Slashdot Mirror
Connecticut Group Wants Your Violent Videogames — To Destroy Them
DavidGilbert99 writes with this excerpt from IB Times: "The Sandy Hook shooting once again raised the debate about how much power violent videogames wield over teenagers. Following proclamations from the National Rifle Association and the establishment of a study by the National Academy of Sciences to investigate the psychological effects of violent games on children, a group in Connecticut is now having its say Southington, a town 30 miles from where the shooting took place, is offering gift tokens in exchange for violent videogames, as well as other violent media such as DVDs or videos. The group, called SouthingtonSOS, said in a statement: 'There is ample evidence that violent video games, along with violent media of all kinds, including TV and movies portraying story after story showing a continuous stream of violence and killing, has contributed to increasing aggressiveness, fear, anxiety and is desensitizing our children to acts of violence including bullying.'" And Yes, they plan to destroy the traded-in games. (Note: Beware the obnoxious auto-playing video ad with sound; adjust volume accordingly.)
I'd be willing to give up some of my old titles that I no longer play if they'd give me more value than gamestop...
"Action without philosophy is a lethal weapon; philosophy without action is worthless."
People should play more pinball.
They can have my violent video games when they pry them from my cold dead hands!
Clearly, the only solution is to install a violent videogame playing security guard at the entrance to each school.
1. Create a simple violent video game
2. Buy a large set of cheap DVDs and burn it on them
3. Exchange DVDs for a set of gift tokens
4. Profit!
I'll believe that video games result in violent behaviour the day when someone gets arrested for mass murdering pigs by hurling various birds at them.
i really REALLY don't get this obsession with linking violent video games to violent behavior. Take yours truly:
Born in 1980, I played all the big titles: From Wolfenstein, Doom, Solider of Fortune, to whatever latest titles are out (I can't remember what all the Call of Duty flavors are called, but you get the idea). Hell, I even designed Doom and Half-Life levels based on my old high school (shit, don't tell anyone or they'll come after me next!!!)
At some point in my 20s, I joined the Marines for 4 years, so I know how to use a rifle.
Neither before nor after my service have i EVER had violent tendencies that made me go on a shooting spree. I deal with stress every day (Hello IT, working for an international liquor company that needs to be up 24/7) yet I still score normal blood pressure numbers.
I just don't get this obsession. There are always a few nuts. The rest of us are fairly well-adjusted.
Stupid media. Stupid fear-mongering. Stupid people.
done ranting now.
S/F
This sig contains repetition and redundancy.
Prohibition started with old biddies moral panicing about alcohol. You sound like an old biddy trying to reframe criticism of their behavior.
After all, they are asking people to voluntarily turn in their video games which people are free to do -- or not. This stands in stark contrast to those who would ban violent video games entirely and who would most likely support video game confiscation and for those who really want to play violent video games, background checks and registration. By requiring registration, it ensures that some newspaper will publish a map as to who owns violent video games or not so that violent video game owner's friends and neighbors may demonize them.
Meanwhile, I'll burn a stack of CD's that I can turn in for a stack of coupons.
The fact that witnesses in Columbine, Aurora, and Colorado have said the shooters were seen bunny hopping around to get from one place to another should suffice.
Violent crime is sharply down-down-down in the US since it peaked in 1995: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crime_in_the_United_States#Crime_over_time
Folks might want to check the crime stats before making blanket statements about "increasing" levels of violent crime due to video games or access to computers. The Internet era has turned into the safest era since violent crimes shot up in the mid-70's, and rates of homicides and property crimes are at their lowest point since the 60's.
Someone needs to set up and publicize an NRA-branded parody site offering a guns-for-games exchange where the site offers free firearms in exchange for violent video games.
Log in or piss off.
Whatever the generation in power didn't grow up with becomes the Bogeyman. In the 60s through the 80s it was that Devil music Rock And Roll. In the 90s it was Rap. Now it's Violent video games. After violent video games I'm sure it'll be something else to blame for the problems in society.
People just have bad memories and think when They Grew Up, it was some golden age. Nope.. no societal problems in the 50s or 60s. No Sirrr-ee.
So what of all those children in other Western countries who watch the same movies and TV shows and play the same video games and have nearly the same access to weapons as do Americans, yet they don't go on violent rampages with the frequency of Americans?
Maybe the temperature needs to be a bit higher than 451.
It's better to vote for what you want and not get it than to vote for what you don't want and get it.
- E. Debs
Not sure about student athletes, but there was the recent case of Jovan Belcher, a professional football player who killed his girlfriend, drove to the team headquarters, and killed himself in front of his head coach and GM. Also relevant is that the jocks are much more likely to be involved in assaults, rapes, vehicular homicides, and other violent acts other than shooting up a school.
George Carlin had this one right: ""They say it's the quiet ones you have to watch. Yeah, and while you're watching a quiet one, a noisy one will kill ya!"
I am officially gone from
No, the jocks don't do they actual shooting themselves. But they are likely the ones who bullied the nerd into the rage that triggered the nerd's violent actions, so they are also responsible to some degree.
I played hockey since I was 5, and also played for my high school for a year. But I had to quit - because of all the idiot jocks and their homophobia, misogyny, and general distaste for anything they couldn't understand or was slightly different from them. You should have heard the shit that was talked about in the locker room. Yeah, those dumb louts sure had a firm grip on their emotions all right.
"But this one goes to 11!"
Jocks go on to become executives, lawyers, and politicians. Social outcasts might shoot up a movie theater every year or so, but it was jocks who got us into Iraq and caused civilian casualties in the hundreds of thousands.
Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
When's the last time you saw somebody who was a student athlete shoot up a school or movie theater?
Sports are charged with testosterone, true, but they also teach people how to lose gracefully and that losing is a part of life. I'd trust some football-playing hothead who says what's on his mind and cools down minutes after a rage much more than some silent, coddled, brooding nerd-loser who chooses to mass-murder out of anger at their own weakness and defeatism.
So in short, you accuse athletes of being bullies and brutes, but it turns out that the dumb louts actually manage their emotions better than you do.
-- Ethanol-fueled
No, student athletes don't shoot up movie theaters, they just rape girls and brag about it to their friends. Then the school community covers it up for them because in redneck America highschool football "stars" are the darlings of town.
I'm a good cook. I'm a fantastic eater. - Steven Brust
I will just point out that I've been through this before with the scares in the 1980's around "Dungeons and Dragons". Which was considered then a clearly dangerous game - after all, children who liked to pretend that they lived as heroes in a violent universe killing monsters would clearly grow up to be violent maniacs. As we now know, D&D is mostly dangerous in terms of "if you let it slip that you like D&D, the jocks will beat you up." and the theories that D&D would teach the children to be violent have been (largely) refuted.
-Peter
the solid, obvious line between voluntary association and coercion
Apparently, this line between voluntary mind control and coercive mind control is not obvious to everyone. For example, on which side do religious movements such as Jehovah's Witnesses fall, especially considering their practice of shunning those who have left their religion?
Presuming that an open-source violent video game exists
Xonotic anyone?
Old biddies and their moral panics cause more problems than anything old biddies panic over.
Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
Disco still SUCKS!
the preceding comment is my own and in no way reflects the opinion of the Joint Chiefs of Staff
I don't care if people criticize video games - I'm opposed to people demonizing video games, when the facts seem to say otherwise. In regards to video game related crime, from http://www.theeca.com/video_games_violence website:
Incidentally, something like 2 days later a guy kills a couple of firemen with the same gun (a Bushmaster .223) and the guy is obviously not a video game player, but we won't mention that anywhere. Another guy shoots up a shopping mall and also is not known to be a video game player, so no talk of what caused his craziness. Suddenly the media hears "the shooter is a video game player" and Jesus is on the fucking cross and video games are to blame.
I have to question the neutrality of any article that includes something like this line: Some include cut scenes (i.e., brief movie clips supposedly designed to move the story forward) of strippers.
Really? Do they? And is the author trying to make a point about the violence of games in some sort of actual scientific manner, or is just trying to convince people games are 'bad' so threw in a line about strippers, which has nothing at all to do with violence?
And then there's this hilarious paragraph, speaking of climate change deniers: One frequently overlooked factor in this debate is the role of scientific theory. Pure empirical facts often have relatively little meaning and are seldom convincing. When those same facts fit a broader theory, especially one that has been tested in other contexts, those facts become more understandable and convincing.
Yeah, those empirical facts have no meaning at all! They only have meaning once we've invented a theories and forced the facts into it.
Please note this isn't some Wikipedia article about the scientific method, this is a scientific paper that is attempting to explain why other scientists who take issue with their 'empirical facts' should be ignored.
Pro-tip: If a 'scientist' starts explaining how the scientific method doesn't 'really' work very well for whatever they are researching...THEY ARE A CRANK.
If corporations are people, aren't stockholders guilty of slavery?
I find it hilarious they think children are desensitized to bullying.
That's hilariously stupid on so many levels. For one thing, if kids were desensitized to bullying, it wouldn't be bullying! Secondly, it's the goddamn adults who refuse to pay any attention to bullying, at least until the person being bullied snaps.
If corporations are people, aren't stockholders guilty of slavery?
My evidence is experience and empirical. A typical Bushmaster AR 15 , which while looks mean is a pretty cheap gun, freshly taken out of the box is not going to shoot thousands of rounds without issues. They need to be broken in, maintained, and gotten used to. I've seen plenty of people show up at the range with their brand new NRA hats and take out their shiny new black rifle, typically an AR 15 of some sort, try to pop off 15 rounds as fast as they can only to get 6 off. Or if it does work sit there scratching their heads wondering why they missed with every single shot. Malfunctions are quite common, for some definition of common which is arguable, for those who don't really know what they are doing and haven't taken care of things properly. All i'm saying is there is more to being proficient than possessing a gun, and video games don't help any.
The NRA is full of memeber who ahve no wish to actual confront this issue.
With respect to firearms you have things absolutely backwards. Unlike with video games, the NRA is well informed and has the facts on their side regarding firearms.
... and a serious look at the that data about gun control. Something they stop wanting about 15 years ago when the data very clearly shows a decrease in killing when guns are severly restricted.
You are mistaken. The data actually shows no correlation. There are regions in the US with severe restrictions where the murder rate is low and there are regions with lax firearms regulations where the murder rate is low. Its not the presence or absence of firearms itself that leads to a low murder rate, there are some other factors that do so. More likely it has something to do with education and poverty. Lets look at Switzerland where many households have real assault rifles (fully automatic), high capacity magazines and 300 rounds of ammunition in their home. One difference between the Swiss and the US is that the Swiss did receive proper training and keep the weapon and ammunition locked up.
.22 calibre, basically anything with a full or partial copper jacket. The NRA helped rewrite the legislation so it applied only to the teflon coated ammunition notorious for penetrating body armor. Again naive gun control types got all hysterical over plastic guns and drafted legislation to outlaw everything without some number of ounces of steel. The problem here is that many firearms that are perfectly detectable in metal detectors are using metal alloys that are not technically steel. The NRA helped rewrite this legislation so that it only banned firearms that were not detectable in the metal detectors of the day.
You want more real data? Hunting related accidents dropped dramatically after hunter safety classes became required in the US in order to get a hunting license. Anyone who has had such a class can testify that the majority of the class is basic firearms safety. 1/3 of firearms deaths are accidents. Many of these deaths could probably be prevented by requiring firearms owners to take a safety class before they get their first gun, much like hunters are required to take their safety class before they get their first license.
As far as the NRA goes with respect to reasonable legislation. They have helped write some. When naive gun control types got all hysterical over cop-killer bullets these folks drafted legislation that would outlaw all ammunition with some sort of coating. This would have outlawed nearly all ammunition over
Similarly the "assault weapon" bans are also largely hysteria. There is no difference in capability between the so called "assault weapons" and normal semiauto hunting rifles. Both fire the same ammunition and when a hunting magazine (5 round max) is inserted into the "assault weapon" it fire no more rounds and no faster than the hunting rifle. On the flip side when a military magazine (say 30 round capacity) is put into the hunting rifle it has the same capability as the "assault weapon" with such a magazine. The only differences between the "assault weapon" and the semiauto hunting rifle are cosmetic, appearance not function.
NRA members and many firearms owners understand this. That is why the last time an "assault weapon" ban was passed firearms owning republicans, democrats and independents who had no interest in buying an "assault weapon" threw out many of the politicians who voted for the ban. They rightfully feared that their regular semiauto hunting and sporting rifles and shotguns were in danger of being banned next. It happened in various European countries. The original "assault weapon" ban legislation in the US specifically listed certain firearms designs that did not include regular hunting and sporting firearms but this legislation also allowed the Secretary of the Treasury (oversees Alcohol Tobacco
There are 3 types of gun-owners imo.
1. Hunters. I am not worried about them. I've confronted armed hunters in the woods. They have actually killed and eaten living things and understand death.
2. Video-gamers. They point and click and pretend-kill things. I am not worried about them even if they own a gun because real life shooting is not anything like gaming. (I suspect most don't own a gun at all which is why I don't count them in this list)
3. Sport shooters who frequent ranges. These assholes scare the shit out of me. They have never killed anything at all so aren't actually familiar with the destructive capability of their weapon. In addition, they are intimately trained in its use and they _like_ to shoot.
4. Scared citizens who buy a gun for protection. These guys aren't too bad but do cause most of the gun destruction in the US, either simply by having a gun int he house to make it easy for suicide and accident or by having it in reach of some angry guy whose girlfriend just broke up with him and now he's gonna make her pay along with anyone else who happens to be in the vicinity.
As far as the NRA proposal, if we suggested putting an armed guard at every single school in Afghanistan, would that be a sign we are winning the war there or losing it?
In fact, young men (age 17-24) play a lot of video games, and at the same time young men (age 17-24) have ALWAYS committed most of the violent acts in a society. It's a function of testosterone fueled aggressive emotions, and in Western culture it is particularly exacerbated by high levels of alcohol and drug abuse. Take away the booze and drugs from younger men, and you will find that the video games and heavy metal music and gore movies and other factors probably wouldn't have much effect at all. And keep in mind, in Western culture prescription drugs are also abused with tremendous frequency (in some cases even more frequently than popular illegal drugs), and those can have a profound effect on inciting violence. So we aren't just talking about abuse of illegal drugs.
Yes... not much critical thinking skills at all.
They want to buy used videogame and destroy it, taking it off the market. For good.
Now, the customer of that game is forced to buy, at full price and royalties to author, another full licensed version, instead of buying the recycled one, from which only the reseller, not the author, profits.
This maximizes the profit for the author of the despised works.
"Prove all things; hold fast that which is good." [KJV: I Thessalonians 5:21]
Now, the customer of that game is forced to buy, at full price and royalties to author, another full licensed version, instead of buying the recycled one, from which only the reseller, not the author, profits.
How much are they giving per game? Because if it works like some gun-buybacks, you'll get people bringing in old copies of Daikatana and using the resulting certificates to buy the latest call of duty...
I've seen it multiple times - a gunnie will collect 'scrap metal' guns worth maybe $20 for the metal in them, then go to Chicago for a gun buyback and get $100 gift certificates for them. Most of the guns don't even work, or would be unsafe to fire if they did. They then proceed to buy a nice NEW gun for their collection.
I don't read AC A human right