Gamers Grapple With VA Tech Shooting

I imagine it's been a hard week for a lot of people; gamers in particular have been jumping to defend their hobby from the likes of Dr. Phil and Jack Thompson, both of whom were quick to link gaming and the tragedy in Virginia. Despite their vigor, it seems like game enthusiasts can breathe easily this week. As far as most people can tell, gaming was in no way involved. Even the mainstream media is coming to realize that gaming isn't always the right place to turn when youth violence grabs the headlines. Just the same, some activist gamers are still trying to make sure their hobby comes out of this unscathed, and at least some folks think they may be overdoing things: "While I'm all for activism for one's beliefs, I really think this may do more harm then good. As gamers, we feel a need to defend our passion, but we run the risk of ending up looking no better than those seeking to shift blame, while further disrupting the already-mourning. I say that the thing to focus on at this point is simply remembering those lost and cherishing what we still have. Now's not the time for political vendettas, and gamers need to step down and just humbly accept the fact that blame will always be shifted to the popular youth activities: be it a KISS concert, a video game, or something else."

Comments

Jesus is to blame!

[fredrikj]

From Wikipedia: "In one of the videos, Cho compares himself to Jesus Christ, explaining that his death will influence generations of people."

Re:Jesus is to blame!

[FooAtWFU]

It should be important for would-be martyrs comparing themselves to Jesus to note that, by most accounts, Jesus didn't take anybody with him when he went down. I mean, his buddy Peter tried that stunt and sliced off somebody's ear, but he got yelled at for it, and some claim that Jesus even went and put it back on.

Re:Jesus is to blame!

[melikamp]

I wish I could mod you up. People are so intent on dragging in anything they do not like and citing it as a possible cause, it makes my head hurt. Even Eric Harris, who was a big fan of FPS games (designed maps, ran a website) clearly stated that they had nothing to do with his motives. In this latest case, drawing any kind of parallel with games is just evil. These people will use anything that is sensational and bullshit as much as they can to advance their private agenda.

I am sure that the gun control party will have their heyday with this case. They won't care that shooters like Harris and Cho prepare for months and have no scruples with breaking the law. I am not arguing pro or con here (I am still unsure myself), but it is clear to me that

(1) even making all guns illegal will not stop a determined shooter from acquiring them, and, otoh,

(2) making guns legal for everyone will not reduce casualties, because shooters always get to choose time, place, and "audience".

Re:Jesus is to blame!

[SatanicPuppy]

One of the most appealing arguments I ever heard for gun control was for pistols specifically.

I believe in the right to bear arms, but pistols make me nervous, and hell, they're not much use in most cases. Home invasion? 12 gauge semi-auto loaded with buckshot...Only get 5 shots, but the last three will only be making tiny pieces out of little pieces. Guerrilla war against a repressive government? Automatic rifles.

Pistols? I can't think of a single situation where I wouldn't rather have a bigger, more accurate gun. The only thing they're good for is carrying concealed, and I don't believe in carrying concealed. If you're armed, it should be right out there in the open, none of this sneaky ass concealed crap...What possible rationale is there for carrying concealed? The point is to deter crime, right? Isn't that always the argument? You're not deterring crap if it's concealed. Come up with a better deterrent than walking down the street with a shotgun over one shoulder...You'll have the whole damn sidewalk to yourself.

I've known a lot of pistol carriers in my life, and just about every damn one of 'em pissed me off. Every dumbass with kids who keeps a loaded pistol under the seat of his car, or in his damn desk...If I ever hear the phrase "the safety's on" (after they've pointed it at me) one more time, I'm killing the dumbass who says it.

You know whats sad? Introspecting here. I don't think guns should be controlled because I want to keep them away from criminals...It'd be nice, but it won't happen. What I want to do is keep 'em away from goddamn tubby suburbanites who think they need that gun. What a world.

Re:Jesus is to blame!

[pi_rules]

He also turned water into wine, and any college kid that cold do that would be the most popular SOB on campus!

Re:Jesus is to blame!

[Creepy]

He also says the Columbine killers were his heroes, which pretty much tells me they were his influence. The Columbine killers were likely influenced by postal rampages that started in the 1980s, but just changed the venue to a school.

It's also not the first time some whackjob serial killer has said he either was Jesus or was some kind of prophet. Take Jonestown founder Jim Jones, Branch Davidian David Koresh, or remorseless murderer Charles Manson.

Starcraft

[PachmanP]

He was Korean. Starcraft has to be involved some how.

Breaking News

[jkiol]

Water linked to mass murderers'! The killer at VA Tech drank water, and there is a lot of supporting evidence that other serial killers also drank water as well.

What about...

[richdun]

...the shooting at UT-Austin back in the 1960s? Someone see Counter-Strike in a premonition?

Seriously, gamers aren't "grappling" with anything. It's the idiots on TV who can't seem to get ratings from speaking intelligent, well-thought, insightful words and have to resort to fear-mongering and dumbassery (TM). Nothing for anyone to see here, please move along.

Re:What about...

[Greyfox]

Yes, honestly. The media in general and the 24 hour news channels in particular will say just about anything to fill another long news hour. There is currently a lot more coverage of the news than their is actual news. Or should I say, there's no news that's easy to get to. There's plenty of stuff to cover and actual journalists might make an effort to get to it, but CNN and Fox News are not News. They're entertainment masquerading as news.

Cho was a nut job plain and simple. Beyond that the media can not add anything insightful or useful. "Nut job kills some people at a college in the USA." End of story. Ironically on NPR a couple of days ago the news went like this: "A bomber in Baghdad blew himself and 200 other people up. And in other news, we have a 2 hour interview with a guy who knew a guy who knew Cho and says this all could have prevented if only..." Well not that exactly but that's the general idea. You want to know what it's like to live in Iraq right now? Imagine this massacre at Virginia Tech happening every day and in your own back yard. Or how about Darfur, where this sort of massacre happens daily except that the people doing the killing are using machetes.

Not that I mean to belittle the events at Virginia Tech. The people who went through that will be scarred for the rest of their lives. It's just a pity that the media can't be bothered to give that level of attention to anything that happens outside this country, whether we're directly responsible for those events (As is the case in Iraq) or not. Oh, and if any of the media is reading this, I'm pretty sure the violence in Iraq and Darfur isn't caused by violent video games either. Just to give you a heard start. Now off you go, and don't come back until you have a real story.

Dr. Phil

[brkello]

I guess I don't see what the big deal over what Dr. Phil said. He isn't saying violent games make these people kill. He is saying that mixing violent media with psychopaths is going to set these people off. Really, if gamers are so upset by this, they are over-reacting...probably from having to be on the defensive so much from morons like Jack.

Re:Dr. Phil

[PFI_Optix]

And there's some truth behind what Dr. Phil said. A violent person when exposed to violent media will tend to act...wait for it...more violently! Wow, what a novel concept.

Think of it this way: a conservative watching Fox News is going to have their conservative beliefs reaffirmed. An environmentalist at an Al Gore lecture will get the same. (And maybe a good nap, too. *zing!*) When you surround yourself with people and media that espouses beliefs like your own, you're going to embrace those more. If you are a violent, aggressive person and spend all your time listening to, watching, and playing violent entertainment, you are encouraging yourself to become more violent.

Violence is caused by bad parenting

[umStefa]

Violent video games have become the scapegoat for societies problems with violence because they are an easy target. Violent games can desensitize children to violence, but this is the fault of the child's parent / guardian. Children have a limited natural sense of what is right and wrong, it is the responsibility of parents to help their children develop a value system that works in society.

The problem is that too many parents fall into one of two categories:

a) The parents who shelter there children from all negative stimulus, and then turn them lose on society at 18 without the ability to determine right from wrong themselves. These new adults now go into society without having someone to tell them what to do and act out on the impulses.

b) The parents who do nothing to develop the child's sense of right from wrong. These parents belive that by never having a consequence for any action their child will magically develop a set moral values. Children who are raised like this can develop tendancies to lash out because they have been taught that their actions have no consequences.

Instead of banning violent video games, we should ban bad parents.

Re:Violence is caused by bad parenting

[drinkypoo]

Instead of banning violent video games, we should ban bad parents.

Amen to that! There should be a fucking license. In order to get one, you should have to have a job and insurance, be able to pass some basic tests, and so on.

We should also sterilize (as reversibly as possible) anyone who begins collecting AFDC or TANF, so that they cannot become a further drain on society.

Anyone who would name their child after a car or a bottle of alcohol is automatically disqualified. Disqualify their relatives if they would name their child after a misspelling of same. Kill their whole family if they name their child after a misspelling of a french name like "deseray". Those genes have got to go.

No, but seriously, I think people should have to get a high-maintenance pet. People who raise a well-adjusted pet can have a child license. People who don't can try again. Although I'm sure this will get a lot of flak from the no-cruelty-to-animals types, and I rather agree with them for the most part, I'd rather see people be bad with a pet than a child.

A friend's wife wanted a dog. He wanted to wait, but they got it anyway (of course) because she wouldn't let it alone. Since then he has become primarily responsible for an animal for which he was not prepared. But besides her lack of interest in cleaning up after the animal and such, she sends the dog mixed messages every time she talks to it. When she's upset she still uses her stupid baby voice. She's confusing that dog into oblivion. Think about people who do this shit to their kids! That is the real reason why you see people screaming at their children in the K-Mart when they do something wrong. The kids were programmed by their idiot parents giving them inconsistent messages when they did things they weren't supposed to do, and now some part of their brain thinks they're supposed to do those things!

Most people have no business whatsoever having children. They do not understand even the most basic principles of parenting. Frankly I have enough trouble with my pet (although she is very happy and loves me and all that, she loves me too much and is trying to get frisky with myself and my lady, which is very odd when it comes from a small parrot) and know that I don't need to be having children at this stage in my life. If I want to make a contribution to the lives of children, there are lots of other ways to do that. (Keep your dirty humor to yourself.)

Seung-Hui Cho was 23 years old.

[sesshomaru]

Seung-Hui Cho was 23 years old. Now, as far as I know, but I guess I'm old fashioned, 23 years old is an adult. Adults are allowed to drink, joing the army, by M rated video games, drive and by lots of guns. You know, because they are adults. They aren't impressionable children anymore.

I consider the whole, impressionable children thing to be dubious when we are dealing with older teenagers, anyway, but I consider it ridiculous when talking about adult men.

So, what then are Dr. Phil and Jack Thompson trying to say, that video games will turn anyone into a killer, even adults? I think it's interesting that this guy didn't commit any serious crimes until he was well into adult hood.

To me, this represents a shift in the debate. At Jonesboro, you had children commiting mass murder, so trying to figure out what made innocent little boys into monsters makes sense in a way. This is not what we have at Virginia Tech.

Are people going to do this with David Berkowitz now? Jeffrey Dahmer? etc? If some 40 year old murderer gets caught, are they going to check him for Counter Strike experience.

Nugent is smarter

[WaxParadigm]

Ted Nugent has a little more common sense than Jack Thomson when it comes to finding things that contributed to this event...

http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/04/19/commentary.nugent /index.html

Re:Nugent is smarter

[s20451]

All you do when you create a "Gun-Free Zone" is ensure the criminals that no one will be able to defend themselves. It pisses me off that everyone started talking about more gun control after this happened. It was already illegal for him to have it there and shoot those people. Did it stop him? Not at all. Would he have made it past the first 2 victims if students were allowed to carry firearms on campus? Hell no.

I'm not worried about being "unarmed" in a mass shooting, because those events are incredibly rare. You may as well wear a lightning rod and an aluminum body suit wherever you go, arguing that it's necessary to protect you against lightning strikes. It's about as likely to happen to you.

The thing is, I don't trust Cletus the Slack-Jawed Yokel to use his gun properly, especially since he can buy it down at the K-mart without training, testing, licensing, or even a background check that will pick up whether he is mentally unstable (as happened in the case of this Cho kid).

I am worried that Cletus will blow my head off as I reach for my wallet, which he mistakes for a gun. Or that he won't store it properly and his kid will blow my kid's head off as they play cops and robbers. Or a hundred other things that can go wrong when deadly weapons are as common and as well regulated as toasters.

I don't trust the potentially unskilled and irresponsible to have guns. If that means I can't have one either, so be it.

Indifference

[ZirbMonkey]

The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing. Kids picked on him in middle school. No one stood up for him.
Kids picked on him in high school. No one stood up for him.
Kids picked on him in college. He bought guns, and killing people.

The only time he every really stood up for himself was when he turned violent. And at that point it was too late. I think it's the culture of indifference that caused this to grow inside an emotionally unstable loner. It has nothing to do with the music he listened to, games he played, or lack of prayer in schools. Society did nothing more than try to ignore him, while he finally refused to be ignored. And in a tragic and unforgivable way, we all stood up to finally pay attention to what he had to say.

Re:Indifference

[Paulrothrock]

The scary thing is that, were it not for the influence of my girlfriend (now wife and soon to be mother of my child), I could have ended up like him. In reading his "rambling and incoherent manifesto," as people are calling it, I saw a lot of what I hated about my freshman year of college. I hated that everyone seemed to be there for hedonism. I hated that fraternities and sororities and sports teams got all the attention. I hated that I was ignored by everyone around me, and I started to resent them for it.

I was that way until I found a place where I could fit in; a smaller school, and an off-campus apartment with my then-girlfriend, and a little bit of that hedonism for myself. If this guy had someone in his life that could make him feel at home, and to reassure him that not everyone was heartless and self-centered, maybe we'd have 33 more people in the world today.

Re:Indifference

[laxpeter]

Except for the fact that many people tried to help him all along the way: College suitemates inviting him to dinner and trying to talk to him, one on one attention with professors, etc. Society repeatedly tried to reach out to him, and he coldly ignored us.
I'm really at a loss for where you're getting this idea of him being ignored, or even picked on, when all of the reports have shown the exact opposite - someone who forcefully ignored the rest of the world's attempts to include him.

Re:Indifference

[drinkypoo]

The even scarier thing to me is that were it not for the fact that I couldn't afford to go to a four year school, I probably would have ended up like him. I was picked on from sixth grade until I got out of school with a CHSPE at the age of fifteen. I was the big kid who was a mama's boy and thus a total pussy. So the only time I ever got into a real fight (and not just picked on by bullies) I gave the kid two black eyes and a bloody spot on his forehead from beating his head into the ground, and got expelled from the school by the administration which was too lazy to do its job. (This was Del Mar Middle School in Santa Cruz County, for those who keep track of such things.) The scary part of that story is that due to my ineptitude he ended up sitting on my back at one point, and I actually blacked out completely and when I came back to myself, I was sitting on his back and beating his head against the ground. (You can tell by the way I keep bringing that up that I am still both enthralled and repelled by this fact.) During that time I could have easily strangled him or gouged both his eyes out. It's a good thing all I did was get up and sit back down on him.

Frankly, I was basically the same person until about the age of 23 or so. It took me that long to "grow up", or something. That's when I stopped being a total mama's boy. Very strange that once I became more willing to commit violence, I became less violent in my heart. There's some kind of bizarre lesson there.

Schools need to make stopping bullying their number one priority for a variety of reasons. The MOST important one is that kids who grow up as bullies grow up into bullies. It creates a whole zero-sum kind of bully mindset that frankly I find to be pervasive throughout American society. But the other reason is that it could have the potential to stop crap like this from happening.

A lot of people say that harassment is what kids need to break out of their shells and become one with the game, but that's certainly not how it happened for me, and I maintain that it is helping to maintain our culture of alternating anger and apathy.

Re:Indifference

[g2devi]

Personally, from what I've read in his manifestos and the news, he wasn't picked on, but he did have a profound sense of isolation and a profound sense of desperation. He was too introverted for business school so switched to literature but wasn't talented there either. No-one seemed to understand him no matter how many people tried (and several did if you read the reports...he wasn't abandoned by society). He had no future, no hope for a future, and he felt could understand him and since so many had tried to reach him but failed, there didn't seem much hope that anyone could reach him.

Basically, he was at an agonizing dead end. What some call "a dark night of the soul" and others call "hitting bottom".

There are at least 7 places to go from there:

1) He could do something drastic to change his life. When you have nothing to lose, you have no fear of the consequences and you're immune to criticism because there's nothing "they" can do to you that's not already done. More than a few great people started off with the mantra "Oh yeah, well I'll show them".

2) He could luck out...either find people who can connect to him (the internet is great that way) or find a passion that could absorb his time and keep his mind off his isolation.

3) He could become more spiritual and realize that even in suffering there is meaning, and that while there is life, there is hope. It sounds corny, but people have gone through a lot worse and have come through it.

4) He could just give up life and go quietly.

5) He could just numb himself to everything with drugs or alcohol.

6) He could just give up life and go in a "blaze of glory", either by living recklessly with a death wish.

7) He could just give up life and go in a "blaze of glory", either by lashing out and taking down as many people with him as possible.

Most people see themselves to options 1-6, but option 7 is definitely an option if the person *completely* looks outside himself through hatred and jeolosy instead of inwards at his own deficiencies. If there's nothing inside, there's no fear, no pain, no pride, no empathy, no love, no loneliness, no remorse, just raw hatred, and final payback becomes the reason you were born, and getting back at "them" in the name of all those like you becomes the meaning of your life.

At least that's my theory. Only he would know for sure.

I've dealt successfully with people who were at the end of their rope and willing to either give in or were so obsessed with "them" that they were stuck in a downward spiral. I don't know if my experience is valid of 7s, but if my experience holds true, the best way to deal with 7s is to be empathetic and to use the socratic method and patient nonjudgmental listening to slowly chip away at his vendetta (without telling them what they should think) and redirecting his passion to (1) or some place else more constructive, because what other people do with their lives doesn't matter nearly as much as what you do with your own. This would only works if you know the source of their vendetta and I'm not sure that was clear to those around him, so I'm not sure if I could have helped any differently than those closest to him.

nothing to grapple with, really

[nuzak]

Going by all the accounts of his roommates, Cho didn't play videogames. Not that this will stop all the scapegoating and justifications, which is just human nature after all.

Knee-jerk

[russotto]

Knee-jerk reactions like this just go to show that people with an agenda will use anything to support their agenda, even if the simplest check reveals it doesn't do so. Anyone remember when Mayor David Dinkens used a stabbing to call for gun control?

So, who has jumped on the VA Tech bandwagon:
Gun control proponents (obviously)
Gun control opponents ("let them shoot back")
Violent game opponents ("It was just like a first-person shooter")
People who want more funding for mental health programs.
People who just want to put weirdos in nuthouses
Security people ("A rent-a-cop in every classroom keeps everyone safe. Oh, and us employed")
Security consultants (obviously)
Drug warriors (he must have been high to do that)
Drug legalization proponents (if he'd just smoked a little weed he'd have had a better perspective)

OK, I made the last two up. But Ariana Huffington (who falls into several other categories) validated "drug warriors" for me, though referring to legal drugs.

Personally, I blame Microsoft and SCO.

CHO DID NOT PLAY VIDEO GAMES!!!!!

[CPE1704TKS]

One of his suitemates was interviewed by Chris Matthews of MSNBC. Matthews was blatantly trying to get at the video game angle, asking the suitemate if he ever saw Cho playing video games, but the suitemate said emphatically "No". He never saw Cho do anything on his computer except type stuff on MS Word documents.

MAYBE WE SHOULD BAN MS WORD INSTEAD.

What I found striking was that the suitemate said there was never anything aggressive about Cho ever. He never got excited or angry, and even when they tried talking to him, Cho never reacted with disdain or disgust... he was simply emotionless. He said he never saw him do anything violent ever, and he only saw him either in his room or watching tv (wrestling and SpikeTV).

MAYBE WE SHOULD BAN WRESTLING AND SPIKE TV.

Mod parent up!

[6Yankee]

Damned mod points expired earlier, so I'll just reply. Yours has to be one of the most insightful posts about guns in all the many I've read in the past few days.

If I ever hear the phrase "the safety's on" (after they've pointed it at me) one more time, I'm killing the dumbass who says it.

There has to be a mechanism for getting those idiots' firearms licence revoked - and if there isn't then there should be. Anyone that stupid and irresponsible should not be trusted with a knife and fork, let alone a gun.

Re:Mod parent up!

[SatanicPuppy]

I'm pro-gun dammit. I like guns, I like shooting guns. But random unskilled jokers with pistols make me fricking crazy. That guys not going to see a criminal in his whole life, but there's a 50/50 chance that damn gun's going to go off by accident, and while the welfare of him and his spawn don't worry me, the welfare of bystanders (of which I may be one) worries me a lot.

I was raised around guns. I respect them, and I've never had an accident with a gun, and it's because I treat them like what they are...deadly weapons. I don't show 'em to people with the barrel parallel to the floor and a goddamn round in the CHAMBER. I've seen this crap over and over.

People always talk about Switzerland, and how they have more guns per capita than we do, and far less gun problems per capita. They also have mandatory military service, which forces people to learn how to use a gun intelligently.

There is no barrier to ownership here, and I'm fine with that in theory, but in practice it means a lot of people who have no business owning a gun, end up owning a gun. So compromise. Anyone can get a long gun, but you have to pass some serious tests for a pistol. We uphold the spirit of the Constitution, and maintain a little civil order as well.

selling a gun to a mentally ill person

[moz25]

As I understood from some of the news reports, Cho was already "on the radar" as a disturbed person as early as 2005. In fact, I believe the report said he was considered mentally (*) ill according to one of his psychologists.

What I've been wondering is: how come that someone who has "blipped" on the radar at least several times as a very disturbed person can still legally buy a gun? Now I know that a persistent person will be able to get a gun no matter what, but can we *please* make it a bit harder than going into a store and paying with your CC?