Slashdot Mirror
Researcher Finds No Link Between Violent Games and School Shootings
GamePolitics writes "A researcher at Texas A&M International University has found no link between playing violent video games and school shootings. Prof. Christopher Ferguson cites 'moral panic' and criticizes politicians, the news media and some social scientists for playing up what he believes is a false connection between video games and school shooting incidents. Quoting: 'Actual causes of violent crime, such as family environment, genetics, poverty, and inequality, are oftentimes difficult, controversial, and intractable problems. By contrast, video games present something of a "straw man" by which politicians can create an appearance of taking action against crime.'"
You think that is obvious? You don't think poison or a big bomb might be a lot more effective?
Since when do we not restrict people having large explosives or biological weapons?
Since when does poison=biological weapon? We do very little to restrict the purchase of poison because so much of what we use every day is poisonous in the wrong context. As for explosives, any kid who can get ahold of their parent's guns can get instructions for making bombs out of everyday materials. I know I made some as a kid, just for fun.
Just because the GP didn't mention these weapons, you assume that he wants to restrict guns but not restrict explosives.
No, I assumed you didn't want to stupidly try to restrict access to everything starting with guns then moving into knives and swords and sticks and anything heavy and anything toxic, etc., etc. because it a lost cause and dreadfully ineffective for anything other than getting votes if you happen to be a politician that like scaring people.
Talk about a fucking straw man, sheesh.
You don't know what a straw man argument is, do you?
Do people need to make a hypothesis for every claim they make?
No, but that isn't the point. Rational people need support for their beliefs. hypothesis was proposed, however informally. I was simply asking if there was any reason to believe that hypothesis, the on they professed to believe, had any support at all and hence there was any reason for rational people to believe it. If you're irrational that's fine, but it isn't very persuasive.
If you got attacked by a mugger, would you rather be mugged by an armed person or not?
That depends on the mugger. In many cases I would rather they had a gun because they would feel more confident and are less likely to kill me with a violent attack and instead just tell me to give them my wallet and leave. But what I would rather is not really important. What matters is if more people are wrongfully killed or injured if guns are available. We do have data on that subject.
Don't be stupid.
I think I'll "be stupid" and actually believe the data from formal studies rather than just assume your uninformed opinions are right despite you having nothing to back them.