line? When is it reasonable to demand that a person accepts full responsibility for his/her actions? Legally the answer varies somewhere between 13 and 21 (in the US) depending on the state and the act being considered. But even if there was a single age, this would be an arbitrary cut-off point. Some people mature earlier and should be held responsible at a younger age. Some people mature later or not at all - for example if they have severe mental incapacity.

The problem with Klebold and Harris is that they at the age where they are leaving their parent's influence and becoming their own people. Clearly these two could not handle the transition, for whatever reason(s). Should their parents take at least some of the responsibilty? Probably. Should most of it lie on the shoulders of the murderers? Probably. It seems like they were old enough to act largely independently of others. Are there other factors that should be considered? Probably.

There aren't simple answers to this.

Re:One more stupid lawsuit out of the way.

[Winged Cat]

Do it for the children!

Man, that phrase almost makes sense in this context. Wierd.

Re:One more stupid lawsuit out of the way.

[spagma]

Its basically the same as the chicken and the egg anology. Did violent video games create these psychos or do these psychos just like these violent games. The real question, is which was the chicken and which was the egg?

Re:One more stupid lawsuit out of the way.

[markmoss]

Klebold and Harris were still living in their parents' homes. Their arsenal was stored in one of their parents' garages. You might not be able to control your kids when they are away from your home, but you really should be able to keep them from building bombs and accumulating enough firearms for a small war in your own garage. How much freedom you can or should give your teenage kids depends on how much responsibility they have demonstrated; Klebold and Harris apparently already had enough of a record to show that they needed close supervision...

Re:One more stupid lawsuit out of the way.

[Zeinfeld]

One more scapegoat for bad parenting taken away.

I found it somewhat interesting that when the California 'American Taleban' is being discussed the right leap to the conclusion that his liberal upbringing must be at fault.

But when a good ol' southern boy flies into an office block with a Cesna attempting to duplicate 9/11 the problem cannot be his conservative upbringing, its his acne medication that is to blame.

When Timothy McVeigh murdered 350+ in the Oaklahoma bombing it was clear that Reno and Clinton were to blame.

Fact is that very often there is nobody to blame. Mental illness happens. People who have personality disorders can appear completely normal outside the locus of their disorder.

What the conservatives will never allow to be blamed for Columbine or anything is the gun ownership they and the NRA do all in their power to protect. This even extends to protecting the gun registration information of Al Qaeda suspects. The people who made the guns used by the Columbine killers had a far more direct connection to the killing than the Video game manufacturers, but they can't be to blame because they are on 'our side'.

The videogame suit is really just another episode of the cultural war that conservatives have been waging since the 70s. They hate homosexuals, Catholics, Jews, Blacks, equal treatment of women and especially the permissive society. They want to wage a war against it but they have been so utterly defeated that they can only voice their true views in private (has anyone asked Kisinger what he thinks of the Nixon/Billy Graham anti semitism tape?) or in coded references to 'states rights', 'unfair treatment' or the old favorite 'liberal media'

Oh yes and watch out because round two will be the geeks.

Re:One more stupid lawsuit out of the way.

[ndogg]

While I agree with you, the history of such people still needs to be examined so that we may see if such symptom show up in other people, all in the hope of preventing such events from happening again. We need to find the factors that make people grow up to be who they are. We woull the causes, but we would find many of them. Perhaps some of them could be prevented in the future.

Re:One more stupid lawsuit out of the way.

[Chanc_Gorkon]

You got it buddy! People kill people....guns don't, video games don't, sports don't (unless you abuse steroids or don't have a good ref), prescribed drugs don't, caffiene doesn't (unless you eat a whole tin of penguins in less then a minute), food doesn't (unless you eat yourself to death), scooter's don't, cars don't.....that's just the short list! :)

Someone finally has sense in a court.

Re:One more stupid lawsuit out of the way.

[Cacophony]

The videogame suit is really just another episode of the cultural war that conservatives have been waging since the 70s. They hate homosexuals, Catholics, Jews, Blacks, equal treatment of women and especially the permissive society. They want to wage a war against it but they have been so utterly defeated that they can only voice their true views in private

^ I'm sorry, but that is flamebait ^

I'm one of the few conservatives here, yet I hate none of these groups. What are you suggesting here? That conservatives hate violent video games? or the people that play them? Well I must be a hypocrite for playing "Return of Castle Wolfenstien" all night last night.

I just can't believe that someone would compare the hatred of Jews or Blacks to the hatred of video games!

You know what I hate? The many people on slashdot who seem to make it their life's purpose to blame every problem in the world on conservatives. All that does is turn me off to any idea they pose.

Re:One more stupid lawsuit out of the way.

[Anonymous Coward]

I think you're missing the point. Preventing kids from building bombs and guns shouldn't be the answer. The answer should be teaching kids/people that building bombs and guns is not appropriate behavior for living in a society ... especially if they're built with the intent of hurting others.

I have nothing against bombs and guns, but kids should know when to use them.

Re:One more stupid lawsuit out of the way.

[Zeinfeld]

I'm one of the few conservatives here, yet I hate none of these groups

Read the sentence carefully, I said that those waging the cultural war were conservative. That does not mean that all those who are conservative wage cultural wars.

I just can't believe that someone would compare the hatred of Jews or Blacks to the hatred of video games!

The common thread being fear of anything they don't understand.

Re:One more stupid lawsuit out of the way.

[krs-one]

"They hate homosexuals, Catholics, Jews, Blacks, equal treatment of women and especially the permissive society."

I am also one of the few conservatives browsing /., and although you may tell us to read the sentence further, I still think your facts are off.

Sure, some conservatives hate homosexuals, but hating homosexuals is more closely related to relgion than to political preference. I know several extremely liberal relgious people who can not stand homosexuals.

Have you spoken to a Catholic recently? They are some of the most conservative, Republican people out there. Sure, the KKK may hate them, but I know every right minded conservative will tell you that the KKK does not represent all of conservatives.

Tell me some conservatives that openly dislike Jews (legitimate conservatives, such as men and women in a position of responsibility).

They hate blacks? Blacks are some of the most conservative people out there. The majority of blacks vote Republican.

What group of conservatives do you know that does not want to treat women equal?

Permissive society. So, by this I assume you mean rampart sex and drugs. Sure, everything nowadays is based around sex, and this will probably get worse. Are you saying it should be alright for 15 and 16 year olds to have sex (btw, I am 17 and have not had sex yet). Most people can't even handle sex as adults, much less children.

"The people who made the guns used by the Columbine killers had a far more direct connection to the killing than the Video game manufacturers, but they can't be to blame because they are on 'our side'."

How? Because they made the guns? Thats the same as saying that car manufacturers are to blame because of car accidents (not including the ones where the car malfunctions, those are the manufacturers fault). Or what about Bic? They make razors and pens, both deadly weapons. Can be blame them because of all the pen and razor related deaths? The gun companies created the gun for what it was to be used for, and that was not killing.

Thank you,

-Vic

Re:One more stupid lawsuit out of the way.

[Wildcat J]

The majority of blacks vote Republican.

Do you have any support for this? IIRC, African-American voters are generally considered heavily Democratic.

The gun companies created the gun for what it was to be used for, and that was not killing.

Please, this is just disingenuous. Tasers aren't designed to kill. Pepper spray isn't designed to kill. Guns are designed to kill, and that's why they fall under the 2nd Amendment. If they're just toys for target practice, they're not constitutionally protected as an "arm." You can't have it both ways.

-J

Re:One more stupid lawsuit out of the way.

[PeeOnYou2]

I agree, but you also have to realize that there are many factors involved... 1. Their parents probably weren't following them around the house 24 hours a day to see what was going on. Who does? 2. It's very normal for kids to be rebellious and put up posters of whatever will draw a big reaction from their parents and whatnot. Watch the dirty movies, the violent movies; do whatever's not allowed... 3. When a kid has a hard day at school, then comes home to some more bitching and fighting and yelling or whatever, it only makes it worse. It can drive a person to the edge if you know what I mean. And it does drive a certain few OVER the edge.. I'm in school, I would know. I've seen it time and time again. It's not like these kids were absolute freaks of nature. I know kids who would pull the same thing in a heartbeat in a fit of rage, if they had access to a certain few things they needed. It's a scary world, but its not the parents who are to blame. My $.02

Re:One more stupid lawsuit out of the way.

[Anonymous Coward]

Of course, given all this, and given that the kids were known to carry firearms around, the question has to be...

Why the hell did kids STILL pick on them?

At some point you have to wonder about the OTHER people involved lacked some basic common sense. IF you push someone over the edge, they will come back at you, irrregardless of whether you're the captain of the football team or not.

Re:One more stupid lawsuit out of the way.

[Prior Restraint]

It's not like these kids were absolute freaks of nature.

Depends on your definition. They were suffering from mental illnesses for which they were supposed to be taking anti-psychotics (in a video-taped pre-confession, one of them admitted that he was deliberately refusing to take his meds to let his rage build until it could explode). I think that exempts them from most definitions of "typical teenager".

Re:One more stupid lawsuit out of the way.

[stinky wizzleteats]

This even extends to protecting gun registration information of Al Qaeda suspects.

Are you suggesting that Al Qaeda went through a NICS check when they bought their AK-47s and RPG's?

The Brady Law specifically outlawed maintaining "registration" records on gun purchases cleared through NICS. The Clinton Justice Department had been breaking the law since the law began to be enforced, and the Bush administration has decided to obey that law, and destroy the purchase records of millions of legitimate gun owners hoarded by the Clintonistas in a case of gun registration by executive decree. Reno certainly used law enforcement as a matter of convenience and political expediency, and I realize it must be very shocking to see an Attorney General upholding the law.

If, however, you insist that it is the duty of the federal Justice Department to violate federal law, there's really not much more to say.

Re:One more stupid lawsuit out of the way.

[Anonymous Coward]

The gun companies created the gun for what it was to be used for, and that was not killing.

Maiming, perhaps? A somewhat unfair hunting practice? Skeet shooting for the fairly nervous or aim-impaired? Ballast in case the house was blown away by a tornado? A physical reminder of the outdated bits from the founding daddys? Weightlifting equipment for the weakling? An extending arm for picking up keys without leaving your chair? Safety prevention against a cattle stampede down Main Street? Home euthanasia kit? More explosive way to kill ants than a magnifying glass? Quick yet inefficient way to knock down a wall? Vase?

Re:One more stupid lawsuit out of the way.

[Anonymous Coward]

Guns do... shouting at your schoolmates and saying "bang" only works if they've got a REALLY weak heart...

Let's see... take away the video games, movies and music, still could happen. Take away the sports, still could happen. Take away the drugs, still could happen. Take away caffiene, still could happen. Take away the food, still could happen if they don't starve first. Take away scooters, still could happen. Take away cars, still could happen unless they can't get to school.

Take away guns... kinda makes it difficult, and it's gonna be a lot easier to stop them before very much happens.

Re:One more stupid lawsuit out of the way.

[markmoss]

The answer should be teaching kids/people that building bombs and guns is not appropriate behavior for living in a society ... My, what idealism. Klebold and Harris were _nuts_ and didn't want to learn about living peacefully with others.

Re:One more stupid lawsuit out of the way.

[cmkrnl]

If the little bastard had the ears boxed off him by his so called 'parents' at regular intervals growing up, there would have been no need for any medication.

Typical cop out. Feed the pathetic fsckers amphetamines & blame someone else. These days, little bastards are not being 'naughty' anymore, they have ADD, (as if that made being bold acceptable), yet another cop out.

If know of one case of alleged ADD, where the doting parents were ripped a new one by BOTH sets of grandparents, when they witnessed first hand the behaviour of the little miscreant.

Suprising how the need for Ritalin and the 'symptoms' of ADD rapidly disappeared when the little bollix had the hide tanned off him for every transgression.

Curmudgeon

Re:One more stupid lawsuit out of the way.

[Chanc_Gorkon]

Taking guns away will do nothing. Only criminals and the police will have guns then. Most murders by a gun are done with guns that are ALREADY illegal! Do you think a 3 time felon goes and buys a gun at a gun store? No! He picks it up from the guy selling them off the back of his chevy.

Also, statistics show (I am too lazy to search for it now, but what I am saying is true) that in states with a conceal/carry law allowing you to carry a concealed weapon, that crime goes DOWN and not UP!

If a person wanted to kill you without a gun, there are many ways to do it. Stopping a knife attack is possible, but I doubt most people would be able to do it. Everheard of a crossbow or a bow and arrow? Both are capable of killing a man just as fast as a gun. Everyone who uses this taking guns away thing will reduce crime just does not have any common sense especially since it won't have an effect on those who commit these crimes anyway. They don't care. That's why they are shooting at ya. They will kill you, then themselves. And no gun law will stop it.

Re:One more stupid lawsuit out of the way.

[Prior Restraint]

Wow. I'm not exactly sure how to respond to that.

I partially agree with you, insofar that it has become socially acceptable to define any sort of non-conformance an "illness" to be medicated, and I think that's wrong. The Onion has satirized this trend on at least two occasions ("Ritalin Cures Next Picasso" and "Millions of Children Still Suffering from 'Youthful Tendency Disorder'").

On the other hand, it was my understanding (and correct me if I'm wrong) that these two particular fellas were suffering from some sort of psychosis; something not really comparable to ADD. Surely mental illness isn't solely the province of adulthood. Unless, that is, it's your position that mental illnesses aren't real. If so, I must amicably part ways with you.

Finally, while I don't think corporal punishment is all bad, I think inflicting it "at regular intervals", or "for every transgression" is a tad extreme.

Re:Is THAT why I ran over all this school children

[Wizy]

all THOSE school children.

Then what did it?

[Thakandar2]

Hmmm... lets think really hard on this one. Kids go ballistic because they feel lonely. So kids build bombs and attain firearms, storing them in their parents' houses. The parents continue to watch TV and not care that the house smells like gunpowder. The parents continue to never go into the room with very blatant psychological cries of help plastered on walls, on paper, and on their computers. The parents appear shocked when interviewed, "We had no idea he wore a trenchcoat during the warm months to hide the shotgun. We thought he must of been cold"* Whatever this judge says, it still sounds like Videogames did something to these kids alright.

*Not a direct quote, just a summary.

Re:Then what did it?

[kwishot]

Maybe it's time to freshen up on your Slashdot History.... #2 HOF for "Most Visited Stories" Voices From The Hellmouth
It's not video games, it's not music, it's not "posters on their walls", it's high school. -kwishot

Re:Then what did it?

[PopeAlien]

It was probably heavy metal music. yep. If we're going to pin it on one thing, lets pin it on men wearing makeup.. Whatever we do, lets not acknowledge the fact that some people are just f*cked and with access to enough firepower are going to be dangerous.

Re:Then what did it?

[SirSlud]

There's always the fact that murders have always plagued humans. We simply tend to lock into the 'new' angles of sensational stories. In this case, a connection with videogames was very obvious, and it suited the already growing anti-violent-videogames sentiment at the time.

I tend to look at these things, and shrug. Nuthing new. Humans will always have a few who fall through the cracks and are forced to scream out for attention and revenge for perceived wrongs; its just too bad we strive so hard to 'categorize' the influences instead of trying to understand the less material catalysts behind their physcological state at the time of the tragedy.

I was teased, ridiculed, and ostricized from school, and I thoguht about suicide more than a few times. To me, it doesn't seem like that far of a leap from what these kids to from the psycological states that thousands upon thousands of outcasts suffer from school. Their reaction was out of line, their actions uncondonable, but I cannot simply dismiss the fact that popular school goers get away with psycological torture that is far more of an influence on what these kids did than video games.

And if you don't understand, thats half my point. Humans look for the bright red flags that say, "Look at me, I caused people to do this," and usually dismiss what outcasts are consistantly saying: "It fucking hurts to be hated by so many people." You have to take the extent of the pain caused by seemingly flippant adolescent peer to peer behaviour on faith.

Re:Then what did it?

[Ooblek]

So the fact that their parents did not care enough about them to visit them in their room had nothing to do with it? The fact that their parents probably couldn't have given a damn if they went to school or not had nothing to do with what they did? So every violent, murdering crimnal is the way they are because they played video games?

One more question: Where is the trenchcoat wearing dude in Doom?

Re:Then what did it?

[geekoid]

well said.

Re:Then what did it?

[einer]

Well DUH! EVERYBODY knows that Hitler had a PS2! er... wait... No, but he watched the Dukes of Hazard! er... He read Mad Magazine!!! no... Well, he had a moustache!! NO MORE MOUSTACHES!! Won't someone please think of the children?

Re:Then what did it?

[GTRacer]

I don't suppose you went to Forrest H.S. in Jax, FL did you? I had the exact same experience. Hell, I even wore a black full-length trench coat, but it was for Britpunk reasons, not weapons concealment.

Well, I *did* conceal a lot of Cokes and food in it...

GTRacer
- Not looking forward to 10-year reunion

Re:Then what did it?

[Ooblek]

No, I think Hitler had a Colecovision. He played too much Zaxxon or something and came up with the idea of blitzkreig.

Re:Then what did it?

[maxpublic]

A single empirical study published in an accredited, peer-reviewed scientific journal would do much to support your position. Just one paper.

Keep in mind the words "empirical", "accredited", and "peer-reviewed" when publishing a link to such a paper.

Max

Re:Then what did it?

[Vader82]

It doesn't matter what HS he went to, it happens everywhere. I was the Valedictorian of my HS and for the first 2 years I was derided and all that other good stuff.
Once I got into the advanced programs (AP classes) most of that went away, but I still had to deal with people being bastards to me for no particular reason. Fucking sucked but when I was the one giving the speech at graduation and none of them even graduated with honors that felt pretty good.
Thoughts of suicide in middle/high school is pretty common among nerd/geeks due to semi to complete social outcast status. Invariably there aren't enough nerds at the school to develop a good group of friends, so thats where the internet and games help out.
If I hadn't been keeping my brain busy with computers it would have been very busy plotting them doom of either myself or all the people who made my life a living hell

Re:Then what did it?

[GTRacer]

Sorry! By no means did I intend to imply that the torment only happened at my school. I know from personal research and from family and friends from out-of-state just how universal this caste crap is.

GTRacer
- Leaving high school was almost as relieving as leaving college

Re:Then what did it?

[zulux]

Hitler was a vegetarin. So eat lots of cow if you love the chidren.

Re:Then what did it?

[Anonymous Coward]

Absolutely right on all points.

- Fifty-nine and it still hurts. And worse yet, it still goes on in the schools today.

Well, almost..

[Havokmon]

Funny, the first time I played GTA (at work no less), I just about plowed over a cop on my way home.. Of course I didn't. I was just surprised I had the urge to.

Then again, maybe it was the combination of a bad environment and GTA :) (*attention Columbine parents)

Re:Well, almost..

[sandman935]

When you're tired and feeling low on energy, to you rush out and find a hooker?

An added bonus, is you can beat her up and take your money back afterwards.

Re:Well, almost..

[trayl]

After playing moderately over a weekend (6-7hrs) I am certainly 'influenced' by GTA3.

Walking past a police car having finished playing I will have a look thinking 'how foolish to leave a police car there, maybe there's ammo in it'. Seeing a helicopter of any form may have me considering the line of sight and availability of get-away cars.

But these thoughts are in the context of the game, they are fleeting and humorous. We are all aware that things we do affect our outlook. Skateboarder game players will look at street scenery in a similar way to RL boarders, although in the context of the game. Carpenters look at furniture differently to the way I do, some people make judgements about status based on the shoes they wear.

This is just a simple summary, but surely as a species we've noticed the trend to be influenced by everything we do. The argument isn't about that.

As has been stated many times before, most more effectively, even people with serious problems need influences.

Re:Well, almost..

[anti-snot]

Every time I loop the back way around Wal-Mart to avoid the congested parking lot, I find myself glancing around for hidden packages, and wondering if there is anything cool up on the fire escape/catwalk.

Re:Well, almost..

[maxpublic]

I felt the same way after getting a ticket. Ban tickets and I bet I won't feel the urge to run down traffic cops any more....

Max

Re:Well, almost..

[Anonymous Coward]

try going up the fire escape. i bet there is cool stuff up there. microwave dishes and various pipes. cool stuff.

Re:Well, almost..

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, I think this is a sign of deep emotional problems. Were you tired? I have played GTA, and all of my friends have too, but none have had simmilar experiences as yours. Perhaps we all should be treated with the same scrutiny as you might wish for yourself, because you never know, right? (*attention Logical, thinking individuals)

Re:Well, almost..

[Anonymous Coward]

Not in Australia you can't...

Good but........

[Strog]

I know it isn't popular but games and movies do influence people (including youth). Maybe most of us can tell the difference between a minigun and a minimart. Don't underestimate the power of suggestion on an individual who is under a pressure situation or lives in an environment without consequences

Re:Good but........

[fobbman]

No kidding. Ever since the release of Pac Man and Burgertime the number of obese Americans has risen dramatically. Coincedence? I doubt it.

Also consider the number of times that America has had to flex its millitary muscles since Battlezone and Missile Command. It's no wonder people are scared to death of video games.

Now, if you'll excuse me I need to go threaten my supervisor with a joystick up-down-right-right-left-left high kick medium punch if she doesn't give me a performance bonus.

Re:Good but........

[d34dm4n]

No one is saying video games aren't a cause in violence. I'm sure that some games, GTA for example, does desenatize us to violence. However, you have to realize that there are more factors that cause actions such as Columbine, and video game certainly shouldn't be help accountable for these things... most of us play them as much as we want without shooting up a bunch of people.

I think you actually said this in your own post... "an individual who is under a pressure situation or lives in an environment without consequences"... well, clearly, video games are to blame for this.

Re:Good but........

[Dephex Twin]

In some ways it's true. I remember seeing the Fast and the Furious this summer (we wanted to see the new Ultrascreen and that's what was playing, ok?). It was almost scary driving out of the parking garage with all the foolish teenagers peeling out of there like they were one of the street racers. (Granted, teenagers tend to do that kind of driving anyway, but this was much higher than normal.)

However, that was coming down from the excitement of having just seen the movie, and probably wore off on the way home. This Columbine thing was drawn out and planned. I think this goes far beyond the realm of slight subliminal influence.

mark

Re:Good but........

[dirk]

I know it isn't popular but games and movies do influence people (including youth). Maybe most of us can tell the difference between a minigun and a minimart. Don't underestimate the power of suggestion on an individual who is under a pressure situation or lives in an environment without consequences

You're absolutely right. If someone is unbalanced, they can be influenced, by damn near anything. That includes TV, video games, movies, books, magazines, newspapers, friends, music, and just about anything else. The point is that those things aren't responsible for your actions, you are. If you are unbalanced, you are unbalanced. We can't ban anything that could ever have a bad influence on someone who is unbalanced.

Re:Good but........

[jjoyce]

Yeah, but the gotcha is that it influences someone who's already unstable. By that logic, you could blame anything for setting off a kid like that.

The point is that stable, well-adjusted kids won't shoot their classmates because of video games. As for the unstable kids, what we should do is look into how they got that way.

Re:Good but........

[PaxTech]

"Computer games don't affect kids; I mean if Pac-Man affected us as kids, we'd all be running around in darkened rooms, munching magic pills and listening to repetitive electronic music." -- Anonymous Nintendo employee

Re:Good but........

[pinkUZI]

I know it isn't popular but games and movies do influence people (including youth).

This is all too true. I think it is obvious how evening TV shows and popular movies have influenced our culture.
Here's a statistic that would be interesting to take a look at: Take the point in time when Hollywood and evening TV shows quit portraying couples as the traditional married with children family and started portraying them as singles living together out of wedlock. Take the statistic of married couples to non-married couples at that point in time and compare it to now.

I don't think its an exaggeration to say that the image that Hollywood and the major TV networks push out to the masses don't influence what we think of as "normal" behavior.

Re:Good but........

[DreamingReal]

I know it isn't popular but games and movies do influence people (including youth).

This is probably true to some extent, but the fact is that millions of people indulge in violent video games and movies on a daily basis but still keep their finger off the trigger. The influence is most likely negligable.

Don't underestimate the power of suggestion on an individual who is under a pressure situation or lives in an environment without consequences

Now you're getting warmer. But again, I don't think this has anything to do with video games. More than likely it is the myopic world view of most teen-agers mixed with romantic notions of death. Torment day in and day out, an authoritarian school administration that merely re-enforces the social pecking order at the school, and the inability for a teen-ager to realize that there is a better life after those four years of Hell called "high school" - pressure situation is right. If a person is not given a way out of an unbearable situation, they will make their own. Violence and ridicule is all these kids were subjected to on a daily basis - it shouldn't be surprising that they responded in kind.

It wasn't about video games or movies - it was about power - it was about acting out an unanswerable revenge.

Re:Good but........

[Thud457]

Your radical ideas concerning the linkage between computer games and the "rave" lifestyle have already occurred to others.

Re:Good but........

[PaxTech]

You saw that the "quote" I posted was "attributed" to an unnamed Nintendo "employee", right? I never claimed it was my own "radical" idea.

Re:Good but........

[Cruciform]

I love that quote... but it wasn't a Nintendo employee... it was a comedian. Does anyone remember which one?

Re:Good but........

[Anonymous Coward]

I think it was Gallagher

Re:Good but........

[LighthouseJ]

A 2-second Google search yielded this webpage, the poster said "Kristian Wilson, Nintendo, Inc, 1989" said it.

Re:Good but........

[FooKuff]

On behalf of the Slashdot community I hereby award you, former Vice President Dan Quayle, the Murphy Brown Commemorative Idaho State "Real Good Speller" lifetime achievement award. We were going to give it to little Joey Lieberman, but his spelling sucks.

It's obviously a fookin' exaggeration. Duh. You say to take two statistics, but nowhere do you link to, quote, or otherwise reveal the nature thereof. Your conclusion is muddled in its presentation and appears to rely solely on assumptions of cause and effect that are hardly proven. And in fact, what you assert is the cause may be the effect. And vice versa.

Re:Good but........

[Anonymous Coward]

The "your radical ideas about N have already occurred to others" meme has already occurred to others, and was played out to the end of it's (miniscule) humour value on everything2 at least a year ago.

Re:Good but........

[cporter]

I'm quoting Calvin and Hobbes here...

"Graphic violence in the media...
Does it glamorize violence?
Sure.
Does it desensitize us to violence?
Of course.
Does it help us tolerate violence?
You bet.
Does it stunt our empathy for our fellow beings?
Heck yes.
Does it *cause* violence?
Well, that's hard to prove.
The trick is to ask the right question."

Re:Good but........

[maxpublic]

Well, no shit. After playing DOOM 50 or 60 times during the last ten years I have to admit that every time I run into an asshole I have an almost overwhelming urge to whip out a chainsaw and let the son of a bitch have it. Of course, the same urge hits me every time I run into a zombie, too.

Max

Re:Good but........

[Happy Monkey]

Which came first?

Re:Good but........

[billcopc]

Bah.. I've been hearing "Fast and the Furious rocks my nuts" ever since that movie's been out. It just so happens that there are alot of overzealous 16-year old Honda Civic drivers up here in Gatineau, Quebec. They fit right along with the "I hope I lose my virginity tonight" bar-lounging crowd and the "My dad is an investment broker" bunch.

The problem these days isn't media influence, it's just the dumb kids who are so damned susceptible to this bullshit. I'm not so old, but I look at the teens just 6-7 years younger than I, and I wonder what happened to good old fun like gathering at a friend's apartment and discovering zen through alcohol. My college years are over and I don't party as much, but I look at this year's new crowd and they're all lost, trying to find meaning where there is none, merely imitating whatever they see on TV.

We've got ten-year-olds dressing up like 40-year-old downtown whores, we've got fourteen-year-olds getting pregnant and dropping out of high school to live in their boyfriend's parents' basement, and then we've got kids shooting other kids. Again, I ask, where are the parents ? They are watching Survivor, or fending off debt collectors, or just working in a suit 24/7 never stopping to listen to their kids. These people shouldn't be allowed to breed!

Re:Good but........

[Sloppy]

"I wrote a song about dental floss but did anyone's teeth get cleaner?" -- Frank Zappa, at a Senate hearing(!) about the aweful things that music does to people.

Re:Good but........

[Anonymous Coward]

"I know it isn't popular but games and movies do influence people (including youth). Maybe most of us can tell the difference between a minigun and a minimart. Don't underestimate the power of suggestion on an individual who is under a pressure situation or lives in an environment without consequences"

True, I could tell the differences between many elements of any arsenal as a kid, but I could always tell the difference between pixels and people. Call me a genius if you want.

"environment without consequences"

Where did you go to school?

There are consequences for doing everything you are told. There are consequences for doing nothing you are told. There are consequences for defending yourself, fon not defending yourself, for not studying, for being a bookworm, for being a class clown, for being the teacher's pet, for participating in school functions, for not participating in school functions, and for everything else you do and don't do.

You don't want to look stupid to the wrong people, you don't want to look like a dork to the wrong people. Someone attacks you you get a broken nose, wether you started it or not, or even defended yourself. It has happened. For "fairness", both parties are punished.

Where is this environment without consequences that you are talking about? It just so happens that the consequence to those two psychotic kids wear exactly what they wanted. It was a consequence of many of those kids picking on them to die. It was a consequence for this to happen to these kid's parents for letting there frigging kids build bombs and store weapons practically in front of them! It is a consequence of poor judgement and desire to deflect the guild that these things are pinned on video games and movies. It is a consequence that the problem will never be solved if the root cause is never examined. It is a consequence of millions of cameras and gigantic media conglomerates that we see these voilent images every day. We see more because we can. It is a consequence of poor parenting skills that a kid can supposedly look at a violent video game of movie and feel like killing someone.

What the hell are you doing? Are people robots? And if so, what kind of guidance program are you giving them that they can't see that these things are bad? How buisy/stupid are parents who can't/wont talk to there kids about subjects that need discussion?

Re:Good but........

[Anonymous Coward]

I think video games do influence people.

I used to play Pac Man all the time as a kid and now whenever I sit in a dark coridoor and eat pills I see ghosts.

Re:Good but........

[epcraig]

Baby Boomers grew up playing war games based on the Westerns and leftover WWII propaganda so pervasive on TV and in theaters, with startlingly realistic toy guns. (I never, in those halcyon days, heard of the police being justified in shooting kids holding toy guns, either).
Obviously, when it came time for Vietnam, we all lined up to enlist.

Re:Good but........

[zulux]

Torment day in and day out, an authoritarian school administration that merely re-enforces the social pecking order at the school, and the inability for a teen-ager to realize that there is a better life after those four years of Hell called "high school"

If you're in high-school right now, take it from me, life gets a whole lot better later on. In high-school, doing rote tasks are rewarded. In life efficency is rewarded. In high-school, a bully gets to torment you for four years. In life, you fire the bully.

Re:Good but........

[saviorsloth]

possibly OT, but Breakfast of Champions by Kurt Vonnegut is an excellent book dealing with this; a rich, unbalanced used car dealer reads one of the infamous Kilgore Trout's books, where he learns that he is the only real human, everyone else is a robot, and he proceeds to bash up as many "robots" as he can.
this just shows how those bloody books pollute our minds and cause violence. prepare the bonfires!

Re:Good but........

[Anonymous Coward]

"Violence and ridicule is all these kids were subjected to on a daily basis - it shouldn't be surprising that they responded in kind."

It makes you wonder if any "moral" people drove them over the edge with constant harassment and insult to get to this mad situation. Personally I dont agree with violent computer games because they are too addictive, and offensive to people who have been in real violent situations, but I dont agree with using someone else lack of moral awareness for political or social leverage, which produces violent outbursts like this.

Re:Good but........

[Anonymous Coward]

Don't underestimate the power of suggestion on an individual who is under a pressure situation or lives in an environment without consequences.

Or without hope. After all, it's what de-sperate means, literally. No hoep = nothing to lose.

The no shit award goes to...

[OpenDirectX]

U.S. District Judge Lewis Babcock for the following comment, "the two gunmen were the ones responsible for the teacher's death." no shit

not just GTA3

[jeffy124]

dont forget Simpson's Road Rage doesnt mean i dont go the wrong way on one way streets or knock over lampposts to/from work.

Best Quote:

[rhadamanthus]

"The judge said the two gunmen were the ones responsible for the teacher's death. "

oh god. DUH.

----rhad

Re:Best Quote:

[DreamingReal]

To you and I it's "Duh!" - but a wrongful death suit was filed. It's obvious that some people need to hear, in plain, unambiguous terms, "The killers are responsible, not the makers of Quake III or The Basketball Diaries!"

Re:Best Quote:

[DumbRedGuy]

It was an obvious point, but at least it was said.

And, the law is being interpreted unambiguously.

I think that IF videogames convince some people to behave unacceptably, the problem lies in those people's minds, not the videogame.

Huh?

[EricKrout.com]

Obvious to those of us who play GTA3 regularly but still manage to overcome the urge to plough over pedestrains on the way to work in the morning, but good to see someone high up showing some sense.

What the hell are you talking about? It's well-documented that no murders or school violence took place before Magnavox created the first videogame system thirty years ago.

Re:Huh?

[HCase]

hell, i remember when pong came out. you shoulda seen how fast i got detention for throwing rocks at students and laughing at them when the rock didn't bounce back.

Re:Huh?

[inerte]

What the hell are you talking about? It's well-documented that no murders or school violence took place before Magnavox created the first videogame system thirty years ago.

It's because Nobody Expects the Spanish Inquisition! mmorpg with lan support and 3D renderized npcs was only a beta release...

Re:Huh?

[Winged Cat]

As if facts like those matter in the face of public hysteria, and desperate calls to the politicians to Do Something.

Unfortunately.

Re:Huh?

[sharkey]

Yeah, meatspace Pong was great, until we played it in front of the Principal's window. Definitely NOT safety glass.

Re:Huh?

[tazochai]

Wow, that sure sounds like a response coming from someone who believes that video games are all-powerfull. America was founded by people who stood on their own two feet and took care of themselves. Somehow, this country is devolving into a society where people are no longer expected to shoulder the blame for the mistakes they made, and this is an example of that belief. (Also throw in a whole heaping serving of there's-a-big-corparation-we-can-get-money-from.)

That teacher's family thinks that when bad things happen, it must not be the just fault of the individuals holding the weaponry.

We live in a society, people, where there are outside influences produced by others (individuals, companies, governments) all the time! Positive and negative. As a responsible member of that society, you make decisions for yourself. Any pointing the blame at others is a huge sign of pitiable, unforgiveable weakness.

Re:Huh?

[DCram]

I wish I lived in that golden age of man. Now all I do is MUD and run around the supermarket hacking up people with numbers that are lower than mine in the deli line. Once after I hit a guy with my car his head fell off. I PICKED IT UP AND ATE IT BEFORE IT ROTTED AWAY. I felt better and got XP.

Re:Huh?

[Anonymous Coward]

hell, i remember when pong came out. you shoulda seen how fast i got detention for throwing rocks at students and laughing at them when the rock didn't bounce back.

I wish you had email posted, so I didn't have to reply in the forum.

This was funny. This was amazingly funny.

Re:Huh?

[Jace of Fuse!]

Now, what GTA3 has taught me is how to run people over, then drive my car into a pain show and lose the cops entirely.

They won't even come to my house to get me! Man! My new life if crime wouldn't be possible without the training given to me by video games!

Re:Huh?

[Anonymous Coward]

I think your browser's tag must be broken...

Re:Huh?

[Daniel Dvorkin]

Jesus Christ, it was a joke. Of course there were murders, including murders in schools, before thirty years ago (the worst case of school violence in US history took place, IIRC, in the 1920's.) That was the point the parent poster was making -- in a rather ironical way, which is something you obviously missed.

Re:Huh?

[Plutor]

In 1927, Andrew Kehoe bombed the 'consolidated school' in Bath, Michigan, killing 38 students (mostly between the ages of 4 and 8) and 3 teachers, and injuring 58 other people.

Although I agree that violent games are not at fault for school violence, IMHO this specific act cannot be compared with the Columbine attack. In Columbine, it was students attacking students, in this case it was a man attacking a school because he was doing badly financially, and taxes had been raised to help pay for it.

Coincidentally, video games killed no one in either case.

Re:Huh?

[Anonymous Coward]

School... violence? Didn't? Take place?

Christ, you really do live in an age of rose-colored glasses, don't you?

Unless you don't consider school violence to be one group beating the living snot out of another group, or member of another group, in class/clic battles.

The 50s were not a perfect world. The 40s were not perfect. The 30s were not perfect. The difference is that the undertrodden never got discussed, they simply got trod upon.

The difference is that now the undertrodden have easy means to fight back. Oh, yes, I feel SO freakin' sorry for the varsity jocks.

Re:Huh?

[goldfndr]

hell, i remember when pong came out. you shoulda seen how fast i got detention for throwing rocks at students and laughing at them when the rock didn't bounce back.

You tend to lose at pong if you manage to hit the opponent, why should real life be different?

Re:Huh?

[HCase]

huh? the whole point of the game it to the ball past your opponents defense so he can't send it back at you. what pong are talking about?

Re:Huh?

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually many children have been killed at school since the advent of the 20th century. I believe in one case over 60 children died in a race-related bombing. For more info on the Columbine coverup/conspiracy take a look at "You Are Being Lied To" from Disinformation Books @ www.disinfo.com

Re:Huh?

[goldfndr]

Wouldn't the pong paddle's analog be the human's body? And if you hit the paddle/body, its deflected, no point.

Maybe you're thinking of dodgeball.

Re:Huh?

[HCase]

nope, the paddle would be more of a bat or paddle-like object they were defending themselves with. if the rock doesn't bounce back, then they obviously didn't hit it when the paddle, and how often have you seen a rock bounce back to you off someones tummy? definately thinking pong.

A new video game idea

[Deagol]

Someone should make a game which is about shooting up a school. It would be as tacky as, say Deer Hunter, but I'm sure it would be a best seller.

It should be very easy to skin "bad guys" so you can scan the yearbook and place specific cheerleader and football player skins on models.

Man, if I had the capital, I'd fund the development of this game myself!

Re:A new video game idea

[geekoid]

and then we could have a game where you hijack a jumbo jet and crash it into buildings! the more people you kill the more points you get!
and the sequal could be you running from the us military.
Please, that suggestion is so tacky.

Re:A new video game idea

[Winged Cat]

I recall hearing about a game, "Schoolyard Massacre", that was just that. It was back in the '80s, so it was shooting gallery style instead of FPS, and I'm not sure if one could insert pictures of one's personal hated targets. I only heard about it, never saw the game myself, so it might have been just a rumor. If it was real, it was not a hot seller (proof: not that many people even knew about it).

Re:A new video game idea

[thesolo]

That game already exists, in a way.

Do a search on Google for the Columbine Mod for Half-Life, you'll find it.

Re:A new video game idea

[Deagol]

Okay, how about a Mormon Temple Mod for Quake{1,2,3}? You storm the gates of the temple, plowing over a few of the long-skirted women passing out flyers.

Next, you upgrade your shotgun to the railgun in order to take out the Mormon Tabernacle Choir.

You step down to the nailgun for a few missionaries who get in your way.

Then you pull out the BFG to confront Hinkley himself. But it's not the BFG -- it's been modded to be a bowel of lime Jell-O. :)

Re:A new video game idea

[bmajik]

If you had the technology to scan year book photos of popular people, and easily apply it to 3d geometry in a lifelike manner, you'd blow all your time and money making a FPS game ?

I don't think so.

Where's your sense of adventure man ? I think a few quicktime VRs of the head cheerleader sucking off the principal would be a better use of technology.

Not to mention the entire football team in an accordion-stack of anal sex 40+ people long, wearing YMCA outfits.

_Thats_ putting technology to work.

Re:A new video game idea

[csbruce]

Welcome the United States. The only nation to ever deploy a nuclear weapon on another.

I think you mean "detonate".

Re:A new video game idea

[MrZaius]

There was a Columbine mod for Half-Life. Wouldn't be hard to redo the map to your school/office, the models to your students/peers/bosses.

Just be careful, and don't make it public. Heck of an uproar was raised over the first one, and it's all but impossible to find now.

(for good reason, imho. these things can be taken too far)

Re:A new video game idea

[t_allardyce]

When i was at school, a group of us started mapping out the entire campus for a big quake map. We couldn't be bothered to ask for a copy of the blue-prints for our cough 'project' so we had to measure everything (we got some strange looks)... Its very hard, we only managed one badly done, un-textured building before we got bored. We didn't even get as far as skinning the players :(

I so badly wanted to shoot those annoying little kids. All spoilt brats, and don't even get me started on the jocks! We had a shooting range too, it was very tempting to turn around and shoot everyone but it was one of those crappy one shot and then reload rifles so i wouldn't have got very far. Also, someone would call the police who would come and make me drop the gun and then they would all jump on me and beat me to the ground. After that they would probably put me in prison where i would have to live with my conscience for years and i would go mad. After thinking this through, i decided that going on a real rampage would not be a good thing.. Going on a virtual rampage though... now thats a good idea! If your serious, then you need to decide on an engine (unless you want to write one). You could go with half-life but thats dated. What you really need is something that fully supports blowing off limbs (its not fun otherwise, trust me). You will need a good sheep-like herding AI, so all the kids do the same thing. Melee weapons will increase the enjoyment, but to really make it a good game you need something else - the jocks for example, could play on a mined pitch, or with a nail-bomb ball, and for the cheerleaders, petrol dowsed uniforms! The story could develop slow at first - you sneak up and kill a few people, and the news slowly spreads into full blown panic. Or, if your an impatient sort of person.. assembly, uzi's... and for the sneaky types, how about a fire drill - except with this one you turn off the fire alarm, lock the doors and make a real fire lol :).

BTW, your sig should read: "the only nation to deploy nuclear weapons on another... twice.. and on civilians.."

Re:A new video game idea

[SquadBoy]

Many people have already had the same idea google on columbine mod to see how it turned out. Hint: Badly. :)

Re:A new video game idea

[Anonymous Coward]

No, many nations have detontated nuclear weapons for testing purposes. The Former USSR, China, heck, maybe even France too.

Deploy is a good word for it, but "use" would have been even better.

Re:A new video game idea

[dswensen]

It is, but tacky and successful are often anything but mutually exclusive, as American Pie, South Park, and any and every reality show on television will readily demonstrate.

Re:A new video game idea

[KingKire64]

I played Schoolyard Slaughter for the AtariST when i was 10 ALOT, you only get points for head shots. I thought it was funny as hell but you know what ive never been in a fight in my life, and i dont plan on shooting anyone either. BTW i think the game was by Capt Pervert and Uncle Sicko.

Re:A new video game idea

[Anonymous Coward]

To the "Troll" moderator. You, sir, have obviously never lived in Salt Lake. :)

Re:A new video game idea

[Anonymous Coward]

Some moderator has a hair up his ass today, I must say. (in my best Ed Grimly voice)

Re:A new video game idea

[blibbleblobble]

I think pretty much everyone who's played flight-simulators on their PC has had their share of skyscraper crashes... given that most games seem to be set in the San-Fransisco area too.

Was it JetFighter-II where you could take out as many tall buildings as you had missiles for, followed by flying under Golden Gate bridge and bombing Alcatraz?

Of course, you could play the nice sensible microsoft flight simulator, which has lame aircraft that can't survive building crashes!

Re:A new video game idea

[mikeage]

Got one better.

The national alliance (no link, for obvious reasons), a neonazi group, has a game based on the genesis3d engine called racial cleansing. You kill jews, blacks, latinos etc. for points.

Re:A new video game idea

[csbruce]

Deploy is a good word for it, but "use" would have been even better.

"Deploy" is not a good word for it. It means to put weapons into position for possible future use. For example, the Soviet Union _deployed_ nuclear weapons in Cuba during the Cuban-missile crisis, which contradicts the original claim. Get a dictionary.

Re:A new video game idea

[Anonymous Coward]

Nah. Doesn't have any real-world impact any more than the original game does. Granted, it'll probably offend a few people, but every time you say something like "God exists" or "God doesn't exist" you're offending more.

Re:A new video game idea

[Anonymous Coward]

BTW, your sig should read: "the only nation to deploy nuclear weapons on another... twice.. and on civilians.."

... who were convinced they were a superior race and wanted the rest of the world as their slaves.

They got what was coming to 'em.

Re:A new video game idea

[TRACK-YOUR-POSITION]

I've seen Flash games based on this idea... I can't wait for the future, when you can just stick in a couple photographs of someone, let it generate the 3D model, THEN DO ILLEGAL THINGS TO DO THE 3D MODEL FOR EXTRA ILLEGAL ILLEGALITY!!!! That's right, I'm praying for the day when ANY IDIOT can make games! Because idiots will sure offend the crap out of everyone, and isn't that Life's Highest Calling? Because I will take pictures of YOU, then I will harrass the images of YOU, and YOU will not realize that you have been harassed! Harass! Harass! Harass!

Re:A new video game idea

[Anonymous Coward]

I have... Mormons are the inheriters of the earth. The best people, bar none. You obviously were not converted, and thus possess no common sense. We Mormons are gods children, the religious RIGHT. All non-believers will seek redemption in god's eyes, only to find fire in the pits of hell... us mormons and our wives o' plenty shall seek domination on you all, vanquishing the nay saying OS geeks in the *nix community and partnering with our bretheren in Redmond to rule the world.

Re:A new video game idea

[Sloppy]

Hey, do both. In slasher movies, the people having sex are often the first to go.

Re:A new video game idea

[Anonymous Coward]

"Man, if I had the capital, I'd fund the development of this game myself!"

And you would lose all your money, just like the people who tried this before.

There isn't a market for these types of games. Sure, some sick-os love them but few will actually pay for them. And there is no way you will be put on any store shelf.

Might as well make a game about rape or beastiality. You wont make your money back but you will put yourself high on the FBI watch list.

Re:A new video game idea

[t_allardyce]

"... who were convinced they were a superior race and wanted the rest of the world as their slaves.
They got what was coming to 'em."

Allot of them were kids, and most of the adults were forced to work in the factories.

After the explosion, many were badly wounded, blinded or burnt

America had other options at their disposal. But they had a new toy and they wanted to play with it.

Re:A new video game idea

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't get this...you are selling your soul to save your soul? Will god understand this? YOU will inherit the earth? I am glad we will be dead then, i'd hate to see what your stupid ass would do with it. ;-)

Re:A new video game idea

[Anonymous Coward]

And you would lose all your money, just like the people who tried this before.

So who has tried this before?

Might as well make a game about rape...

Custer's Revenge?

Re:A new video game idea

[spike hay]

What do you think would have happened if we invaded Japan?

They were going to fight to the last man. The devastation would have killed many more people.

Also, did you know that in one day, we killed more people fire-bombing Tokyo than in either Hiroshima or Nagasaki.

Anyone else find it funny...

[Togo_Frumblefoot]

Anyone else find it funny that they were sueing nintendo. I didn't even know they made violent games, seeing as they are pretty much marketed for 5 year olds that love those handicapped mutant animals, pokemon. I guess it really had to do with which company had the deepest pockets at the time.

Re:Anyone else find it funny...

[HCase]

non-violent eh? the whole point is the beatup a bunch of cute little animals and stick them in little round 4" diameter prison cells so that you can make them your warrior slaves and beat up more animals. wait till some kid is found with a stick and his neighbors dead puppy, then nintendo's gonna get theirs.

Re:Anyone else find it funny...

[Graspee_Leemoor]

"Anyone else find it funny that they were sueing nintendo. I didn't even know they made violent games"

Mario series: You stomp on the heads of pretty much every living thing that gets in your way, as well as some you go out of your way to get. Sometimes you throw your enemies at each other for extra laughs, or just throw them down a deep hole.

Kirby series: You eat any living thing that gets in your way then spit it out. Sometimes you "blow" your enemies away, othertimes you cut 'em with a big sword, othertimes you blow them up with a bomb or roast them alive with flame-thrower breath.

Zelda series: You slice up any living thing that gets in your way with a sword, or stone it with a catapult, or shoot it with an arrow.

graspee

Re:Anyone else find it funny...

[Togo_Frumblefoot]

Yes, that is all and good, but do you see blood, or perhaps a gun? I highly doubt it, so how is this contributing to school violence? My point was they were sueing the wrong people to begin with. They were just in it for the money. Kind of sick when someone tries to profit from a family members death like this.

Re:Anyone else find it funny...

[HCase]

oh, i agree its sick they tried to make money off of it. i was just trying to keep the mood light so that slashdot couldn't be blamed as a dark and evil cesspool of criminal intents and discussions if one of us geeks went beserk in a local megamart.

i'll bet ya there've been a good number of hamsters that ended up in the little toy balls that have been sold to kids though.

my tax dollar hard at work

[f00zbll]

I'm so glad my hard earned tax dollars are hard at work. Otherwise I'd might do something useful with it like donate books or PC's to a needy school. Instead it goes to a really bright judge that spends months and months to come to the conclusion video games causes violence.

It's good 1/3 of my income goes to pay for the judges drinks, golf membership and vacations.

Re:my tax dollar hard at work

[grytpype]

There should be a (-1 Dumbass) mod.

Let me tell you though....

[nigelthellama]

after playing GTA3 for 2-3 hours, my driving does tend to be a bit erratic (not worrying about other cars, forgetting about curbs). Usually goes away after my first miss ;)

Re:Let me tell you though....

[Anonymous Coward]

I thought I was fine with my GTA3 playing until one day I woke up and found myself running errands for all kinds of shady figures... never quite figured out how I got started on that.

Then there was the time I nicked the plane, but that's another story.

The real problem.

[Reedo]

Parents.

Pretty much anything can influence someone, but it depends on how you were raised whether or not you're going to actually want to copy it or do something similar. When MOST people play a game like Doom, they would never ever even consider doing anything remotely close to that in real life. But some people don't have that type of conscious or morals(or ability to distinquish between reality and fiction), and when they see a movie or play a game and enjoy it, sometimes they go and do it themselves. It's possible they were influenced by it...it gave them an idea. That's all it takes when someone hasn't been raised right or fell off the wagon along the way for some other reason. But games/movies/music/etc are not to blame, the parents are. If the kid is going to be influenced by something like that, they shouldn't be playing/seeing/reading it in the first place.

It should also be noted that video games are a popular scape goat because they are relatively new. Books had the same problem back in the day. And most of you can probably remember all the hooplah when rap and the like became popular.

Re:The real problem.

[Deagol]

t should also be noted that video games are a popular scape goat because they are relatively new. Books had the same problem back in the day. And most of you can probably remember all the hooplah when rap and the like became popular.

Don't forget the whole D&D thing of the 80's. Man, that was lame.

Re:The real problem.

[bakuretsu]

I totally agree. The lack of parenting in this country is akin to gross negligence on a massive scale. Parents that leave their children home with the television as a babysitter, or who don't properly teach their children the difference between what is right and what is wrong are to blame for everything evil in this country.

No, I don't think that's a gross overstatement; all the problems in this country are caused by people, and I'll bet that most of those people are the products of negligent parenting. In this age of Prozac and Ritalin, we need to stop trying to foist the blame onto "ADD" and "Media Violence" for the lack of sensitivity in today's youth and focus on the real problems, those which start in the home.

Just my two cents.

Re:The real problem.

[x1l]

But isn't it society that tells/makes parents go to work and leave the kids at home? Last time I checked our society was trying to break the family apart, starting from birth by making mothers feel like they should bottle feed, so they can go to work. Lets face it, most kids spend more time in school than with there parents. When is the last time you heard a chick say she wanted to stay home with the kids, and didn't want to work. We don't fix problems in this society, we treat the symtoms. Take a pill, don't fix the root cause.

Re:The real problem.

[benjcorey]

Those Parents' Parents.

They're lack of good parenting skills is obviously a direct effect of their parents methods of raising kids which in turn were underdeveloped due to their parents lack of parent of the week awards. Which leads us to the blaring fact that the creation of man (and woman) led directly to the Columbine incident.

Thanks.

Re:The real problem.

[Anonymous Coward]

When MOST people play a game like Doom, they would never ever even consider doing anything remotely close to that in real life

I don't know about you, but because of Doom I now kill aliens all the time.

There's one now! [chk-chk...BOOM!]

Re:The real problem.

[Anonymous Coward]

"Books had the same problem back in the day"

Huh? Maybe comic books...I don't think you'd see the Bible in that position. You might get complaints about rousing political rabble, but not about influencing kids to kill people, with early books.

Like Itchy & Scratchy

[Bravo_Two_Zero]

It's just like Itchy & Scratchy Industries president Roger Meyers Jr. said in that Simpsons episode...

Meyers: I did a little research and I discovered a startling thing... There was violence in the past, long before cartoons were invented.
Kent Brockman: I see. Fascinating.
Meyers: Yeah, and know something, Karl? The Crusades, for instance. Tremendous violence, many people killed, the darned thing went on for thirty years.
Kent Brockman: And this was before cartoons were invented?
Meyers: That's right, Kent.

Replace "cartoons" with "video games" and add a hearty "get bent" to the censors.

Re:Uhhh riiight

[Graspee_Leemoor]

Once the adverts are up there then this 3 hour non-operational period counts as "free play!" time because you will see *no adverts!*.

But Yes, I know, the way it was for me at least today was that I could read but not log in or (obviously) post.

graspee

Obvious...

[DA_MAN_DA_MYTH]

Obvious to those of us who play GTA3 regularly but still manage to overcome the urge to plough over pedestrains on the way to work in the morning

Let me tell you that urge is getting harder and harder. Thank God I don't have access to Rocket Launchers, M16's and Uzi's.

Re:Obvious...

[garcia]

uhh, nevermind that. what about the damn tank? :)

Ok gradma, you somehow dodged the rocket, but you won't miss me running over you :)

Ahh, thank god you still believe the depression is going to happen again. $618, woohoo.

The true cause of violence.

[jinx90277]

I thought the evidence was more than clear:

Videogames don't make people violent. Twinkies do.

Re:The true cause of violence.

[sulli]

No, it's not Twinkies, it's post-partum depression.

Don't mod me funny, it's really sad.

Re:The true cause of violence.

[Anonymous Coward]

It's not the post-partum depression, it's the lack of personal responsibility engendered by the nanny state.

Oh, and in the situation you're referring to, stress induced from unrealistic wacko religious beliefs.

Re:The true cause of violence.

[sulli]

Exactly. I am just so appalled by this excuse - trying to get the sympathy of mothers who cry a bit after their kids are born for her act of mass murder.

Re:The true cause of violence.

[Anonymous Coward]

Exactly. I am just so appalled by this excuse - trying to get the sympathy of mothers who cry a bit after their kids are born for her act of mass murder.

It may take you another thirty years to begin to understand how fragile anyone's life and reason can be. I have far less sympathy for the Enron bastards. Wanna guess how many suicides or homicides they will ultimately be responsible for?

you manage to overcome the urge...

[512k]

but it's harder for me. There have been several times where I've had to remind myself that real life isn't GTA3, and that I shouldn't get out and steal the car in front of me at a light, or run over pedestrians, and that, I got in the car to drive to the store, not to find a ledge, and start shooting people, untill the army shows up.

All these years and I never knew!

[Neck_of_the_Woods]

I just realized why I eat so much, became over weight, and often find myself shitting large blue sheets. My doctors have told me that I was driven by my experiences as a child playing Pacman and was programmed to eat everything in site. I still have not figured out where all the blue sheets are coming from....

NYC

[sporty]

Obvious to those of us who play GTA3 regularly but still manage to overcome the urge to plough over pedestrains on the way to work in the morning...

Um.. isn't it a case of art imitating life? I have fun doing this in NYC on the subway as it is. >=)

In other news...

[UsonianAutomatic]

Outraged parents of Disney employees filed a class action lawsuit against Apple, claiming Apple advertising caused their children to "Create a theft."

Re:In other news...

[ZaMoose]

Awww, be nice. Eisner was just thinking different about the whole concept of crime.

*grin*

Re:In other news...

[Thud457]

Achtung!
Thees es Disney! We will have no "Theenking Different" here!
Heil Mickey!

Re:In other news...

[blibbleblobble]

??? I hope GTA wasn't written by people using Macs, otherwise it'd be just too ironic.

Look ma, we "created" grand "theft" auto!

Weak minds...

[Fizzlewhiff]

While I think it would be wrong to hold the entertainment industry financially responsible for such things as Columbine, I do believe they should feel somewhat responsible when something like this occurs. There have always been weak minded people who are easily influenced by others. Since the early days of radio and television kids have acted out what they have seen and heard. The problem however is today's kids want the 9mm assult pistol just like Phat Puffed G-Doopy-Dawg has in latest new video. Their desire is no different than their grandparents' desire for the Secret Society Decoder Ring of the 1950's. The result however is a little more drastic. Rather than thwarting the invasion of the mole men you end up with several dead classmates. Perhaps a little bit of responsibility needs to be taken sometimes.

Re:Weak minds...

[MopOfJustice]

Yes, there have always been weak-minded people, and they will always find something to tip them over the edge. Once it was D&D, now it's entertainment. It's still the responsibility of their support system (parents, other relatives) to spot problems.

Re:Weak minds...

[DohDamit]

Once it was D&D, now it's entertainment

Are you saying that D&D was never entertainment? Better watch your back...half the slashdot community is gunning for you now!

Re:Weak minds...

[MopOfJustice]

You mean D&D isn't a way of life? What about Mazes and Monsters? ;)

Right...

[Penguinoflight]

Unless you loose :-)

Then again, you might have a fast connection and rule the game every time...

Why is it the guy with a 50ms ping is always the least skilled?

Re:cynical

[spd_rcr]

you mean the bullies that got away ?

it's funny how a armed revolt against the schoolground terrorists is wrong, yet for the gov't to do it is right.
i wonder if the lessons from the first world war will ever be learned. human nature is to retaliate against bullying, then the big gov't steps in and supports further actions against the school oddballs (searches, suspensions, expulsions, etc). how long until a real geek revolt happens.

It obviously influenced the attack.

[Anonymous Coward]

The same way movies influence us to say, "She turned me into a newt!", or, "Run away! Run away!".

The same way tv influences to make corny quotes from Star Trek, and quotes that can silence an entire room from Babylon 5.

The same way watching anime might have you trying to get your girlfriend into a pair of cat ears (rrrowl!).

Make no mistake, violent games influenced the attack on Columbine.. But then, it isn't the games that were responsible.

Parents, pay attention to your fscking kids, or don't have them. Schools, pay attention to your students, or.. Wait, there's nothing to be done no matter how horribly a school treats students.

Instead of passing legislation which prevents football-itis from running educational instutions, we've got shit going through congess that bastardizes the Constitution.

Taco, do something useful with the Slashdot subscribtion money - and hire a lobbiest in D.C.

Escape.

[s0l0m0n]

It seems to me that most people who play video games do it to escape. We don't want real life to be like this (well, sometimes), we want to leave the duldrum, mundane existence for a little while.

If that is falling blocks to be stacked in a certain order, or fraggin' a thousand in online deathmatch, it doesn't matter. I've played many more hours of tetris than probably any other game except solitare (universal availabilty principle), and yet I don't compulsively stack things in my physical environment, nor do I play solitare with real cards when they are in front of me.

TV is way worse than VGs, and is probably not that bad as an advanced from of cultural memory. The media that presents that memory should not be blamed, but instead, the culture should be examined. There is a reason. It's terribly apparent, and video games are merely symptomatic.

offtopic as hell

[jon_c]

and funny.. or maybe just disturbing.

Obviously the Prez' fault

[Anonymous Coward]

Ever notice that there's been no school shootings since BJ Clinton (Hey, that's his name!) left office???

Amazing

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't believe it. There must be a million disallusioned housewives who don't know their kids favorite colors wondering what excuse they'll use now...

Fuckin spend some time with your fuckin kids and quit worrying about "outside" influences. Fix your fuckin "inside influences" first.

Congrats on the judge with a brain. Yeah America.

American Football Sim

[fruey]

As Britain I regularly beat American All Stars in Joe Madden's Football, but that doesn't make the UK better than the US at American Football :)

The moral question...

[pinkUZI]

I guess its sort of a sad thing that the judge should probably be applauded for this.
It seems all too popular these days to blame the symptom rather than the disease. When are we going to wake up and realize that guns don't kill people and video games don't corrupt youth. The problem with Columbine isn't the guns. Its the fact that two teenage boys thought that it was OK to kill all of their buddies.

The root of the problem lies in the continual de-moralization of our society. I think it would help to remember our priorities: when we say - Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness, life comes before liberty. And in order to preserve life morals are essential. It becomes a delicate balance between an individual's freedom to believe and carry on as they choose and if some of these activities and beliefs are downright bad for society as a whole.

Re:The moral question...

[nate_drake]

Its the fact that two teenage boys thought that it was OK to kill all of their buddies.

Actually, I don't think the people that were killed were their "buddies".

Re:The moral question...

[pinkUZI]

Actually, I don't think the people that were killed were their "buddies".

Thank-you, Captain Obvious, for the correction. For those of you who need to hear this: a more accurate translation of my thoughts into the written english language could be achieved by changing the reference to "their buddies" above to read "their peers"

Re:The moral question...

[alpinist]

They clearly did not think it was okay to kill their classmates. What they did think was that their lives were a living hell because of their classmates, and saw murder as their only method of revenge and and suicide as the only way to escape.

Is it about the decline or morals in society? I think it's more a society desensitized and unable to empathize with other people, living in a pressure-cooker where being different is bad and leads to being ostracized. And at 17 years old, being ostracized can seem to be a fate worse than death.

Re:The moral question...

[pinkUZI]

I think it's more a society desensitized...

You have a point, I think that desensitization is a definite problem. More and more people care less and less about anyone else. I heard something somewhere from somebody that might be relative: first there was a magazine called People, then there was a magazine called Us, then Self. - you get the point, though I'm sure I didn't remember that right...

Re:The moral question...

[dmarx]

when we say - Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness, life comes before liberty.

Actually, I believe that the founders intended all these rights to be equal in importance. They thought that you could do whatever you wanted, so long as you did not infringe on one of those rights. Oliver Wendell Holmes said it best: "You have the right to extend your arm, but your right to do that ends where my nose begins."

Re:The moral question...

[White Shadow]

I agree with you that it is a question of morals, but I see the difficulty being what morals should be taught, how should morals be taught, and who should teach morals. These are not easy questions to answer and it seems to be something that American society is still trying to figure out.

As for the judge, I think he should be applauded for his decision. This shows the growth of our society in realizing how to deal with problems that have arose in our society. Assuming, of course, that the decision of the judge reflects that of the society.

Re:The moral question...

[pinkUZI]

That is a much more difficult topic. (especially on Slashdot) I didn't go into detail on my thoughts for risk of being flamed, but seems you begged the question...

I think that whether you are religious or not - whether you are Christian or not it is tuff to argue the Bible as one of the best sources for a moral base. That is what the founders chose even though some of them were arguably less religious than others and I think they hit right on, in that regard. Not much is as clearly defined as or well known as the ten commandments. Actually, I've noticed a lot of communities post-9/11 have posted the ten commandments in their court houses and public buildings. In this country we do have freedom of religion, but the Christian Bible is without doubt the age-old moral code.

Re:The moral question...

[Telastyn]

If you just go by the Ten Commandments, and the parables of Job and Daniel for example, it's not just the "Christian" Bible, as these are important facets of Judaism.

Not to mention that the Bible is a holy book in Islam, which of course also preaches that you will get into heaven by dying at the hands of God's enemies.

I laughed every time I saw the Ten Commandments posted, or someone calling for prayer to help them after 9-11. After all, it was religion (and a meddling government) that brought the death upon us.

Of course they did not follow the commandments, but seriously, America's worship of the Buck doesn't exactly follow them either.

Re:The moral question...

[pnuema]

In this country we do have freedom of religion, but the Christian Bible is without doubt the age-old moral code.

MUST...RESIST...TEMPTATION...TO FLAME...ZEALOT...

Now to behave intelligently...

I think that whether you are religious or not - whether you are Christian or not it is tuff to argue the Bible as one of the best sources for a moral base.

Sure it is. I'll just mention an anecdote about children, old men, and bears...oh, it's just to easy. Always remember this about the bible...for every one passage you find to "prove" something, someone else will find two to "prove" the opposite.

That is what the founders chose even though some of them were arguably less religious than others and I think they hit right on, in that regard.

That's just plain false. The (arguably) most important part of the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, comes straight from Humanist philosophy and Natural Law (Locke, Swift, Paine et. al.). It's about as non-religious as you can get. Please read some legitimate history before you do this again.

Re:The moral question...

[knobbie]

The root of the problem lies in the continual de-moralization of our society. I think it would help to remember our priorities: when we say - Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness, life comes before liberty. And in order to preserve life morals are essential.

And whose "morals" are you referring to here? What is your definition of morality? For example, I am a vegetarian, and I think that its "immoral" to eat meat. Does the presence of meat-eaters qualify as a "de-moralization of society"? I think that most people would say no. Why? Because their morals may not dictate that eating meat is wrong. So the problem you are faced with in declaring that "morals are essential" is simply this: whose morals? My morals? Your morals?

I'm sorry if this is a bit off-topic, but I think that it is a very dangerous slope to be sliding on when we start declaring the necessity of morality. The Church has used this throughout history to burn witches, silence scientists, etc. Morality is not some objective thing, as is apparent from the above example. I can have different morals from you. And there is no possible way for anyone to justify that, for example, eating meat is right or wrong. It is right for you and is it wrong for me. That's it.

And although it is hard to accept, the same thing holds true for acts like Columbine. There is no justification for saying that murder is wrong, in a moral sense. What is wrong about murder is that it goes against the rules that we have decided upon as a society. The vast majority of people, I suspect, prefer to live in a society where people are not allowed to murder, so that they can leave their house and not be afraid of being killed. So, in this sense, murder is wrong. But this is not a moral judgement, it is a societal one. And in order to prevent the abuses of those who take the "moral high ground", it is vital that the difference is understood.

Re:The moral question...

[TheAwfulTruth]

You've just described a Shakespeare play in detail. And that was long before video anything. Teenagers are teenagers and always have been. Some persocute, some are persecuted. Some kill others and some kill themselves. AND ALWAYS HAVE. In what way did any of that have to do with anything other than common, standard, expected and documented human behavior over the last 5000 years? The answer? Nothing.

Re:The moral question...

[Creedo]

Great. So you are saying that society dictates morality. So, when slavery was legal in the US, it was morally acceptable.

A base problem you have is that, by denying any form of absolute morality, you render your own judgements moot as well. For example, you have no basis for complaining if I choose to force you to eat meat, especially if I am backed up by "society." My morality may include forcing you to do things against your will, and without taking a "moral high ground" and proclaiming some sort of absolute morality('it is wrong for you to do this to me'), you can't say a word. Your argument boils down to might makes right, whether the might is wielded by a person or a group(ie. the government, a corp, etc).

Speaking of such moral issues as slavery, it was those people who took the moral high ground who worked to stop slavery.

Finally, your comment about an amorphous "the Church" is wrong. Most of those witch hunting style incidents happened in isolated circumstances . There was no large scale witch hunt involved in the Salem witch trials, for example. That was a small group of people, affected by forces they didn't understand(in this case, LSD).

Finally, I think your whole post can be boiled down to this:
"I think that it is a very dangerous slope to be sliding on when we start declaring the necessity of morality."

Why? Is it "morally wrong" to do so? Is it "morally wrong" to allow one group to enforce their morality over you? If not, then I fail to see your point.

Re:The moral question...

[knobbie]

Back to defend myself...

So, when slavery was legal in the US, it was morally acceptable.

At the time, it was morally acceptable. Very few people in the Southern States thought that it was immoral to have slaves.

My point is not that society dictates morality. To do that is just to push the objectivity down to the societal level, which is just as pointless. My point is that I believe that morality is completely relative, regardless of a particular society. Societies differ in their overall conception of morality, and individuals within any given society also differ.

To address your example of forcing me to do things, I don't think that it is a moral issue at all. Are you "morally wrong" to force me to do things? This begs the question. I am saying that morality does not exist, and so to ask if something like this is wrong is missing the point. It is neither right nor wrong. It is, in this case, right for you. It is wrong for me, because I believe that things should not be forced onto other people (be it meat or morality). Is it right or wrong in an absolute sense? Well, I am saying that there is no absolute sense, so the question is irrelevant. So how does one deal with the conflicting personal moralities? We make societies, which make laws which lay out the rules by which we agree to live. That is not morality, it is society.

And to save you the trouble of another emotionally filled example, where the Nazi's wrong to kill the Jews? I would not do so, because I think that killing others (period) is wrong. You probably share that personal morality with me. But to the Nazi's, it was not wrong.

Perhaps in 100 years, everyone will be a vegetarian, and people will look back on our time and comment on the obvious "moral truth" therein. But for now, it is not "wrong" to eat meat for most people. The fact that this moral view can change means that it must only exist in the people who hold it, and thus has no objective or absolute standpoint.

Re:The moral question...

[Anonymous Coward]

Now there's a magazine called "Stuff." What do you think about that??

Re:The moral question...

[antistuff]

If more people thought like you that life comes before liberty, then there would be no liberty. I am reminded of something someone once said, somethign along the lines of "give me liberty of give me death". Freedom isnt free, and sometimes the price of freedom is loss of life.

Re:The moral question...

[Anonymous Coward]

> changing the reference to "their buddies" above
> to read "their peers"

Maybe a bit more accurate might be "their tormentors".

Re:The moral question...

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm lloking forward to the next issue of "My Goddamn Stuff". AKA Maxim.

Re:The moral question...

[mypalmike]

LSD wasn't exactly around during the times of the Salem Witch era. Look up "ergot".

On another note, were the Crusades also a small, isolated event?

Re:The moral question...

[pinkUZI]

There is no justification for saying that murder is wrong, in a moral sense.

This is exactly what I'm talking about. Moral degradation to a point where morals don't even protect life, much less a healthy society.

Re:The moral question...

[pinkUZI]

Freedom isnt free, and sometimes the price of freedom is loss of life.

One of my favorite quotes...
I think you are taking my comments a little out of context. I understand war is often a necessary means to an end and I also know my freedom was won at a price that, more than likely, I will never have to pay. I am talking about, in domestic law, the freedom of one individual to do what he choses is said to end when he crosses the line and infringes on the rights of another human being.

Re:The moral question...

[alexmeaden]

Sorry, the problem *is* the guns. Take away the guns, and nobody would be dead. Simple as that. You're right in saying guns don't kill people, but bullets do!

Re:The moral question...

[pinkUZI]

Sorry, the problem *is* the guns. Take away the guns, and nobody would be dead.

This seems so logical, and yet I encourage you to present any real world example proving what you claim. The truth is that only law abiding citizens obey laws in the first place. If someone is willing to commit murder, they are certainly going to be willing to break any gun law.


Some things to consider:

New Jersey adopted what sponsors described as "the most stringent gun law" in the nation in 1966; two years later, the murder rate was up 46 percent and the reported robbery rate had nearly doubled.

In 1968, Hawaii imposed a series of increasingly harsh measures and its murder rate, then a low 2.4 per 100,000 per year, tripled to 7.2 by 1977.

In 1976, Washington, D.C., enacted one of the most restrictive gun control laws in the nation. Since then, the city's murder rate has risen 134 percent while the national murder rate has dropped 2 percent.


Now these will surprise you:

In Kennesaw, Ga., the city passed a law requiring all households to possess a gun. Within seven months, the burglary rate dropped by 89 percent.

In Orlando, Fla., the police department set up a program teaching 600,000 women how to handle firearms. Subsequently, the rape rate dropped by 88 percent.

Among the six million Swiss, there are an estimated two million guns -- including 600,000 fully automatic assault rifles, and their murder rate is 15 percent of ours.



I challenge you, go ahead and give us an example of what you claim. You won't find too many. It would seem to make sense that if you take away the guns you stop the killing, but take a look sometime at a country like England that has stringent gun laws and look at the rate of murder and rape, in almost every case it increase with gun control. When you outlaw guns all you do is remove the right of law abiding citizens to protect themselves and the criminals have free reign. If, however, a person was going to break into a house in a neighborhood notorious for its gun advocacy, they might think twice as there is a higher risk of them losing their life.

Some sources and good references:
Article by the National Center for Policy Analysis
Article at the Independence Institute
Capitolism Magazine Article
Article on Heartland.org
An Article on Australia's Gun Control mistake, cut with some humor.

Now I wouldn't post a problem without a solution, so here is an article detailing an alternative to making all guns illegal.

DDDDDDDUHUUUUUHHHHHHH!

[Dr. Awktagon]

The judge said the two gunmen were the ones responsible for the teacher's death.

Jesus the Christ, we have to waste a judge's time with this crap?

Maybe, you know, the gunmen liked violence and violent movies/games because they were unbalanced, violent people?

Nah, that would be too illiberal.

Sick of Censors

[taftman]

Garbage in Garbage out, if someone fills their life with gross and violent influences all day, thats what they learn, simple fact.

But, most people are stable and sane enough to see these things as the trivial and stupid games they are. So the balancing force here is parenting, crappy parents produce crappy kids.

If someones child goes and shoots up a school, how dare the parents blame the video games the child played. It was in your house and under your 'guidance' that he played them in the first place.

So either way the parents are responsible. Sadly, nobody wants to take responsibility for anything anymore, so the blame must be shifted somewhere easy and politically correct.... blame videogames, or music, or drugs or whatever.

If these kids' parents had been paying attention and showing care for their children, how could they possibly have gone that far without notice? Was there notice? And if so, do you think they will admit to it?

The world is a crummy place sometimes, but at least we have punk rock.

(/end rant)

- rob

Re:Yeah, but...

[slow_flight]

These people are always going to find a way to 'influence' them in a direction they inherently want to go anyway. It's like terrorists citing God as the motivation for their actions - that's nothing more than a psychotic rationalization. Same as this case.

lack of legal culpability != absolution

[RhettLivingston]

What's this crazy notion that we've developed that as long as something isn't against the law, it's OK? Did games make these children pull the trigger? Of course not. Could violent video games have made it more thinkable or imaginable? Of course they could have.

I like my video games as much as the next person. My wife and I battle to sit and play Ghost Recon at night. But after I play a game like that, I do feel a heightened awareness of my surroundings. I do feel more reactive. And I do find it easier to imagine/contemplate violence.

A society with a very high level of comfort with and expending much energy on imagining violence and immersing themselves in fantasy violence will certainly become more violent. Which comes first is irrelevant. The two do complement and reinforce each other.

Should that make fantasy violence illegal? I personally don't think so. I don't believe in the possibility or even desirability of a "safe" society. But we should be big enough to stop shrinking from admitting that we are paying a price for our pleasure.

Our response to accusations like this shouldn't be denial, it should be something more like, "yeh, so?"

Re:lack of legal culpability != absolution

[Anonymous Coward]

After plenty of time playing Counterstrike, before moving on to Firearms and Day of Defeat.. Well, nowadays, you know what I do when I'm walking around outside?

Looking for choice sniper positions.

Not that I'm going to shoot anyone, it's just become instinctive to me to watch for the 'damned campers'.

FPS games have made me continually more aware of my surroundings. How is *that* a bad thing? I drive more defensively, I watch for falling objects in construction sites now, etc.

I think video games can influence violent behavior. They aren't, however, the root cause of it. Banning them won't do a damned thing - it'd be like gun control. Take away guns, take away video games, and you'll have kids beating the living crap out of each other with sticks.

Re:lack of legal culpability != absolution

[Anonymous Coward]

What's this crazy notion that we've developed that as long as something isn't against the law, it's OK?

Business 101. No matter how scurrilous your business practices are, if it's legal, you can keep doing it. (e.g. spammers, telemarketers, other reptiles) Add that to the principle that any publically held business' first obligation is to increase value for shareholders and you've got the whole setup for your "crazy notion".

TV programing

[DCram]

Now we are going to see a slew of lawsuits saying that Transformers, G.I Joe and MMPR are what taught these kids how to behave violently.

"But your honer. I saw Optimus Prime loading and pumping a 12 gauge shotgun. Also G.I Joe had some pretty realistic battle sequences... Whats that? yeah I work till 11pm..and yes I let them do whatever they want.. They have a key to the house yes.. No I couldnt tell you what my kid does after school."

I guess I better start hording all violent cartoons and such before they are pulled.

WTF is up with these people.

Finally!

[Schwamm]

When the Simpsons first came on television, my siblings and I weren't allowed to watch it. Mom was afraid we'd start acting like Bart (although I guess it was possible we'd have turned out like Lisa, too, hm?).

Where was this conclusion years ago? :-)

Re:Finally!

[GungaDan]

Either way, you'd have (1) been horribly jaundiced,(2) lost one finger from each hand, and (3) possessed some of the worlds worst hair. See, sometimes parents are right.

Say what you will...

[nakhla]

Say what you will, but I personally believe that there is some correlation between violent video games and real-life behaviors. Kids, especially teenagers, are very impressionable. Studies have shown that the brains of teenagers go through changes more drastic than those of any other age group. (This is one of the reasons why alcohol consumption in teens is believed to be more dangerous than in adults.)

When young people are that impressionable, in an already emotional state (all of us remember the strange mood swings of being a teen), and are then bombarded wtih scenes of graphic violence, is there any wonder why they react in such a manner?

When young people are presented with, what seem to be, earth-shattering problems (breakups with a girlfriend, divorce of parents, failures at school, etc.) and at the same time they are watching television shows, movies, and video games in which violence is the answer to all of life's problems, these kids can be influenced subconciously to believe just that.

This is not to say that ALL violence in video games and movies caused ALL of the violence in our society, or that it causes violence in ALL teenagers who view it. I played Doom, Quake, et al all through high school. I'm a big Steven Segal fan and watched all of his movies when I was a teen. But, I've never acted out violently. Nor do the thousands of other teenagers who view the exact same types of thing each year. However, we can't rule out that it could be that these specific individuals WERE in fact influenced by the media they were watching.

Re:Say what you will...

[bmajik]

Sure. I had been playing Halo all night and the next morning my fiance came into the room while the lights were out and i was half asleep. As my eyes opened at the noise, I saw her silhoetted(sp) in the doorway and she was walking torwards me. I jumped backwards (well, to the other side of the bed) and screamed.

So yeah, video games have an effect on me.

Luckily, I never had the urge to shoot her with my assault rifle, because:

1) i dont have the lucidity to grab an assault rifle while im half asleep
2) i dont keep an assault rifle in my bedroom
3) IM NOT A MALADJUSTED FUCKING MORON

Re:Say what you will...

[kyras]

Studies have shown that the brains of teenagers go through changes more drastic than those of any other age group. This is one of the reasons why alcohol consumption in teens is believed to be more dangerous than in adults.)

You're confusing correlation with causation. Just because adolescent brains change, this doesn't mean that kids lose all thinking abilities when the hormones hit and are suddenly open to any suggestion that violence is okay. Thousands of counterexamples to this, as you note. No, we can't rule out that they were influenced. But what the judge *can* do is say that even if they were influenced, it doesn't make them unaccountable for their actions. American society needs to decide once and for all whether it likes the idea of people being responsible for their actions. If so, fantastic, these kids were at fault. If not, I'm getting the hell out of dodge.

Re:Say what you will...

[nakhla]

Here here! The smartest thing in this post is "it doesn't make them unaccountable for their actions". They most certainly are accountable for their actions, and I'm glad you pointed that out. I'm so sick and tired of people always trying to blame their misdeeds on society, their childhood, etc. While I do feel that these individuals are responsible for their actions, I also think that there could be other contributing factors to their behavior. The media is one. Perhaps a lack of involvement by their parents is another. Maybe I'm old fashioned, but I really think it's important that parents play an active role in their children's lives (even when their kids don't want them to). One of the things that came out right after Columbine was the question of how could those parents not know what's going on in their own house? Perhaps it's because they didn't care to find out.

I agree, that the accountability lies squarely on the heads of the individuals who pulled the trigger. I also think, however, that we can't just say that they came up with the sick and twisted ideas completely without influence.

Re:Say what you will...

[Anonymous Coward]

Suppose they were? I don't consider it worthwhile to ban violent video games to pander to a few psychos that are on the brink of snapping anyway.

I mean, people kill people with knives each year. I don't advocate banning knives.

No, you got something there...

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes! Great Idea! A game that trains... err, I mean, simulates flying a 747 into tall buildings for big points. Awsome. It would market best in the Middle East I think, but you would have to code if for more modest systems... 16 color graphics, pc speaker sound, 256k maximum memory usage, DOS platform... but talk about a runaway best seller.

Of course, in the US, MS already made this game... it's called Flight Simulator.

Re:Is THAT why I ran over all this school children

[Anonymous Coward]

After all of these years bashing Microsoft as a company, and Windows as an operating sytem ... people WANT the source code to modify and develop upon. This whole argument just completely baffles me.

We need better parents...

[EricKrout.com]

I honestly feel that we need better teachers in order to decrease this troubling violence that we see and hear in the news so often these days.

What we as a country should strive for is a nation of parents that expect public school teachers who get paid slightly more than garbage men to properly raise their children. After all, school is where a child should get their ideals and ethics. School isn't just for learning scholastic-related things or interacting with peers of your own age; school is an institution that should make chicken salad (an amazing education) out of chicken shit (tax cuts limiting teacher salaries, school budgets, etc.).

We need to stop blaming videogames for producing such evil and disobedient little brats and put the blame where it belongs -- on the teachers.

*Someone get a mop to wipe all my sarcasm off the floor*

monolinux.com :: One Platform To Rule Them All

Re:We need better parents...

[Anonymous Coward]

To the moderator who gave this 'overrated':

This was a sarcastic joke. I was mocking parents who expect teachers to raise their children. Please don't moderate if you can't comprehend English sentences.

Collective sigh of relief.

[Cruciform]

*Whew*

Safe for another month or two. Until some whackjob one-in-a-million loonytunes hears God speaking to him from his TV or monitor and goes on a rampage. Then it starts all over again.

Although I don't usually watch network TV (the box is there for PS2 and DVD watching) I happened to catch one of those John Stossel news reports on bullying on the playground. I can see why kids want to strike back. Bullying looks like it's a LOT worse than when I was a kid (and that was hell)... and it's not because kids are really any more vicious, or teachers are any more dumb... What they neglected to mention during the report is that the overcrowding of classrooms and playgrounds means you have a dozen duty teachers trying to track 1200+ kids at once. It makes for a lot more kids getting away with tormenting each other. Is that the cause? I don't know, but I spent a lot of time wishing I could make the 6 foot, 200 pound grade six kid explode when I was in elementary school. (Now he's got no teeth, and a considerably lower IQ... so I win)

People will shove the blame around where they can, that's for certain. Even the parents who love their children dearly don't spend enough time nurturing them because society says you both have to work long hours for shit money to provide your kids with stuff they don't need. Forego the luxuries sometime, and go outside and play ball together. Or build a fort. Hug your kid, and ask them what's going on in their life.

But I'm preaching to the choir here. You guys know the score, maybe it's time other people tuned in to the game.

absurd

[DarkSkiesAhead]

gunmen Eric Harris, 18, and Dylan Klebold, 17, -- who were also killed during the massacre-- were avid fans of violent video games and the movie ``The Basketball Diaries.''

So, if it were discovered that the killers were fans of chocolate ice-cream should we sue Baskin Robbins?

Columbine was truely tragic, my heart goes out to the victims. However, being hurt does not automatically make one right. Nor does being a victim entitle one to blame and attack anyone remotely related to the crime.

In this case the families of those killed could not see justice done to the killers since they are already dead. The natural human urge is to get back and exact justice in attempt to compensate for suffering. Since the perpetrators of the crime were dead, a substitute had to be found. But, that doesn't make it right or just.

The judge said the two gunmen were the ones responsible for the teacher's death.

Thank God for a judge with common sense.

Bullshit!

[Anonymous Coward]

Things were perfect in the times of our forefathers. We've just managed to fuck everything up with our know-it-all attitude.

Used to be a man could earn enough to support his family. Then women wanted the "validation" provided by holding jobs. Now mom & pop _*BOTH*_ have to work just to make ends meet. While junior learns how to make amphetamines in the basement thanks to the internet.


Time used to be that we didn't have laws against murder. Didn't need 'em. People looked after their own. If somebody needed killed, well, by gum, somebody killed 'im. And only people that needed killing got killed. Nowadays, the gubbemint has all the sheeple brainwashed to run to the police for protection instead of taking responsibility for their own safety. And now, you have people running around shouting and killing and revelling in joy. Your "Freedom" has lead flames and the ecstacy of destruction.

Pansies.

Re:Is THAT why I ran over all this school children

[Anonymous Coward]

So if the Windows source code was GPLed would it suddenly be a better operating system than *nix?

There's principles: 'consumer is king' is not the reality of capitalist markets.

There's propaganda 'lunix rules micro$oft sux'

Personally I like *nix, but GPLing Win would destroy *nix since corporations would no longer save on licensing. Do you really think offering joe consumer *nix for the same price as win would be a big seller?

Sorry, what was the topic? Err go USA! Make laws based on fact! Uphold peoples rights! Rar rar rar!

Killing in the name of video games

[gosand]

We all know that they didn't kill in the name of video games. But let's say they had. Let's say they actually made the claim that they were doing this because of the video games. Now let's compare that to all of the killings in the name of religion. Kind of paltry, huh?

Maybe the events of September 11th, the current and ongoing war in the Middle East, and all the other various world conflicts made the judge smack himself in the forehead and say "It ISN'T video games that cause violence." I feel for the families of these kids, and the families of the victims, but sometimes you can't find someone to blame. Sometimes bad things happen, for no reason that makes any sense. Sometimes there ARE no answers. A lot of people blame the parents, but in fact they probably aren't to blame for this. I am sure there are a lot of worse parents out there, and their kids didn't go ballistic.

What is even more depressing to me is that I had almost forgotten about Columbine.

So, what - video games have no effect, then?

[Anonymous Coward]

The tone of this editorial makes it sound as though its completely nonsensical to think that a video game could provoke undesirable behavior in a person.

What reason do we all have to simply *assume* that its not possible for a video game to have a large negative effect on someone's psyche and "cause" them to commit criminal acts?

This is the sort of thing that has to be examined on a case-by-case basis - its ignorant to go around touting "Video Games Cause Absolutely No Mental Harm!" just because you dont think *you'd* ever run someone over.

Of course, there's a difference between a video game "causing mental harm" and completely vindicating a criminal of their responsibility for their actions. I'm not saying that murderers should go free just because "the game made them do it" - I'm saying be more sensible about the sorts of sweeping statements you make.

Video games *can* influence a person to do any number of things - to travel great distances to get to QuakeCon, to pay money online to buy virtual items in Everquest (or whatever people play now), or to spend months designing software that lets you customize levels. Murder is a far cry from these things - but the extent to which videogames influence us is only increasing. In 1981, people didnt drive to quakecon, and they didnt pay money for virtual power-ups.

Video games are becoming a more integral part of (some of) our lives - this tightening grip is not something to take lightly. The question of a game leading an individual to murder should always be addressed seriously because it only becomes more likely as games become more personally involving.

How long will it be before someone in one of the MMORPG's goes crazy because a guy in the next city ruined his player (which he was about to auction on Ebay for $3000) - and decides to settle the matter with a real shotgun?

Re:So, what - video games have no effect, then?

[Togo_Frumblefoot]

How long will it be before someone in one of the MMORPG's goes crazy because a guy in the next city ruined his player (which he was about to auction on Ebay for $3000) - and decides to settle the matter with a real shotgun? Well, if this does happen, it is in no way the game's fault or it's maker. People need to stop making excuses and fess up to their own actions. It is not the games fault you are a flipping moron and decided to shoot up your school. Cause like it has been said before there are millions of other people playing and not shooting up schools. So, maybe parents should do their job and maybe overload their kids with affection instead of letting them be raised by Doom and the gang. There is no such thing as too much affection.

Does there HAVE to be blame?

[dschuetz]

I see quite a few posts already saying that this decision helps to place the blame where it "belongs" -- on the parents.

But what about parents who do a good job? Parents who read Dr. Spock, have family dinners, spend a night a week with no TV but playing games and talking to their children, and yet STILL have children who grow up to be Charles Manson?

It's entirely possible that even the best parents in the world could have evil, maladjusted, sociopathic children.

We, as a society, are very quick to (1) Assume that someone "must" be responsible for anything that goes wrong, and (2) sue the crap out of whomever is currently assigned blame for #1.

For a while it was ADHD and Ritalin. It's often lousy teachers. Then it was rap music and/or video games. Sprinkled in there occasionally are parents, teachers, and school administrators (not to mention on-site security officers or the bus driver).

Hasn't anyone thought to blame the people who actually commit the crimes?

We as a society have to get used to the fact that you don't always know why, that there isn't always someone who has the power to stop things, and that we aren't always entitled to restitution.

Alright, everyone, repeat after me: "Shit happens."

Re:Does there HAVE to be blame?

[taftman]

Well, the children can have some mental disorder that prevents them from normal growth. Thats a given.

Regardless of how hard parents try, they can still do it all wrong. We all have parents that tried really hard in their own ways, but thats not what we needed.

I still think that children grow based on influences, and parents are huge influences.

but crap does happen, thats the grand wildcard.

-rob

Re:Does there HAVE to be blame?

[Anonymous Coward]

What does Star Trek have to do with anything?

Oh, Dr.Spock.

Re:Does there HAVE to be blame?

[doorbot.com]

It's entirely possible that even the best parents in the world could have evil, maladjusted, sociopathic children.

Being a "good parent" simply means you child is not a detriment to society. That means you child is not a murderer, rapist, Enron executive, politician, etc.

What about John Walker Lindh's parents? They think they're good people, and that may be true. They even think their son is a "good person at heart." The problem is that they're his parents, and it will be hard for them to really see him as a "terrorist" (assuming he is one). He has obviously chosen a path separate from the norms of our society; that isn't always bad, but in his case it led to treason.

Were they bad parents? They didn't educate him enough on the "right" way (say what you want about what is truly the "right" way, but whatever our society decides is "right" is just that) to behave as part of our society. He left to another society, and got involved in a war on the wrong side.

So should we blame parents? Yes. Always. They are responsible for the education, socialization, and (when necessary) medication of their child. If any of those has failed when the child "grows up" then stand back...

Does that mean parents are exclusively to blame? No, of course not. But for them to deny responsibility is completely rediculous.

Re:Does there HAVE to be blame?

[Tony.Tang]

There's an interesting thread that could develop here. To be clear (not insulting), "society" in your post really means "Western Society."

Putting blame on the surrounding environment comes out of psychology -- in particular behaviourist psychology, which came out of the US. Its basic premise was that everyone is born equally -- it's the environment that shapes you into what you end up being. This is actually a pretty huge premise. Academic psychologists don't completely subscribe to it any more, but the idea has been embedded into the American psyche. Of course, it doesn't just come out of psychology... "All men are born equal," anyone?

It becomes clear then, that regardless of how it came to be, the notion that the environment should be blamed is deeply etched into the American psyche. It's hard to blame the individual; most people (in the US) wouldn't stand for it.

It's only the most heinous of crimes that get blamed on the individual -- we don't want to ever believe that society could produce such a monster (e.g. serial killers).

Re:Does there HAVE to be blame?

[kmcardle]

Alright, everyone, repeat after me: "Shit happens."
Yes, it does. Getting a flat tire on the way to work is shit. Having school kids gunned down by their classmates is not shit. It's fucking nuts.

There had to have been some influences on the lives of the shooters to get them into a mental state where they could be capable of committing this horrible act. I'm not saying it's the parent's fault, but I'm not holding them innocent either. A complex combination of factors caused this, and it is important to at least gain an idea of what they were. If parents become involved in their children's lives because of this, at least some positive has come out of this whole thing.

It's entirely possible that even the best parents in the world could have evil, maladjusted, sociopathic children.
Yeah, okay, but can you name one? It's possible, but not very likely.

We're all the result of our upbringings. Our parents, involved or not, contribute a great deal to how we develop on both a physical and emotional level. There is a strong correlation between the behavior of the child and the behavior of the parents. Positive parenting will most likely result in reasonably well adjusted children, while negative parenting will most likely result in maladjusted children. Very rarely do you see a person who grew up with very loving and non-violent parents become a wife beater.

Re:Does there HAVE to be blame?

[cappadocius]

Hasn't anyone thought to blame the people who actually commit the crimes?

Of course not. We as a society need an appropriate demon. Two dead white rural maladjusts just aren't good enough for all of the societal blame that must be handed out. We need someone/thing rich, powerful and more easily demonized.

Voila! Violent video games! Corrupt movie industry! Now those fit the requirements much better.

Re:Does there HAVE to be blame?

[dschuetz]

Were they bad parents? They didn't educate him enough on the "right" way to behave as part of our society. He left to another society, and got involved in a war on the wrong side.

But then they're not to blame. They did (in this hypothetical) educate him. He simply chose to ignore it. He, as you said, "left to another society," where the rules were different.

Put another way -- parents don't create automatons. All the education, socialization, and medication in the world won't take away the free will of someone to go "to the dark side."

Re:Does there HAVE to be blame?

[Stormie]

But what about parents who do a good job? Parents who read Dr. Spock, have family dinners, spend a night a week with no TV but playing games and talking to their children..

A night a week with no TV? Surely that would be considered child abuse in America today?

Re:Does there HAVE to be blame?

[linzeal]

There is a grave difference between allowing your child the freeedom to make choices about their philosophy of life (if you will) and encouraging them to follow blindly whatever idealogy they happen to agree with that day.

Re:Does there HAVE to be blame?

[linzeal]

Blame the students and teachers as well. Anti-social behavior usually does not spiral out of control like this unless there is unrelenting pressure from their peer group that is appearently not mitigated by the teachers.

Blame genetics. Aggression and anti-social behavior is determined in part by the way hormones and peptides are used in the brain as well as the actual wiring of the thought centers. Scarily violent actions such as these can bypass control mechanisms in the temporal lobe completely and act from the midbrain. Think about that for a second, the same part of the brain that is the seat of such things as memory and emotion is completely bypassed. People in such a condition cannot learn from their mistakes or recognize emotions in other people or theirselves.

Re:Does there HAVE to be blame?

[Geekboy(Wizard)]

what ever happened to good old "Crazy"

some people are just plain nuts. no explanation, no reason, no one to blame but themselves. sometimes is bad chemicals, sometimes its "luck", sometimes is bizarre circumstances, but sometimes, they are just crazy.

Re:Does there HAVE to be blame?

[CommieLib]

Well, yes, there does have to be someone to blame. Occasionally, a serial killer does come out of a decent, stable home (I suppose; I've never heard of it, but I do accept that some kids are just born evil). But I don't know about you man, but most really nasty screwed up people I've known have come from parents that were investing their time and effort somewhere else (new husband, career, drugs).

Everyone repeat after me: parents matter. More than absolutely anything else in a kids life. It is NOT kneejerk to say, when you see a bad kid, "probably lousy parents".

I remember a study a few years back (mod me down for not having the details) that attempted to determine the most likely predictors of going to prison by examining the family histories, education, and sociological background of inmates. The on factor that crossed incomes, race, education and even sex was that they were born outside of marriage. Without two people investing full time in them, perhaps it was more difficult for them to function in the world.

I say perhaps for two reasons; first and foremost, /.'ers like their statistics straight and this study doesn't even purport to prove causality. Secondly, as in all things, at some point in their lives, no matter how screwed up their childhood was, each and every one of those inmates made a choice not to take responsibility for themselves and ended up in prison.

So, I disagree with you on the details, but agree with you on the overall principle.

Re:Does there HAVE to be blame?

[maxpublic]

(IAAP)I am a psychologist and unlike the armchair pundits can state with certainty that there are, indeed, antisocial disorders that a child is born with. In nearly all of these cases parental influence and drugs can help modify the behavior; but in the case of sociopathy it's clearly genetic and there is no known successful treatment for the condition. In the terms of the layman, the sociopath *simply doesn't give a shit and never will*.

It's a cherished notion of our society that everything is treatable. I agree, everything probably is treatable - but it isn't treatable *today*. Sociopathy is one of those things.

The thing is, I doubt the kids were sociopaths. Real sociopathy is rather rare - having two sociopaths run into each other at the same elementary school beggars the imagination (although it has happened before, at an older age). But it is possible and can't be ruled out until the children have been thoroughly examined. Which I assume took place some time ago.

Max

Re:Does there HAVE to be blame?

[PerlPunk]

It's hard to blame the individual; most people (in the US) wouldn't stand for it.

True, unless you are a white male hauled up in U.S. court for something (usually domestic), or in the military.

Re:Does there HAVE to be blame?

[amarodeeps]

I'm taking this from Harper's February 2002 issue. The spelling errors are Harris's:

[Last Wishes]
AS YOU WERE

From the journal of Eric Harris, who, with Dylan Klebold, committed suicide after killing thirteen people in April 1999 at Columbine High School. The journal was leaked last December, after eight of the nine cases against the school district and polic were dismissed. Duke and Doom are video games.

it will be like the LA riots, the oklahoma bombing, WWII, vietnam, duke and doom all mixed together. maybe we will even start a little rebelion or revolution to fuck things up as much as we can. i want to leave a lasting impression on the world. and god damnit do not blame anyone else besides me and V [Klebold] for this. don't blame my family, they had no clue and there is nothing they could have done, they brought me up just fucking fine. don't blame toy stores or any other stores for selling us ammo, bomb materials or anything like that becuase it's not their fault. i don't want no fucking laws on buying fucking PVC pipes. we are kind of a select case here so don't think this will happen again. don't blame the school, don't fucking put cops all over the place. just because we went on a killing spree doesn't mean everyone else will, and hardly ever do people bring bombs or guns to school anyway. the admin is doing a fine job as it is. i don't know who will be left after we kill but damnit don't change any policies just because of us. it would be stupid, and if there is any way in this fucked up universe we can come back as ghosts or what the fuck ever we will haunt the life out of anyone who blames anoyone besides me and V. if by some weird as shit luck me and V survive and escape we will move to some island somewhere or maybe mexico, new zelend, or some exotic place where americans can't get us. if there isn't such a place, then we will hijack a hell of a lot of bombs and crash a plane into NYC with us inside firing away as we go down. just something to cause more devistation.

(end of the Harper's quote...)

Well, I might not believe Harris is or can be completely honest about why he thought he was going to do what he and 'V' did - obviously the kid was a little mentally unstable - but it's pretty f$cking interesting some of the things he says (and his talk about crashing a plane into NYC is very disturbingly prescient, on a side note).

Re:Does there HAVE to be blame?

[Chanc_Gorkon]

Who said Dr. Spock and all of these "experts" are right???

That's the first thing...the second is these kids had the stuff right under the parent's noses. How in the WORLD did these parents miss this? They must have been two busy holding down two jobs so they can pay for there $200,000 dollar house when a $100,000 dollar one would be fine and one parent can stay home. Right now we are going thru this. Right now, we have yet to make the transition to only using my income. My wife has been fortunate enough to find a job that let's her work out of the home. She will be able to meet my son at the bus when he comes home from school. She only has to go drop off and pick up work for the next day. Still not an ideal situation, but better then our son being a latchkey kid.

Re:Does there HAVE to be blame?

[uspsguy]

I get real tired of the "blame the parent" attitude. Why? Because I'm the parent in a related situation. My 16 year old son took our car and went down a local street at about 80 MPH. You'd better believe there was a huge wreck. 5 cars, one dead, one in the hospital for months. He was unhurt. I think we were above average parents with an extreemly bright son. He was on a college level program in high school, socially active with his school peers, involved in the church youth group, played sports. Pretty much a model kid. We had a stable, active family life and were involved with both our sons activities. It wasn't perfect but by most standards, we were a typical all-american family. Yet he chose a course of action that resulted in the death of another man. Unfortunately, it was his decision and action. Even in retrospect, I can think of very little we would have done differently in raising him. There are issues of personal responsibility that others flat out can not control. Unlike Columbine (which was my wife's high school), the victum's relatives got a sense of closure when they saw my son lead out of the courtroom to begin serving time.

Re:Does there HAVE to be blame?

[ivrcti]

As an ex-soldier, I absolutely disagree. When someone dies, we ought to try very, very hard to make sure it doesn't happen again. Does that require fixing blame? Usually. There are freak accidents, but for the most part, when otherwise healthy people die, it's because someone decided to kill them. Perhaps if your wife/little sister/mother were brutally murdered you would be a lot less open to the overly simplistic arguement that S**t happens? Do you really want to live in a society where that is an acceptable reply?

great, the games and movies approach was in theway

[Anonymous Coward]

now we can get on with attacking the NRA, guns, gun manufacturers and responsible gun owners. Sure am glad that silliness is out of the way now!
GO GORE AND NADER! WOOHOO! TELL ME WHAT TO THINK!

All these 'media influence' suits...

[buckeyeguy]

I'm just sick of 'em... goes all the way back to to Judas Priest being sued in the 80's for some downer song they put out that some guy killed himself to.

Next thing you know, the 'Girls Gone Wild' will sue the video producers for getting them drunk and making them flash the camera...

Oops, guess it already happened: Girl Gone Wild Sues, Wins

At least 1 document case of game related violence

[lightspawn]

Here.

Someone did! Re:A new video game idea

[Anonymous Coward]

It was called "schoolyard slaughter" you pick your weapon, ak-47/uzi, etc, then you hang out at the playground and little kids come frolicking around and you blast them. the little boy with bouncing the red ball was hilarious when he died. eheheheheh This was available on an old platform. Anyone remember the Atari ST??? I think there are TOS/GEM emulators around for the PC, I bet if anyone looked really hard they might be able to find it out there in an archive somewhere...

Re:A new video game idea (bah!)

[Quixadhal]

The ultimate shooting game has already been created and if you didn't have an Amiga, you missed it.

Smurf Hunt!

You, a shotgun, and Papa Smurf... need I say more?

Um... you sure there's no GTA3 connection?

[indole]

I could be way off base here, but after playing GTA3 for numerous hours and then getting in my car, I tend to believe that some with less willpower might find it hard to control themselves.

The game is just too damn fun.

Re:Is THAT why I ran over all this school children

[MaxVlast]

Hehe -- the guys corrects his own grammar and it's flamebait. I don't know why I find that so funny, but it is.

I thought Manson was to blame

[Claric]

Wasn't the first scapegoat Marilyn Manson? Personally, I've been listening to MM for 6 years. I'm yet to kill anyone... Oh wait, I'm almost normal.

C

Re:I thought Manson was to blame

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, there was no violence and everything was right with the world before Marilyn Manson. He truly was a pioneer.

Re:I thought Manson was to blame

[Rude Turnip]

They were also fans of Rammstein, iirc. Their first album has a song called "Weisses Fleich" (White Flesh), which is about going into a schoolyard and shooting up a bunch of kids.

Re:I thought Manson was to blame

[SuiteSisterMary]

And yet you have a signature glorifying an armed insurrection against a legal government. "But, your honor, I was just doing what I honestly believe George Washington would have done, had he faced the abuse and injustice I did. When those kids made fun of me, I saw red...then I saw red coats. Then I got revolutionary on their asses."

Re:I thought Manson was to blame

[Rude Turnip]

My .sig isn't about getting revolutionary on the asses of bullies or legal governments. It's about getting revolutionary on the ass of any system that takes away life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. btw, the American revolution *was* an armed insurrection against a legal government...and we even have a holiday to glorify and celebrate it.

Re:I thought Manson was to blame

[SuiteSisterMary]

Well, I'll say for sure that the systematic bullying that I, and many others, endured in school (after all, it's TRADITION that the jocks beat up on the nerds, isn't it?) definately took away liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, and damn near took away life. So what's wrong with the Columbine kids? By this logic, they followed in the footsteps of their proud ancestors. Not trying to be confrontational or anything, I just like exploring how a 'simple fact' can be really really slippery depending on context, and on soceital investment.

Re:I thought Manson was to blame

[Rude Turnip]

The two Columbine kids did not represent an entire repressed nation or ethnic group. Furthermore, they were not fighting against an established system, just a few bullies that you'll find in any society...however they ended up targetting many innocent people.

Their actions were not for a greater good; they were only for selfish and wildly irrational goals.

Re:I thought Manson was to blame

[SuiteSisterMary]

The two Columbine kids did not represent an entire repressed nation or ethnic group.

No, just a culture.

Furthermore, they were not fighting against an established system, just a few bullies that you'll find in any society

Schoolyard bullying IS an established system. And, surprisingly often, encouraged by the authorities. Not to mention mainstream media.

however they ended up targetting many innocent people.

True of any war.

Their actions were not for a greater good; they were only for selfish and wildly irrational goals.

According to you. But what did the English Monarchy think of Washington's rebellion?

Re:I thought Manson was to blame

[Rude Turnip]

If they represented a culture, it was a culture of very few people at their school. Schoolyard bullying may be an institution, but the "System," which consists of the parents, school system and authorities, is generally against it. Although the mainstream media implicitly promotes intolerance against anything other than that which is mainstream, to say it encourages violence is a stretch.

You are correct in stating that innocent people get hurt in any sort of war situation.

I'm sure the English monarchy wasn't too happy with Washington. However, I do believe that George Washington's reasoning behind the revolution is much more rational than the Columbine kids' reasons for going postal. The Declaration of Independence, IIRC, states the reasons behind the American revolution...judge the rationality for yourself.

Re:I thought Manson was to blame

[SuiteSisterMary]

They were the representitves of their culture *at Columbine*; the culture itself, sadly, is spread across North America, if not the world. I'm not arguing the validity of Washington's reasons; I'm arguing that they made sense to *him* and that I doubt that he cared weather they made sense to anybody else. Ask yourself, honestly, how would history have recorded him if he lost? The Columbine kids couldn't come up with a better way to solve their problems. They'd never had any experiance with a differnet way, so they couldn't concieve of one. Who's fault is that? How many times have you been in a park, and heard a parent sternly tell their child 'No hitting!' while whacking them on the ass?

Behaviour can be learned.

[Petersko]

Many people simultaneously believe that:

1) Behaviour Can Be Learned

2) Video Games Can Be Educational

3) Video Games Cannot Teach Negative Behaviour

Does this belief make sense? Children take their cues from all aspects of life, including the games they play. No, I don't believe violent video games should be banned - but I believe they should be rated, and those ratings enforced. 18+ for games like Quake. "Let's see some ID kid. No? Well, I can't sell you this game - I'd risk a fine or revocation of my business licence."

The parent could still buy it for their child, but at least they'd be forced to accept their responsibility as a parent.

Columbine happened right smack in the middle of a time period when we are witnessing the breakdown of the basic family unit, and the collapse of parental responsibility.

Video games are not the direct cause, but neither are they unrelated or innocent. They are one contributing factor in the fabric of society.

Re:Behaviour can be learned.

[Anonymous Coward]

Look, I'm 16. You aren't taken away my UT, bud. Or else I might have to whip out my shock rifle.
:)

Re:Behaviour can be learned.

[quintessent]

It's nice to hear a voice of reason amidst all the wild "Video games are cool. Therefore they have to be harmless. Not to mention you can't take away free speech, blah blah blah..."

It is not so obvious that they don't have a bad effect. In fact, after looking at people I've known who were practically addicts, I'm kind of glad I didn't play more.

As for the law side of it, I've always wondered how speech got extended to include almost any action. Yeah, I know, I should have the right to do anything as long as I don't hurt anyone else. But 1) This still isn't speech and 2) Even if I agree with this statement, does it make rights decisions any easier? Most actions that harm one person hurt others as well.

Re:Behaviour can be learned.

[Anonymous Coward]

It's true that games can be educational, but there's a big difference between things like learning how to add and subtract and feeling compelled to act out in violent ways because of playing violent videogames. A game can teach you the mechanics of murder, but it will not compel you to act it out.

Re:Behaviour can be learned.

[Anonymous Coward]

Hear, hear!

video games don�t kill people...

[roe1352]

Yeah, they played video games that made them go and kill people. Lets sue them. Lets just forget about the fact the guns that they used to kill everyone are easily attainable and loosely regulated. Obviously pretending to kill people is much worse then manufacturing the tools to actually do so.

Re:video games don�t kill people...

[Petersko]

"Yeah, they played video games that made them go and kill people. Lets sue them. Lets just forget about the fact the guns that they used to kill everyone are easily attainable and loosely regulated. Obviously pretending to kill people is much worse then manufacturing the tools to actually do so."

So let me get this straight... You've been presented with a problem. Kids have somehow been raised with the inclination and ability to kill their companions in cold blood. Some aspect of social engineering has failed, and they've been dramatically warped.

Your solution? Don't give them guns.

How wonderfully shortsighted of you. So what happens when they build slingshots? Do you take away all their wood?

Now here is a classic example of treating the symptom, and not the problem.

Re:video games don�t kill people...

[hyperizer]

Kids have somehow been raised with the inclination and ability to kill their companions in cold blood. Some aspect of social engineering has failed, and they've been dramatically warped.

This would be more accurate if you changed "kids" to "boys."

Re:video games don�t kill people...

[Anonymous Coward]

"Have They'll just keep building bigger sticks with bigger nails, until one day, they build a stick with a nail so big that it will destroy them all!
Bwhahahah hahahahaha hahahahah!"

Re:video games don�t kill people...

[freeweed]

Not to be an ass, but:

So what happens when they build slingshots?

For starters, they don't kill/injure a dozen or more people, and the FBI isn't called in to deal with it. And chances are they don't slingshot themselves to death afterwards.

Re:video games don�t kill people...

[Anonymous Coward]

Loosely regulated? In the US there are literally THOUSANDS of laws regulating firearms ownership.

In the words of Chris Rock "What ever happened to crazy?" Unfortunately, some people in this world are broken, there is something inside of them that doesn't work. No laws will every fix that.

Lord Kano
-Too lazy to log in

Re:video games don�t kill people...

[roe1352]

Yes, there are a lot of laws, but compare our gun laws with that of any other modern western country.

Re:Well, there's always exceptions

[indole]

I could be way off base here, but after playing GTA3 for numerous hours and then getting in my car, I tend to believe that some with less willpowermight find it hard to control themselves.

The game is just too damn fun.

Society is Bunk!

[fotoLilith]

Maybe now that a judicial voice has managed to surgically extract their head from their bum we can get some reason into this facet of society and look at helping all of those involved: the people who have been bullied and those that bully others. Unfortunately, it is *really* hard to avoid assigning culpability: human nature tends towards blaming the victim (which is why only 10% of rape and domestic violence victims report their attacks: they are too afraid that someone will say "They were asking for it." And people will say that). Most people *want* to believe that humanity runs by a strict set of mores: they don't want to admit that a seemingly normal individual can hurt another person, so they place blame on the victim or on a myriad superfluous factions.

Studies of bullying behavior are just now starting in the scientific community. One of the things that researchers are recognizing is that people who are abused tend to have *different* values for what is abuse and bad behavior - basically, someone who goes through abuse or neglect tends to "grow up" faster and not recognize abuse in themselves. That is one reason why children of abusive families tend to carry on the vicious cycle to their own kids; and it is also a key to how someone who is bullied in school (or maybe bullied at home and carries that to school) would resort to such mind-bogglingly violent options.

There needs to be more investment in counceling and positive reenforcement in schools - perhaps as early as elementary school. Yes, a significant number of people who read this site were probably bullied and ostracized when they were younger (I still have bad memories of a rather unfortunate day in 6th grade when I wore a yellow hair band that did not match the rest of my attire). Most people do not go home and gather up the dynamite and a few gallons of gasoline, but some individuals have different receptors for pain and abuse. This is just a prime reason of how environment can alter our brains at the *cellular* level - changing even how the DNA is transcribed.

"If the whole world depends on today's youth, I can't see the world lasting another 100 years." Socrates

Re:Don't miss the point here!

[Lord Bitman]

The judge said the Gunmen were responsible for the killings.
So Piss Off!
Yeah, they used guns and killed people with them. Let's sue them. Let's just forget about the fact that the people doing the actual killing lived in a society where killing is acceptable. Obviously manufacturing something used to kill a person is much worse than actually killing someone even if it's with one of the tools designed for some other purpose.

Heard on NPR this morning...

[cnelzie]

About a new possible Bill in the State of Michigan regarding the sale and rental of video games that have violent content in them.

I am going to find out who this idiot is and ask him why he believes that parents are incapable of raising their children.

I was also going to point out that a law similiar to this was passed and then reveresed in court, in the city of Indianapolis recently.

Parents do not need additional laws that give them even more reason to shirk their duties in raising their children. If they do, then they really shouldn't be parents. Work a few less hours and frikkin' raise your children. I know that when I have children, I or my wife, whomever is making less, will stay home and raise the children.

Again, those children in Columbine, including most of the "Copy-cat" children, were all on some kind of psycotropic medication, had two parents that worked more hours than they spent with their kids and probably barely knew what their kids were doing, thinking or planning.

That never happened to me, because my parents were there. Sure, sometimes they seemed annoying, but for the most part, they spent time with me and my siblings. They took us places, explained the actual difference between right and wrong and helped us become the good citizens that we are today.

Today's children don't have parents, they have lax animal trainers that are barely there to feed and change, let alone train the children they bore. Get a grip people, stop supporting these silly laws and start supporting your children.

Another thing, your children are growing up. If you don't teach them about the REAL WORLD, then they are going to learn all the dangers on their own. If that means they get pregnant at 15, then that is really your fault for choosing not to talk to them about sex. If they end up whacked out on drugs, again, you should have talked to them about drugs.

My parents did that for me and yours may have done that for you. If you turned out okay and actually had parents there to raise you. What makes you think that your children will be okay without parents?

--
.sig seperator
--

Re:Heard on NPR this morning...

[Jayson]

As you point out, there are many parents who do not own up to their responsibilities. What do you do about these kids then, "Oh, well, your parents sucked too bad your going to grow up a cracked out, murderous prostitute." Or do you create a safety net for these children and try to provide some artificial parenting as a safe-guard.

Second, these laws are there to assist parents. Since a parent cannot supervise a child constantly you create laws that help the parent when they cannot be there, such as setting smoking and drinking age limits.

You seem to be under the delusion that a parent can always be there and just by speaking to your children they will do what they say; you are in for a shock when your kids hit 13. You can argue aabout the casual relationship elsewhere, but don't flip out at laws that are meant to assist parents.

Re:Heard on NPR this morning...

[Anonymous Coward]

".......laws that are meant to assist parents." I don't have a problem with parents who need assistance with their unruly spawn. I DO -however-take issue with parents who seem to be under the impression that EVERYONE ELSE has children and that EVERYONE ELSE is therefore, at parents disposal.

Look, YOU decided to breed, that was your choice. No one aimed a shotgun at your head and forced you to. Being a parent involves personal sacrifice on many levels, INCLUDING being there for the kid 24/7/18-22 yrs. If you can't handle that kind of responsibility, then perhaps you should not have reproduced just because you could.

These laws that you are so fond of that "assist parents," as you put it. What about those of us who don't have children? Why should society as a whole have to live with everything dumbed down to what is appropriate for a six year old because YOU -the almighty entitled parent- cannot or will not or is just not up to doing your job? Whether you like it or not, you brought the kid into the world now YOU be responsible for him/her and don't expect the rest of us to have to pony up and make the sacrifices that YOU have to as a parent.

Do those of us who chose not to overpopulate the planet a favor.....do your job, parent, and quit whining about how difficult it is. YOU made your bed, now lie in it.

Re:Heard on NPR this morning...

[Fredpro]

If you think that laws to protect children are only there because parents are poor, then think again.
Even the most responsible people cannot be around 24/7 to supervise their children until they reach the age of 18. If a 12 year old wanted to get in to an adult film, even good parents couldn't stop them if there were no laws on who could see restricted films at the cinema. (Note: This is just an example.)
I believe there needs to be laws and support for parents, as even though I'm sure your parents were super-special, I am 100% sure they weren't perfect. These laws, support and regulations are there to help the rest of the imperfect parents out there.

High Testosterone, Low Serotonin

[uofa1993engrmath]

I was watching the Discovery Channel, and "they" were taking about how baby monkeys that were separated from their mothers early, or raised without them grew up to be antisocial monkeys with low serotonin. They also said that a study of the really violent, troublemaking Marines also were found to have low serotonin. Being on paxil myself, I can tell you firsthand that increased levels of serotonin reduce any urges I might have to bring my rifle (Weatherby 'Walmart special' Vanguard 7mm Remmington magnum) somewhere to kill as many people as possible before I am brought down myself. I'd much rather be happy. I'm trying to get an attractive, loving girlfriend, which would increase my serotonin levels, but I haven't had much luck. So, instead I immerse myself in hobbies, like photography, MOHAA, UT, Serious Sam, Red Faction, RTCW, NOLF, and going to the shooting range. Oh yeah, and going to strip clubs, and occasionally getting a dirty magazine like Private. Paxil makes the world a better place for me. I don't seem to feel so depressed, lonely and hopeless while on it, even though nothing has changed. If people were happy, they wouldn't commit mass murder-suicides. I think if anything causes violence, it's low serotonin, which could becaused by lack of attenion or touch as a baby, abusive or neglectful parenting, a bad bunch of genes, or maybe being mistreated on the playground for years and years. Everything has a reason. It's nature's way of keeping it's own, sometimes objectionable balance. In this magazine I was reading, even baby hyenas will kill their siblings if food is scarce. It's all nature and chemicals. Don't feed your dog or cat or rat for a couple of days, and see if it affects their mood any.

Re:High Testosterone, Low Serotonin

[curunir]

If you're looking for a non-prescription way to raise serotonin levels, 5-HTP works pretty well. It's the body's natural precursor to Serotonin. For most people, it works well enough to avoid having to take prescription anti-depressants, and has far fewer side effects. It is a legal dietary supplement sold in most drug stores.

As with all herbs, taking excessive amounts can have undesired effects, but at the dosage I take (100mg/day), the only effect I've noticed is that I'm a much happier person.

Oh...and if anyone's interested in a possible interatction between 5-HTP and a certain illegal drug that deals with Serotonin, well, there are no *negative* interactions ;)

Wrong.

[DohDamit]

Dipshit, that episode was making fun of attitudes that mass media is not responsible for its effect on its viewers. You apparently missed the irony.

There is a difference between accepting violence and glorifying it. Truth told, most video games are still so cartoonish or garish that they don't stand a chance of influencing someone as much as a television show.

Re:Wrong.

[Anonymous Coward]

Laugh. That's the glory of the Simpsons, you can read either liberal or conservative truths into their writings.

You have a valid point.

But the valid point is also raised that, in the past, far before media was prevalent, far before video games, there was... violence. It was widespread. It was everywhere.

And, the reality of the matter is, we're human beings - it will ALWAYS be everywhere. You can either deal with it or cower in a hole and scream "think of the children" as a rallying cry.

Re:Well, there's always exceptions

[Evangelion]

It didn't take GTA3 to do that to me -- I was having trouble not running people over after Carmageddon.

Still, I didn't :)

I resent that remark!

[Anonymous Coward]

As a blue person, I find it repugnant that some sick fuck would squander their time playing, let along writing such an evil game that's only purpose is to incite violence against people of color.

Re:A new video game idea (bah!)

[Tony.Tang]

Check it out: Smurf Hunt.

Umm...

[virg_mattes]

Take note that the statement was that double integrals were the best way to find said area. It works, but it's hard to argue that it's the best way.

Virg

Re:Umm...

[FrostedChaos]

A double integral defines that area. So you can either memorize the formula (a * b) or rederive it every time.

Stupid Americans

[Aqua OS X]

Humm, look where these kids live. In Columbine everyone's parents have arms jobs. Many individuals get a pay check building, designing, and advocating guns, missiles, bombs, etc. Why is everyone shocked that these kids are resorting to gun violence to solve their problems. It just seems like a big "duuhhh" to me. Stupid Americans and your militant ways.

I wish I lived in Canada. Practically every other person up there has a gun and violent media doesn't seem to send them on killing sprees. As I recall, not very many people die from gun violence up there at all. In the US tens of thousands do, but in Canada I don't think the numbers even breach one thousand. I could be wrong though.

Re:Stupid Americans

[deeboTux]

Dude,

Thats not so true, guns here are pretty rare. There are the few who own guns, but thats only the few.

We here resort to other means to take out our frustrations - hockey for example. Hockey sticks are great weapons, but its a bit difficult to commit mass murders on the ice when everyone is wearing helmets (stupid helmets!)

Let me add that video games and music are a powerful influence. They're different though. I mean I can listen to some Rage and feel pumped but I have the common sense to think before reacting. On the other hand, I've played GTA3 for 4 hours straight once and when i first got on the road I was inclined to speed around the first corner (its psychological) - then my common sense kicked in and I realised that its real life. The problem is my brain was perceiving the video game so real that reality itself was distorted. A conscious effort must be made to distinguish reality from fiction.

I don't blame the video games, but I do believe its just as difficult to blame anyone under those circumstances. Has anyone read or watched "Clockwork Orange"?

Who knows, maybe in the future 'video game syndrome' will sit next to intoxication.. don't play and drive!

It all comes to down to choice in the end and the truth is if someone should choose to drink then murder its just as much their fault as if they were sober. As well, if someone chooses to play video games then murder, they're guilty.

Re:Stupid Americans

[Anonymous Coward]

No, the first guy's right about the guns. Like me, you probably live somewhere in a city in southern ontario. Canada DOES have a lot of guns, but they're not HANDguns... they're mostly rifles or shotguns for hunting.

Please remember that from ontario all the way west to BC the whole country is basically a big open plain. And that northern quebec and ontario have vast tracts of forest. And that once you actually DO get to BC going west, you get mountains and rainforest. And that if you go far enough north, you MUST hunt to survive... because the closest civilization could be weeks away. How do you think people in the Yukon, the NWT and Nunavut survive?

All this wilderness adds up to make hunting (whether for survival or recreation) a major pastime. Which means that yes, we do have a lot of guns.

And yes, actual gun violence is very low here.

Re:Stupid Americans

[SuiteSisterMary]

We Canadians tend to be shocked and horrified everytime we here about an American nipping off to Wal-Mart(!) to buy guns and ammo. One day, I went on a business trip to Bostan. I was put off by the bullet proof shield between me and my taxi driver. I was made physically ill by the very large billboard that said 'Giving guns to kids isn't a good idea.'

Re:Stupid Americans

[uspsguy]

I've put in my 2 cents earlier in this topic but I can't let this one slip by. My wife graduated from Columbine High School so we know the area better than average. NOBOBY I've met or know from around there has an "arms" job. Its a mix like most everywhere. Her father worked in construction, his neighbor worked for Western Power Administration. A friend from church is a State representative. Lockhead-Martin is a large local employer - the Aerospace division. They make rocket boosters and things for outer space like that. We deon't have any real defense-related industry around here.
Sorry, that particular logic doesn't wash.

Re:Stupid Americans

[Jucius Maximus]

"Practically every other person up there has a gun and violent media doesn't seem to send them on killing sprees."

WTF??!?!? I have lived in Canada all my life and I do not know anyone that owns a gun (that I know of.) What are you smoking? Is your only experience with Canada what you have seen on south park?

Re:Well, there's always exceptions

[TRyanC]

I was hoping someone would mention this. If I didn't see it, I was going to post links to this story myself.

As a GTA3 fan myself, and an occasional Boston driver, I often find myself coming up with "alternative" ways to deal with the traffic and aggressive drivers. I've never acted on any of these thoughts, and they actually make driving a bit more tolerable (since in my mind I'm planning carjackings and escape routes while waiting at stoplights).

-Ryan

A logical proof

[signal ll]

Dr LHA says, "Obvious to those of us who play GTA3 regularly but still manage to overcome the urge to plough over pedestrains on the way to work in the morning, but good to see someone high up showing some sense."

Let me see if I've got this straight.

It is suggested that video games cause some people to behave violently. Yet Dr LHA play video games and does not behave violently. Thus the suggestion is proven false - QED.

Re:A logical proof

[Dr_LHA]

Actually I'm extremely violent and am on my way to shoot you.

Re:A logical proof

[signal ll]

Ah, I see. Now you've proven your point. Moron.

Wake UP!!!!

[Anonymous Coward]

You guys sound like this is a great topic to post your opinion on how its not video games and other media that got the "kids" to kill "kids" at Columbine. Whats the quickest way to get rid of something? Kill it. Right? Even with OSes killusr bla-bla. How do we know? Well first of all turn on that box that sits in front of your couch and click to a channel any channel? What do you see? Violence is OK. Those "kids" are dead and we won't see them again. Go look into a mirror and say that could have been me dead or me in jail. Parents need to take a stand and kids need to be heard. Flame me all you want, I just pray that you or your loved one does not get hurt next time some person in need of some type of attention gets the urge to commit some animal like action.

-Peace

Games do influence real life

[maddugan]

Playing EverQuest, I did have a tendency to sit around waiting for things to happen, just like my on screen character.

Re:At least 1 document case of game related violen

[Anonymous Coward]

Apparently this is a new definition of documented.

What do you mean "Obvious to those of us..."??

[wrinkledshirt]

Obvious to those of us who play GTA3 regularly but still manage to overcome the urge to plough over pedestrains on the way to work in the morning...

Hey, I don't know about you, but whenever I eat my magic mushrooms, the angry hopping turtles all come out and the only way to fight them off is with my fireballs (thank god for them!).

there is a difference between games & real lif

[Anonymous Coward]

The difference between games & real life is easy enough for most of us to distinguish between - but for kids who get addicted & start playing them for hours a day I'm sure it's not. Anyway I'm glad the judge ruled that way because if he didn't people would start suing all sorts of companies for big bucks over rather tenuous links between behaviour of their customers & their products.

After a long gaming session usually the things I want to do are eat/ sleep - not go out and kill someone!

Level 80 - Computer game cheats, hints & tips

[OT[ Re:Right...

[Cid Highwind]

Why is it the guy with a 50ms ping is always the least skilled?

That's your ego's security blanket, dialup boy. :-)

It hurts to admit someone's better than you, so you delude yourself that his(her) score is all because of ping time and not mad skillz.

Re:[OT[ Re:Right...

[Penguinoflight]

I haven't experienced the whole internet (duh), so I should have said in my experience. Usually however, the winner with a better connection isn't the best player.

I out fragged the winner of a DM 1 on 1 in Q3 (I fragged him, more than him me.) I still ended up in 3rd. When it takes 2 seconds for your gun to shoot, something's wrong, and I have a 200-300ms connection.

I'm therefore constricted to games which lag is not a disadvantage, RTS. I don't like Q3 anyway, but I do like UT.

Mixed feelings about this

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't think game and movie creators should be held liable for the actions of their customers.

But does anyone really doubt that there are a few fringe elements in society who will be influenced by movies or games to do Bad Things, things they wouldn't do without exposure to such entertainment? Saying that you or I or 99.999% of /. readers won't be influenced by entertainment is likely true but a different matter. When it's your relative (or you) that's the victim of the one-in-10,000 nutcase who's pushed over the edge by some otherwise innocent software, it's harder to accept that position.

victory for whom?

[greylouser]

I'm sure we mostly agree that the judge made the right decision in this case. We're happy because this is a statement that people should be accountable for their own actions, and shouldn't pass the buck. But the entertainment industry is also happy, since video games are very profitable, and big companies like Sony and Microsoft know that kids like games with violence. It's important, I think, to realize that this is a victory for those of us who believe in personal accountability, but it's also a victory for some people in the entertainment industry, who care much more about the fact that they can continue marketing violent games to kids.

Lessons learned from video games

[No Such Agency]

The "Magic School Bus" game (or Spelling Bears or whatever is cool these days) doesn't teach you anything that goes directly against what you're being told elsewhere. Your teachers say "Be nice. Share." Your parents say "Don't hurt other people" (if you have nice parents). If you go against that because of something you saw _in a freaking VIDEO GAME_ (or on TV, or whatever), it's likely that you're messed up in the head in ways that make hurting others more or less inevitable - wheither you play video games or not.

Re:At least 1 document case of game related violen

[mandolin]

That child was suprisingly coordinated and, uh, flexible. If I tried to kick somebody in the nose in a school bus (assuming it was crowded and moving), I doubt I'd hit his nose. Chances are I'd overbalance and fall on my ass instead.

And what a time it was...

[Pac]

I remember well, friend, we have just got down from the trees then. If another simian tried to take your girl, it was just a matter of finding the nearest rock of the appropriate size and tear open his head. If an idiot made too much noise when we were trying to get the zebra, we just left him out of the cave during the night anfd the lions or the wolfes would feed themselves happily.

But even then grampa thought we were too soft. "Rocks", he used to say,"you young monkeys keep relying on modern technology for your killing and eventually you won't even know how to kill with your hands". And then he would go into an interminable rant about the time when we were in the ocean and there were no hands to hold the rocks and how big were the sharks. But, alas, it is as you say, and grampa knew what he was talking about...

Poor Cain

[shawnmelliott]

Poor Cain only had the excuse "Am I my brother's keeper" to give to God. I think the guy was in rough shape what with no TV, Books, Games, Music to blame. Although, considering the recent spout of "I was abused... not my fault" I'm amazed it didn't go something like this

God: Where is Abel?
Cain: I killed him
God: Why?
Cain: Because my mother and father ate the forbidden fruit so I learned by their actions that I should do bad things too ... you see God. It wasn't my fault. It's theirs

What if....?

[Anonymous Coward]

When can we expect to see a "Columbine High" video game?

Not another one...

[Anonymous Coward]

My god, if I see one more "In other news..." comment in an article, I'm going to gouge my eyes out.

This reminds me of...

[sgage]

... certain lawsuits against gun manufacturers because yes, people occasionally use a gun to kill someone. Let the fsckers make the manufacture and sale of guns illegal (or try :-) but to retroactively sue gun manufacturers for these deaths is idiotic in the extreme!

Similarly, it may or may not be true that violent video games incline certain unstable individuals to violent acts. I don't know. But it's irrelevant. If it is somehow "determined" that yes, video games indeed lead to some violence, then make 'em illegal (or try to :-)

But no way can you retroactively sue people for doing what's perfectly legal at the time.

Whatever.

This would all be solved...

[Seabass55]

If everyone just spent a little extra time with their kids. Parents are the first to blame video games but god forbid they spend some quality time with their youngins.

Re:there is a difference between games continued

[Anonymous Coward]

Oh and by the way if someone thinks I couldn't spell the subject - I culd it's just slashdot cut the last bit off.

Level 80

Re:cynical

[TRACK-YOUR-POSITION]

What the heck? Are you talking about nerds violently taking over all the schools, and from there the world? Are you living in some kind of cartoon video game, or am I just totally misunderstanding you? Are these nerds planning to build DeathJustice Robots to Crush both Teacher and Bully once and for all?

Yeah, we all want to punch our teachers, but then we grow up and realize those guys are really poor, and we're not! (er...maybe later we grow and realize that's probably not something to take joy in...)

Anybody ever watch Picket Fences?

[NanoGator]

There was an episode of Picket Fences that I saw a few years ago that had a court case involving television's role in violence with children. The basic plot of the story was a kid fired a potato gun at a teenager's car because the teenager was picking on the potato-gunman's little brother. The potato broke the car's windshield and caused the teen to swerve, rolling the car. The teen suffered a back injury and temporary paralysis. The little brother of the injured teen brought a gun to school the next day and shot the kid who fired the potato gun in revenge.

The city that this show takes place in is a small town and many of the people there suffer from knee-jerk over-reactiveness to events like these. They immediately blamed television for the shooting and pulled it off the air. The defense of the child that fired the gun (not the potato gun) was that television taught him that shooting guns is ok, therefore it's TV's fault.

The way the episode ended (if memory serves...) is that the prosecuting lawyer asked the kid a very interesting question. "When you watch TV, do you see people get shot?" "Yes." "Do they die?" "... Yes." "So television taught you that when you shoot somebody with a gun, they die."

I thought that was an interesting response to this whole TV/Video Games/Music causes violence debate. Movies like Robocop taught me that guns are not something you really want to play with at all. Some would say Robocop glorified violence, but it sure didn't for me. The idea of getting my arm blown off and surviving to feel it didn't settle too well with me at all.

It bothers me that this aspect of television is never explored. Personally, I think TV teaches that guns are dangerous, and that you're really playing games with your life expectancy vs. solving problems with them.

Re:Anybody ever watch Picket Fences?

[E-Rock-23]

Never saw that particular Picket Fences, but you certainly nailed it. Something that took you 10 good minutes of common sense and a half hour of television viewing has taken lawmakers years to figure out. Kudos.

Re:Anybody ever watch Picket Fences?

[NanoGator]

Thank you. :)

It makes you wonder though, given how popular violent TV got in the last 20 years, how come there doesn't seem to be a similar rise in gun-activity?

Yet, over in the Middle East, there's all kinds of gun play over there. Isn't it true that they don't have those type of programs? (I think I read that they don't have the same type of TV we do, but since I've never been there I won't say that matter of factly.) You'd think America would look like what we're seeing on TV in recent weeks if TV and VG's did cause violence.

Detailed analysis of SSRI drugs and massacres

[cnicolai]

http://civic.net/civic-values.archive/200106/msg00 023.html

Can't sum it up better than this....

[DA_MAN_DA_MYTH]

Penny Arcade has this old strip of video games on trial. I don't think there is a better way of summing this up.

I MADE IT LONG AGO

[Anonymous Coward]

With the Marathon Map editor, there was everything, even our director "soeur Aline" re-named "Sister Alien" for the phun...

It was so good to kill everyone and to hide in the girls restroom...

GTA 3 for PC

[cyberkni]

Does anyone know when GTA 3 for PC is coming out? On a tangent, has anyone had success running any of the older GTA's in wine?

Re:GTA 3 for PC

[delus10n0]

April 17th..

Crazy Taxi 2

[Anonymous Coward]

Dunno about Quake, since FPS make me nauseated, but every time I play Crazy Taxi 2, it takes genuine concentration to not swerve in and out of traffic. Obviously, I haven't given in to the urge, but If I were driving while exhausted or intoxicated, after spending an afternoon playing, I might not be able to resist the urge to pull into the oncoming lane to pass, especially if the Offspring were on the radio. (This makes more sense if you've actually played the game.)

Now, it would take more than a momentary distraction fueled by psuedo-punk pop to cause someone to move from playing Quake to taking a shotgun to a classroom of kids, but there is certainly empirical evidence that video games can influence behavior.

I believe a reasonable adult should be able to control himself and recognize the difference between reality and video games. As a 30-year-old adult, I know enough to think, "Hmm. I've been playing too much Crazy Taxi. I keep wanting to pull over into that lane." If I were still a 17-year-old kid, there's a good chance I would pull into that lane, especially if I thought it would entertain my friends in the back seat, because I was invincible, had no sense of my own mortality, and it was fun in the game. I believe parents should take responsibility for knowing what their kids are playing, because a child, even an teenager, is _not an adult_ and doesn't have the emotional maturity to understand that they're being influenced.

I don't think id is to blame for Columbine, but I don't think the video game industry is entirely blameless, either. The defense that "These are mature games, for adult audiences" fails for the same reason Joe Camel is no more: they're an adult product marketed and sold to kids, and they _have_ an influence, even if it's a subtle one.

A teenager will tell you, "I'm not stupid, I know the difference between reality and video games." Which is probably true, on an intellectual level. But how many kids have pretended, if only to themselves, they were SubZero or whatever while kicking the crap out of another kid?

SMAC probe teams

[Anonymous Coward]

Sorry, this is too dismissing. Ever since I started playing SMAC, I have had the urge to steal technology from the nearby university.

And ever since I started playing MindRover and watching Battlebots, I have been having fantasies about breaking robots.

Stop me, before I kill.

Case by case basis, dude...

[DuckDodgers]

The responsibility falls squarely upon the killers themselves, BUT:
The parents should have noticed the arsenal of semiautomatic weapons and explosives their children were acquiring. There is no excuse for that.
If (I don't know) the kids had previous mentioned their problems with bullies to their parents and teachers, the parents and teachers should have done something about it. I had my ears flicked and my nuts whacked at least once a week for six years in a row, and the only reason I didn't kill those little bastards was lack of opportunity. My kids will not put up with the same shit I did, even if I have to home school them. (I am fully aware that many people were bullied much more than I was.) My parents called the school, we met with teachers, and they even called the parents of the bullies. It didn't help, but just knowing that they tried to intervene was something. I'm under the impression that the Columbine guys were screwed from the start, and no one gave a damn.

The killers are guilty of murder, but at least in this case, the parents most definitely did have something to do with it. They're guilty of negligence.

We all know what caused Columbine...

[E-Rock-23]

...and though we geeks are a forgiving lot (usually the first to "grow the hell up"), we can't forget the source of the problem. You all know what it is, same as me. Kleibold and Harris went a few steps too far and acted irrationally, and I feel for the victim's families. But then again, alot of them weren't simply victims, were they...

oooh...

[Alan Mattern]

....you play GTA3? can I be your friend?

blah, coudlnt stand any of the GTAs,

Finally common sence and placing of ..

[hikeran]

Finally common sence and placinf of responsibility on parents! it's about friggin time parents are held liable for raising their children the right/wrong way! Tv, media, games, everything ealse has been blamed.. why? because parents refuse to do their part in raising their children. I'm not a parent but the belt and some disipline taught me i could not and should not do certain things. Now parents do whatever and let the kids sit watching tv.

Take for example the incident where a child burned down the family mobile home. They sued Mtv because beavis and butthead kept saying fire and "glorifing" fire. Umm does that mean we can sue movie companies for cheech and chong movies glorifing drugs and causing people's drug problems? no!

I'm sure there are games and movies a bit too gory/bloody/whatever but it's the damn parent's job to keep an eye on the child and explain what good and bad things are.

ok i'm getting off my rant now... sigh .. but it's about damn time!...

GTA3

[ryanvm]

Obvious to those of us who play GTA3 regularly but still manage to overcome the urge to plough over pedestrains on the way to work in the morning

[This isn't a troll, but it sure is going to sound like one.]

My brother has GTA3 (and ironically, he's also a cop). We've both played it and come to the same conclusion - it's just too damn violent.

Don't get me wrong - I do not think it should be censored. I just have to question what is going on in your head when it takes shit like GTA3 to entertain you. It's like watching an animated Faces of Death.

I enjoy games with violence as much as the next guy. Games like CounterStrike or HALO where violence is an effect of realistic gameplay, and it's not done in a gratuitous fashion. It's the pointless violence like beating old ladies to death in GTA3 that I find a little disturbing.

So tell me - what are you GTA fans thinking when you watch blood pool around a dead bystander's head in GTA3? Is it really necessary for the game to be THAT violent? How does it make the experience more enjoyable?

I sure hope it's not just me getting old, because I'm gonna get a hell of lot older than 24.

Re:GTA3

[Simon Garlick]

(I)t's just too damn violent ... what are you GTA fans thinking when you watch blood pool around a dead bystander's head in GTA3?

That doesn't sound at ALL violent to me. Disturbing, maybe, but not violent. It seems to me that violence isn't what's offending you about the game.

Re:GTA3

[-Harlequin-]

So tell me - what are you GTA fans thinking when you watch blood pool around a dead bystander's head in GTA3? Is it really necessary for the game to be THAT violent? How does it make the experience more enjoyable?

Like your post, this isn't a troll, but might sound like one. The violence doesn't make the game more fun, in fact, the game simply isn't violent in ways you describe - it's consistant. If you choose to beat up an old lady, why should the game intervene, stop you, and say "hey - that's not nice, you can't do that"? In other words, it's just like counterstrike, Halo etc - an artifact of creating a consistant world.

I haven't played all that far into GTA3, but from all that I have seen, you are NEVER required to beat up an old lady to progress or finish a mission. In fact, if you are so violently inclined as to use your weapons on an old lady, you're much more likely to have a run-in with the police, ending your game.

That's the interesting thing about GTA3 - unlike most games, there are serious consequences if the player commits random acts of violence. When you first get the game, it might be fun to try and rack up as many stars as you can get, but when you're actually playing it, you try pretty hard to avoid hurting people, else the police response makes it almost impossible to progress.

So in a sense, I see GTA3 as less violent than the shoot-everything-in-sight games, even though both might be very graphic.
That said, there are some pretty dodgy missions (though you still get to decide whether or not you want to do them). (I really didn't like the idea of being muscle for a protection racket for example. I was glad when it turned out to be a trap :)
GTA is also needlessly gratutious. The prostitute thing for example. (Not to mention - the idea that sex with a prostitute makes you healthier is somewhat counter to reality :-) and I think this exaggerates the feeling that it's violent.

I agree that it goes over the top, I just wanted to make the point that the game discourages violence - it seems more violent because whenever someone starts playing it, they discover that they are in a consistant world in which they be as violent as they want. And thus the PLAYER rips loose, NOT the game. When they start playing properly, it's completely different.

I think it would be a tragedy if game tech was retarded on the premise that offering a consistant world is too violent.

It is society that is failing.

[tinhorn king]

The US is a society of extremes - Violence is just one example. Is it just coincidence that incidents such as this generally always happen in the US?
These unfortunate killings are symptoms of a failing society. Nothing more, nothing less.
And that goes for any society. However, I cannot ignore the fact that the rate of violent crime in America is far higher than that of say, European countries. Residents of European countries all (with a few exceptions) have access to the same video games as US citizens do - Draw your own conclusions on whether video games have an adverse effect on society.
But blaming society is the next step up from blaming video games: At the end of the day, we as individuals are responsible for our own actions. Like video games, society is also used as a scape goat by people; to blame what are ultimately *THEIR* own actions upon. Although I feel it has to be said that in a healty society (or healthier), incidents such as this will no doubt happen far less often. Using video games as the straw guy is far too short sighted for the situation. It is us as collective individuals that make a society, the day that the Columbine's stop happening is the day after we take a good hard look at ourselves. I find it very difficult that this will happen in the US anytime soon, money is the only thing that governs there: I cant see a billion dollar weapon industry being made obsolete in the forseeable future.
This trend of 'Who Is To Blame®' was spawned by the media, many people will follow it like sheep. The notion of personal responsibility is sadly diminishing.

More to the point, the very idea of resorting to adversarial behaviour is common in the US, to the point where it is nonchalently accepted: It is regularly practiced by the US government and is seen by many of its citizens as a viable solution - This will have an effect on peoples subconscious. Not everyone will resort to killing people that they have a grievence against, but expect it to be more common in a society where adversarial behaviour is the norm.

Don't abrogate parential responsibility

[royalblue_tom]

OK, some people are in need of help and/or attention, and if not helped will do something anti-social to garner that attention. I don't think anyone is advocating that they shouldn't be helped.

What is being said though is that for kids, the first point of help is their parents. I can understand a young child acting violently after watching a violent program or playing a violent video game (or seeing a violent act). I cannot however, condone a parent letting their child(ren) continue to act in any violent manner without taking action. I *cannot* excuse any parent explaining away aggressive and violent behavior in a teen or young adult using the claim that it was the fault of the TV program or video game. I actively blame *any* parent who allows their teenage children to acquire automatic weapons and ammunition, store them in the family house, and then use them against another person.

As always, we ask, what is the difference between right and wrong? Well, I was taught this at an early age. I didn't learn it from TV. My parents instilled it in me, deliberately, and painstakingly. I have played video games and watched violent programs on TV all my life. I have ever gone on a rampage through my school with a sub-machine gun.

Re:Don't abrogate parential responsibility

[royalblue_tom]

That should of course read *never* gone on a rampage ...

Glad to see this dismissed. . .

[BlueF]

While I'm sure most of us here will agree that case was without merit, I'm glad Judge Backock, in dismissing the case, has furthered the precedent(s) which he sites.

Law has little place laying guilt (or regulating) where we (society/parents) should teach right from wrong.

Can law ever teach the criminal, their parents, or the entertainment industry to do the right thing, what ever that is?

Problems are the problem.

[fadeaway]

The real issue lies within the parenting. Most parents today don't have the patients, skills, or will to raise decent children with morals.

I see kids at the grocery stores swearing at their parents without reprive. I see kids on the side of the street throwing rocks at cars without fear. I've had several kids who look to be under the age of twelve come up to me on the street and ask me for a light for their smoke.

Do you know why children do these things? Because they can. With each generation society is growing even more complacient towards their offspring. Parents are, be it due to laziness or lack of rearing skills passed from their own parents, letting their children run wild. Because of this, these kids are growing up thinking they can do whatever they want, to whomever they want, with no real grasp of the consequences. As if it's not bad enough, these kids grow up and pass on the exact same behaviour to their own children.

Until the majority wakes up and understand that THEY are the moral palette from which their children draw, not TV, not movies, not Video Games, things are only going to get worse.

I need new glasses

[Anonymous Coward]

Whe I read the headline:
Columbine Video-Games Suit Dismissed

I was shocked.
I mean, who would have the balls to create a Columbine based video game?

I got expelled for this back in high school

[Anonymous Coward]

I was unfortunate/stupid enough to have started to take steps to make a halflife map of our high school about a 5 months after the columbine shootings. It was also in the same county as the shootings at Thurston highschool (Eugene, Oregon). I was expelled on the spot after asked if i was making the map then told to stop & I replied I would stop working/talking about it at school but I would do what I wanted at my own home. It was poor judgement on my part but I was a kid that didnt like to take no for an answer.I was well known in the shcool, even quite popular but also known for knowing a bit too much about techonology.

The truth, and who top blame f you must

[kaltekar]

you see, I too was in there shoes. I had the plans all set out to do the same thing. I could have kept my parents from finding out what I was doing, and they watched me like a friggin hawk. It ain't hard to hide a 6 inch metal pipe in the garage, the wicks in the sowing cabanet and the gunpowder in the air duct. Come on! bad parenting is to blame, its those asshole libral children they went to school with. Now I know that not all of you can see this but, look at it from my shoes.

You go to school everyday(your parents make you). Everyday when you get to school, starting at age five, you have at least one person calling you a name, saying this about you or saying that about you, or in some other way getting stripped down to nothing because you look different, you act different, or what ever they decide to pick on you. Have this happen to you for about 10 years. See how much self esteem you have. Seritonin, what-ever. ADD and sh*t. One day, you are getting picked on and bame! It comes to you, I can stop all of this. If I just .... what ever. Most times it was just suicide for me, but there were times when I drew up these elaberate plans, simialer to theirs.

Why did I never do them? Simple, I went to a different district in high school and was accepted there. Had I go to the high school I was supposed too? That question will never be answered. Who knows you all could be talking about the Wellington High Shootings and I would be dead.

If you have to blame anyone blame those F__Ks they were forced (by state law) to go to school with.

But thats just my take!

Being pissed of at society isn't bad. How else do you think change happens.

It's a Statistical Thing

[harlows_monkeys]

Obvious to those of us who play GTA3 regularly but still manage to overcome the urge to plough over pedestrains on the way to work in the morning, but good to see someone high up showing some sense

That's a pretty silly remark. You are assuming that your reaction to GTA3 is the only foreseable effect.

People say you can't have it both ways

[bigbigbison]

It is said that people like to think that videogames can be educational but that they can't teach people to kill, which is contradictory. I don't see anything wrong with treating videogame ratings the same way movie ratings are treated. You must be a certain age to buy this game. Fine.

However, carding kids is a bandaid on a gaping wound. If we are to try to address issues of violence in children, then why aren't we concerned about activities children are ENCOURAGED to participate in that aren't simulations of violence, but actual acts of violnce, namely contact sports? You can't have it both ways remember? You can't say that videogames teach children to be violent but sports such as football, wrestling, boxing, and hockey don't. Serioulsy people, think back to high school, who were the people getting into fights? Gamers or jocks?

So fine, I'll admit that it is contradictory to say that games can be used to teach but that they don't teach violence just as soon other people admit that to assume that virtual acts of violence can teach violence when actual acts of violence don't is just as silly. So when are people going to admit that athletics could POSSIBLY, for SOME people, OCCASIONALLY teach them to be more violent? The same time people get tired of looking for easy answers to difficult problems...

Still acting safe, but not thinking it?

[MoldyZero]

I know that I act safe. I drive safe, No points on my license, and have never physically hurt anyone, except for my younger brother (which siblings sometimes do), and have never killed anybody. The thing is, I don't THINK its wrong to hurt or kill anyone, or run them over with your car, given that you had reason. I've seriously thought like that for years. Never got in the way, but I've tended to be a violent person inside. I've thought of punching my boss, and more (which I will not comment upon, as one of you may be... well, You get the picture). Its not the games. Its not completely the parents. Its how people treat you during your child hood.

Looking at it from the opposite side...

[MattRog]

To people who say "Video games/TV/media/etc. are to blame":
Can I sue the Mr.Rogers Show for turning you into a sissy? :D

Already wrong

[BinaryMonk]

If I made a game about cutting people's heads off and using them as hood ornaments as you drive around town, and them some kid played my game and decided to do the same thing in life, it's a pretty safe bet he already had something wrong with him before he played my game. It's also a pretty safe bet that if he hadn't used the idea from my game, he would have eventually found another way to carry out the plans of the voices in his head...

This is interesting.....

[davcorp]

I find the judge's decision pretty interesting considering the following excerpt was leaked last December from Eric Harris', and Dylan Klebold's Journal following their suicide at Columbine:

..god damnit do not blame anyone else besides me and V [Klebold] for this. don't blame my family, they had no clue and there is nothing they could have done, they brought me up just fucking fine. don't blame the school, don't fucking put cops all over the place... i don't know who will be left after we kill but damnit don't change any policies just because of us. it would be stupid....

You can read the full excerpt in this month's issue of Harpers Magazine (the above which I gleefully paraphrased...)

Re:Is THAT why I ran over all this school children

[YellowSubRoutine]

problem inherit to slashdot moderation and stuff.. There is no ideal system, so take moderations with a grain of salt...

Video Games not Played Enough

[Anonymous Coward]

The problem is that not everyone plays video games. They don't know what to do when approached by someone with a gun.

As I learned, the best way to avoid getting shot was through Counter-Strike which was to bunny hop while running away. Another tactic that they could have used was to strafe left or right. Also if there are any laying around run over any health packs or float armor as well power-up icons.

If they had only knew about these simple but effective tactics there would not be as many tradegies as there are today...

Flightsims are Flightsims...

[Qbertino]

...and FPS are Massacresims. Period.
I play UT myself and enjoy T2 on a regular basis (I play in a clan) but it really boils down to just plain that.
FPS train the visual expierience and hand to eye coordination of splattering things/monsters/humanoids/people with a movement of your finger and reduce the social reluctance to hurt/kill/splatter other moving things that scream and bleed that way and reduce the human violance threshhold substacialy when it comes to firearms. Especially if played extensively without any normal social interaction otherwise.
That's all scientifically prooven a dozen times and more.
If I where king of the US I'd actually prohibit such display of violence on TV and especially in FPS. Nerf Arena Blast can have just the very same tactical challange and the same mechanisim as UT without the screaming and twitchíng and bleeding.
It's just that FPS apeal to this animal like instinct that makes people buy not the stuff with the best game mechanisims, but with the most realisticcally displayed massacreing.
To my opinion FPS makers to some extent actually could be held liable for the misery caused. But then again it's american law that puts teachers who dare issue sexual education into jail but on the other side allows 12 year olds to get their copy of Hitman 2 without any restictions.
No wonder all this crapp happens.

Understandable...

[cnelzie]

That is true parents are unable to be with their children 24/7. However, the time that they are with their children, they need to instill values and teach the difference between right and wrong.

Sure, there are some children that you will never be able to teach the difference between right and wrong. Typically, those children have severe mental disorders. Which, if I am remembering correctly, describes the two kids from Columbine. I believe that one or both were on psycotropic medication.

While the next few words that I write will be terrible and it was a terrible time in our country for people with mental disorders, it did happen.

30 years ago, children with mental disorders were not allowed in normal schools and many were not put into society. They were confined to state run mental institutions. While the conditions were terrible in most of those places and they cost a whole helluva lot of money to maintain, those children and adults were kept out of society and were kept in a manner that protected both themselves and society as a whole.

Durring the past 30 years, those hospitals have begun to be shutdown by "well-meaning" government officials and people that simply want to save the taxpayers money. Since that time, those children and adults that were dangerous to society have been thrust into a society that is unable to cope with them. These people are put on heavy mind-altering psycotropic medication that they would rather not take, because they don't feel normal and functional when on that medication.

The majority of those people are not dangerous and would not, even if they were off of their medication. I have a very close friend that is one of the non-dangerous types. It is scary when he is off of his medication, but he poses only a danger to himself.

Unfortunately, the dangerous, murderous types are also walking about in society. Free to stop taking their medication at any time. They could be your next-door neighbor. The scary bum walking down the street. These people were once kept from society, as terrible as the conditions were society had fewer of these issues.

You and I know the difference between right and wrong. People that suffer from severe mental disorders do not and nothing will stop them from doing what they will do.

The following link is to a site that has some additional information regarding all of the children that have committed those terrible acts of violence in schools. Please not that most of them were some form of mind-altering medications prescribed by psychiartrists.

http://www.natreformassn.org/statesman/00/schvio l. html

Attempting to hide violence from children is never going to save society. Violence has existed within society for thousands of years and will continue to exist for longer than that.

--
.sig seperator
--

Delusional? What society has become is Delusional.

[cnelzie]

That is true parents are unable to be with their children 24/7. However, the time that they are with their children, they need to instill values and teach the difference between right and wrong.

Sure, there are some children that you will never be able to teach the difference between right and wrong. Typically, those children have severe mental disorders. Which, if I am remembering correctly, describes the two kids from Columbine. I believe that one or both were on psycotropic medication.

While the next few words that I write will be terrible and it was a terrible time in our country for people with mental disorders, it did happen.

30 years ago, children with mental disorders were not allowed in normal schools and many were not put into society. They were confined to state run mental institutions. While the conditions were terrible in most of those places and they cost a whole helluva lot of money to maintain, those children and adults were kept out of society and were kept in a manner that protected both themselves and society as a whole.

Durring the past 30 years, those hospitals have begun to be shutdown by "well-meaning" government officials and people that simply want to save the taxpayers money. Since that time, those children and adults that were dangerous to society have been thrust into a society that is unable to cope with them. These people are put on heavy mind-altering psycotropic medication that they would rather not take, because they don't feel normal and functional when on that medication.

The majority of those people are not dangerous and would not, even if they were off of their medication. I have a very close friend that is one of the non-dangerous types. It is scary when he is off of his medication, but he poses only a danger to himself.

Unfortunately, the dangerous, murderous types are also walking about in society. Free to stop taking their medication at any time. They could be your next-door neighbor. The scary bum walking down the street. These people were once kept from society, as terrible as the conditions were society had fewer of these issues.

You and I know the difference between right and wrong. People that suffer from severe mental disorders do not and nothing will stop them from doing what they will do.

The following link is to a site that has some additional information regarding all of the children that have committed those terrible acts of violence in schools. Please not that most of them were some form of mind-altering medications prescribed by psychiartrists.

http://www.natreformassn.org/statesman/00/schvio l. html

Attempting to hide violence from children is never going to save society. Violence has existed within society for thousands of years and will continue to exist for longer than that.

--
.sig seperator
--

Second Ammendment to the rescue

[SimCash]

It is pretty much a scientific fact (high probability) that viewing/playing violent video games increases the probability that a person will react violently or use violence to settle disputes. In addition, the games tend to desensitize players by reducing their ability to empathize with "targets". The military knows this, they use such tools to desensitize soldiers so they will overcome their natural tendency to not shoot people. The fact that you yourself drive across town without plowing down pedestrians is called "anecdotal" and as such proves jack-shit. Failing to understand the difference is probable cause to believe that you are incompetent to vote on any issues that are not reducible to simple statements like "no parking after midnight".

Having said that, the question is "how large must the change in probability be before we should attempt to control violent video games". The answer comes in two parts - Ammendment I to the Constitution says (more or less) that the delta must be infinite before I can stop the virtual-training; Ammendment II lets me say "bring it on you desensitized cyberpunk".

The Nurture Assumption

[rufusdufus]

A large number of posts here are implying that parents are responsible for their childrens actions. Sounds reasonable. But Judith Harris's hypothesis makes even more sense [after you have read her ideas not just some post on slashdot].

Her idea is grounded in evolutionary theory, the conclusion of which "parents have little or no long-term effect on thier children's personality, intelligence, or mental health"

The basic idea is that children will spend the bulk of their lives with their peers, not their parents, thus are biased [by evolution] to learn their social behaviors from peers. Actually there are two modes of behavior, one with parents, the other with peers. The behavior around peers becomes their adult behavior, while the behavior with parents only occurs in thier presense.

I cannot give the full rational for the idea here, but especially if you disagree with me, I suggest you go read her book, it will convince you.

Once you buy her thesis, the connection then to video games is: are video games our children's peers? For some children, they may well be! Probably a good warning is that parental supervision during video game play may subjegate the learned behavior into the first mode, rather than the second.

Funny you should mention that...

[CAIMLAS]

Funny that you should mention that little blurb about GTA3... I have a friend that played GTA3 fairly nonstop over this past Christmas break - for at least 3 days. He told me after coming over to my house that while driving there, he had the strange urge to stop his car, get out, and steal someone else's car, and drive erratically. Now, had he been a weaker-willed individual, or just plain retarded/stupid... it might be possible.

Ever play a game for countless hours (say, a new game, or a new genre or some such thing), and then stop playing, and have what I think might best be called 'residual mental images' of parts of the game? I recall that happening to me after beating Max Payne, and sometime after Counter-Strike beta 6. I kept seeing 'bad guys' and such.

...and more recently, as in, the last 3 days, I've been playing Dynasty Warriors 3... I decided it was best for me to PUT THE CONTROLLER ON THE GROUND AND STEP AWAY FROM THE COUCH(!) when I started to imagine myself attacking the people running in the gym and to classes with a long stick and a sharp metal medalions on its end...

Bad parenting has always existed.

[janimal]

So society has at least _some_ responsibility to fulfill here - see foster homes, boot camps, guidelines for schools, even jails. IMHO, if there is to be any unity, violent games/TV should be censored/limited to the same degree or more than pr0n/nudity. This is not to say that I think pr0n/nudity isn't overcensored. Just that there is no balance on either side.

Violent games _do_ have an effect, which has to be recognised. There are intelligent folk, I'm sure most posters here qualify, who can distinguish between fiction and reality.

But for our benefit, we should take a little responsibility out of the hands of the stupid. Put the violence in an 18 and up section along with the pr0n. Actually, I would tone down the pr0n to a 16 and up section, and keep the violence in the 18+.

In this scenario the smart parent will make the choice to *actively* make a violent game available to the kid. This will not limit rights, but would limit reckless parenting in its bad side effects.

Blame Canada

[Ethelthefrog]

".... and kick up a stink and make a fuss before someone thinks of blaming us".

Trey Parker & Matt Stone- from South Park: Bigger Longer and Uncut