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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[_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.

[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.

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.

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.

[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.

[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.

[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: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?

[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.

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..

[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.

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........

[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........

[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........

[Cruciform]

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

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........

[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........

[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.

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!"

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?

[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?

[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?

[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: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.

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

[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

[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

[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

[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: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.

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.

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.

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.

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...

[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!

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.

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.

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...

[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...

[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...

[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.

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.

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...

[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.

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.

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.

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?

[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?

[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?

[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.

At least 1 document case of game related violence

[lightspawn]

Here.

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?

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.

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.

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

[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

[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

[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

[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.

[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: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

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:my tax dollar hard at work

[grytpype]

There should be a (-1 Dumbass) mod.

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 ;)

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:A new video game idea (bah!)

[Tony.Tang]

Check it out: Smurf Hunt.

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.

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.

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...

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.

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?

[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.

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.

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

[-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.

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.

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.

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: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: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 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...