Slashdot Mirror


Video Game Industry Starting To Feel Heat On Gun Massacres

An anonymous reader writes "While much of the scrutiny following the lone gunman-perpetrated massacres at Aurora, CO and Newtown, CT has fallen on the National Rifle Association and its lobbying efforts against gun control, the shooters in both of the aforementioned incidents seemed to have been encouraged by violence in movies and video games. The New York Daily News' Mike Lupica reported last week that investigators of the Newtown case found a huge spreadsheet in the Lanza home where 20-year old Adam Lanza had methodically charted hundreds of past gun massacres, including the number of people killed and the make and model of weapons used. A Connecticut policeman told Lupica 'it sounded like a doctoral thesis, that was the quality of the research', and added, '[Mass killers such as Lanza] don't believe this was just a spreadsheet. They believe it was a score sheet. This was the work of a video gamer'. In response, the Entertainment Software Association and other lobbyists representing the video game industry have ramped up their Washington lobbying efforts. While still tiny in dollar terms next to the NRA's warchest, this effort seemed to help derail a proposal to fund a Justice Department study of the effects of video games on gun violence, offered as an amendment on the gun control bill by a Republican senator. A spokesman summarized the ESA's position: 'Extensive research has already been conducted and found no connection between media and real-life violence.'"

30 of 1,006 comments (clear)

  1. The Stupidity, It Hurts! by eldavojohn · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The New York Daily News' Mike Lupica reported last week that investigators of the Newtown case found a huge spreadsheet in the Lanza home where 20-year old Adam Lanza had methodically charted hundreds of past gun massacres, including the number of people killed and the make and model of weapons used.

    Okay, so far none of this has anything to do with video games -- does it? Anyone with their mind set and with extreme determination to accomplish the goal would do the above. Hell, this sounds more like the fantasy football people at my office than the gamers.

    A Connecticut policeman told Lupica 'it sounded like a doctoral thesis, that was the quality of the research'

    So we should ban doctoral theses? We should halt all research? Yeah, if someone is incredibly determined to do something, they're going to make a science out of it and conduct super extensive research. This is true of anything from baseball card collecting to weightlifting to money management to drug dealing. Name a thing. Anything. Now imagine what someone would do if they took it to an extreme level. Yeah, that's what's going on here.

    '[Mass killers such as Lanza] don't believe this was just a spreadsheet. They believe it was a score sheet. This was the work of a video gamer'.

    You lost me. This is absolute bullshit. Statements that have more to do with a single person's determination suddenly linked to video games in what should be viewed as illogical stupidity. Oddly this statement can work for anything, weightlifters view their personal records and recorded journals as score sheets. Baseball card collectors view their completed sets and insert sets as score sheets. Farmers that are trying to get the most out of their fields look at their yields like score sheets. I mean, what about sports where you have actual score sheets and stats? Why are we not saying this was the work of an NFL running back or a second degree Taekwondo black-belt?

    He did outside research to carry out an incredibly difficult task? Sounds more like your average software documentation than your average video gamer -- time to protect people from research and documentation.

    Christ if you want to talk about restricting and banning things, look at the actual tools that he actually used to succeed in carrying out this horrible crime. Where is the logic that violent video games were instrumental in this horrible attack? Where is the link between his research and video games? Because it's a score sheet? Ridiculous!

    --
    My work here is dung.
    1. Re:The Stupidity, It Hurts! by fustakrakich · · Score: 5, Insightful

      It's not about guns and violence. It's a thinly veiled attempt at widening censorship in general and making it acceptable. Seeing that such propaganda itself is so effective, it's hard to doubt that video games do have an effect on people from that standpoint. The solution is to strengthen resistance to propaganda, something that needs to be done from infancy onward.

      --
      “He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
    2. Re:The Stupidity, It Hurts! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Or we could, you know, recognize that firearms are a significant force multiplier that make pulling off massacres like this far more trivial than they would be without these weapons.

    3. Re:The Stupidity, It Hurts! by LordLimecat · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Ah, OK, we'll protect the first amendment by gutting the second.

    4. Re:The Stupidity, It Hurts! by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · · Score: 5, Insightful

      "A Connecticut policeman told Lupica 'it sounded like a doctoral thesis, that was the quality of the research'"

      Has Officer Donut ever seen a doctoral thesis? You'd have to be going to a pretty shitty school if you can get a PhD for going all OCD on the media clippings file and copying down a spreadsheet full of kill stats...

    5. Re:The Stupidity, It Hurts! by hedwards · · Score: 5, Insightful

      And if we took reasonable precautions like background checks and limited magazine size to no more than 10 rounds, it would greatly inconvenience people that want to do this.

      Just because you're an idiot, doesn't make it any less reasonable to introduce moderate gun regulations. But, then again, the Australians banned people from owning guns privately who didn't have a reason, self defense wasn't an acceptable reason, and they haven't had a single mass murder in all those years.

      The reality here is that doing nothing because criminals would just break the law is a really, really stupid policy. The more inconvenient it is to commit the crime, the more opportunities there are for law enforcement to discover the plot and the more likely it is that the plot will just crumble on it's own.

    6. Re:The Stupidity, It Hurts! by AntEater · · Score: 5, Insightful

      The individual who committed the crime is definitely where the blame ultimately lies. What people are looking for isn't merely the blame but some cause that can then be legislated away so that this type of thing can be prevented in the future. I don't believe it'll ever be effectively done but I think that is the ultimate motivation. Our society tends to like to find "things" to blame (guns, music, games, etc) rather than addressing some of the social, family and personal issues that lead to horrible actions like this. Banning things is an easier task and creates the illusion of "doing something" about it.

      --
      Alex, I'll take keybindings not used by Emacs for $400....
    7. Re:The Stupidity, It Hurts! by dcollins117 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      It's really quite a stretch to observe that Lanza entered data in a spreadsheet and conclude that videos games are even partially to blame for the mass shooting. The only link between a spreadsheet and a video game is that they are both applications that run on a computer.

      Makes you wonder what is really going on here; whose agenda is being furthered by making such a connection and calling it "news."

    8. Re:The Stupidity, It Hurts! by LordLimecat · · Score: 5, Informative

      The Second Amendment is a stupid anachronism. It needs gutting.

      Fine, then lets do it properly and repeal the amendment.

      The WORST thing we can do is to try to violate the constitution by legislating around parts we dont like; every time we do that we're basically saying "the only parts of the law that matter are the ones the legislators want to matter".

      We have a strict amendment process for a REASON. The government is not supposed to be able to easily decide that it doesnt have enough power. Yes, school shootings suck, but not as bad as things can get when the government throws off all restraint, and thats why we started this country with very strict limits on government power.

    9. Re:The Stupidity, It Hurts! by BasilBrush · · Score: 5, Insightful

      How about recognising that your constitution was not written by God and brought down from the mountain by Moses. Nor is it a universal truth of the physical world discovered by mathematicians or scientists.

      What it is is a bunch of rules that a few men in the 1780s thought were good ideas. Written for the experience that they had of the world in the 1780s. (The American Revolution, the emergence from being a colony, primitive policing, and no standing army.)

      Times change. Smart people adapt, ignorant people cling on to the past.

    10. Re:The Stupidity, It Hurts! by ai4px · · Score: 5, Interesting

      You do realize that Article 1, section 8 of the constitution says that congress cannot allocate money for more than 2 years for an army, right? We're not supposed to have the standing army we presently have. Standing armies expensive... just look at the cost in the past 10 years. Funny, isn't it, that we seem to always have something go on about every 2 years isn't it? 1989 the USSR failed leaving the US with no standing enemy. By 1991, Saddam had popped up on the radar. Coincidence? Bonus points if you can name all of our military actions since WW2.

    11. Re:The Stupidity, It Hurts! by i+kan+reed · · Score: 5, Insightful

      By comparing against countries that do have guns but also have gun laws?

    12. Re:The Stupidity, It Hurts! by Petron · · Score: 5, Interesting

      The Second Amendment isn't for a militia. The government doesn't need permission to arm any military unit.

      The Second Amendment states:
      "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

      It does not say: "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the militia to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

      The right of the people shall not be infringed. Why? Because the people who formed the government experienced a government that took away their firearms. The colonies were under the rule of King George and when the peasants were getting uppity, the first thing they did was to disarm them. It is easier to 'govern' an unarmed population. In fact look at the Bill of Rights (first 10 Amendments). Each one is a reaction to the over step of government under King George. Citizens starting to revolt? Ban their publications (1st), take their weapons (2nd), place soldiers in the homes of bigger trouble makers (3rd), Search people if you think they may be part of the trouble makers (4th), Skip trials for trouble makers (5th)... All of these things were fresh in the minds of the founders when they wrote the Bill of Rights, to ensure their new government would never be come as oppressive as the one they just left.

      So the Second Amendment has nothing to do with the arming a government militia, but to arm people against a possible corrupt militia, or against any other tyrant that may come by (burglar, gang leader, ex-boyfriend that wants to 'teach her a lesson'... etc).

      And while people love to compare gun crime in the US vs gun crime in countries with strong gun control... but also look at crimes without guns. How is breaking and entry, theft, rape, all compare? There was an article I read a while back that discussed why burglaries were higher in (I think the UK) vs the US and the research showed that burglars were afraid of running into a home owner with a gun. (don't have the article handy, was well over a year ago I saw that).

      Penn & Teller in their 2nd Amendment BS show asked, "What would happen if we trained and issued a pink pistol to every woman when they turned 18. They can sell the gun, not carry it, their choice, but they get one. Lets say half give up their 'pinky' because they don't want it. What would happen to the rape cases when a rapist realizes that there is a 50% chance that Jamie has a gun...." I'd say that is a pretty big deterrent.

      Guns have the same reaction as aircraft. 99.9% of the firearms in the US aren't used in crime. We have well over 280 million. Enough so if we distribute them 88% of the US would be armed. Statistically, you more likely to be beaten to death (or just wounded) by a bat, fists, or knives. But now and then we have the big airline crash that causes people to say "Hey! this is unsafe! who cares about the number, look at the death count at this one incident"

      and for a disclaimer: I do not own a gun. Never have. My father had a couple of hunting rifles, but we only went target shooting. I don't see a need to change the first amendment (ban video games), or the second due to the actions of a very few (statistically speaking). I'd rather punish those few harshly.

      --
      if (it != oneThing) it = another;
    13. Re:The Stupidity, It Hurts! by Squiddie · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Putting a qualifier like "gun related" next to murder is meaningless. Do you care about murders or are murders with things other than guns alright? As for guns making easier to kill, yeah, I agree with you. That's why I have one, because I want to be able to totally stop someone that tries to hurt me or my family. The violence in Mexico is very bad, but you know what, free citizens might have an easier time if they could shoot back against the criminals and corrupt police, but they don't have that right. I for one don't want to live like that, and there's nothing stopping this government from becoming corrupt at any level. I guess it's okay that Britain has more violent crime, at least they aren't killing people with guns.

    14. Re:The Stupidity, It Hurts! by Electricity+Likes+Me · · Score: 5, Informative

      I live in Australia.

      Guns are amazingly hard to obtain. Organized crime generally uses guns to shoot each other, but it's very rare. There have been precisely 0 bombing.

      Isn't that fascinating? That despite the fact that guns are actually a progressively rarer illegal commodity, no one has bothered trying to blow people up?

      I've seen this "oh they'll just use a bomb, look how well dairy creamer works" comes up all the damn time as though it's obviously that easy to make explosives. Hint: it's not. Bombs are heavy, and indirect. They require being placed in advance, being not-noticed, and then actually working not to mention acquiring the materials without getting a friendly visit from the Feds to ask what's up with the multiple credit cards and fertilizer. You might notice that the attempted terrorist attacks using bombs in the US have all been thwarted usually by someone calling in and saying "hey, I noticed a weird package".

    15. Re:The Stupidity, It Hurts! by Kaptain+Kruton · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Guns primary purpose is to kill people.

      The primary purpose of a gun is to propel a bullet to hit what the shooter wants. It is designed to ABLE to kill things (including people), but they are not designed so that killing is their primary function. I have several guns, and guess what? The only thing I have ever shot is targets. Am I using them for something other than their intended purpose? No. My grandfather used to go hunting. He killed deer. Was he misusing it because he was not killing people, even though you claim that is their purpose? No. People that say guns are designed for killing people are often the people that do not have any interest in them and do not know much about the other aspects of their uses. If you aren't interested in guns and don't know much about them, fine... but don't make claims about them when your only knowledge of them comes from the skewed statistics from political groups and the media... which is often very inaccurate.

      Some people want guns to be more regulated. I can understand why they would want that... but why don't they focus on enforcing the existing laws as well? I watched one of Feinstein's hearings (she is the CA senator pushing the new gun control laws) in which she had a police commissioner come in and support her bill by answering questions. He pointed out that the background checks stopped thousands ( I think it was roughly 10,000) of people from illegally acquiring guns. That is probably true. However, an opposing senator asked how many of those were actually prosecuted for trying to illegally obtain these guns and the commissioner didn't have any idea. The actual records show that only 18 were taken to court. They would have had to commit a felony by lying on forms that must be completed before a gun shop would even call in a background check. The commissioner responded by stating the police department didn't have time to go after those 'minor offenses' because they were spending their time going after the important ones, such as the murders and robberies caused by guns. I understand that they may not have the resources to go after all of them, but what good are more laws going to be when they won't prosecute the 10,000 obvious felons that were trying to illegally obtain guns? How many of these felons went on illegally obtain the guns through other means to commit the crimes that the commissioner is focusing on? I know there are other mean in which people can try to obtain guns illegally and that people want more laws to try and prevent that. But will making more guns illegal when criminals are not prosecuted with the existing laws in some of the most obvious open & shut cases you can get? I feel that sometimes the 'gun laws only affect the law abiding citizens' argument is overused.... but with examples like this, can you really say that claim doesn't have some validity?

    16. Re:The Stupidity, It Hurts! by CanHasDIY · · Score: 5, Informative

      Countries with strict gun control laws have fewer gun deaths than those who don't.

      ... but not less violence, nor less deaths in general. Japan, for example, has some of the strictest gun laws in the world, as well as one of the highest suicide rates. According to recorded statistics, if we assume accuracy, the US is well below the global average homicide rate of 7.6 per 100,000 people, at 4.8. One thing I noted from the aforementioned chart, there doesn't seem to be any correlation between presence/absence of strict gun laws and homicide rates.

      Citing "less gun deaths" in countries with strict gun laws is like citing "low auto-accident rates" in Nambia - complete non sequitur.

      I want fewer gun deaths.

      That's a silly thing to want - what about bank robbers who shoot it out with the cops? Do you think the cops shouldn't be allowed to shoot back? Because, realize it or not, that's what you mean when you say, "I want fewer gun deaths."

      Personally, I'd be happy with fewer intentional homicides, regardless of the method.

      I don't give a shit about your right[s]

      Aaand we come to the crux of the issue, and why nobody with a lick of sense gives a fuck what you gun grabbers have to say.

      --
      An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
    17. Re:The Stupidity, It Hurts! by mariox19 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Why bother comparing other countries, when you've got 50 different states right here in this country to compare? Maine, New Hampshire, and Vermont have high levels of gun ownership and very liberal gun laws—that's "liberal" in the sense of free—and yet are among the safest states in the U.S. in which to live. The picture is far more complicated than "guns, bad."

      --

      quiquid id est, timeo puellas et oscula dantes.

  2. Guns don't kill people ... by SSpade · · Score: 5, Funny

    ... spreadsheets kill people.

    Ban Excel!

  3. Re:Another one bites the dust? (well, not yet) by swanzilla · · Score: 5, Funny

    Microsoft Excel?

  4. Media coverage by thepike · · Score: 5, Interesting

    If we're going to blame some form of popular media, it should be the news media, in my opinion. Sure, you can argue that maybe video games desensitize people to violence and (apparently) allow people to keep score (ban Parcheesi too, or cribbage), but I would say that the constant coverage of killers and whatnot on the news is what makes it worse. I have no evidence to back this up, but it certainly gives people ideas about what to do or how to do it, as well as showing them that if they do this sort of thing they're going to live on in news coverage long after they're dead. If these are, as often portrayed, lost souls reaching out for something (in a very inappropriate way), what better way to go than to emblazon your name across all news outlets?

  5. More laws is not the answe by night_flyer · · Score: 5, Insightful

    How many laws did Lanza break before even firing a shot in Sandyhook?

    he murdered his mother, stole her guns, used guns in the commission of a crime, premeditated the murder, had guns on school property, and broke into school property, yet he was not apprehended for any of those crimes.

    --


    Thanks to file sharing, I purchase more CDs
    Thanks to the RIAA, I buy them used...
  6. Looking at methods, not motivations. by concealment · · Score: 5, Insightful

    People don't know the cause of school shootings, so they're trying to chip away at the methods used to achieve them. Banning guns, video games, heavy metal, etc. all fit into this in that people perceive these as being contributing factors to why people shoot up schools.

    But what makes them want to shoot up schools? I'd say there are two issues here:

    1. Mental health, especially undiagnosed mental health issues. In this society, all you can do if someone has issues is either pay for them to get treatment, or start a process that's going to get them confined in mental institutions.

    2. Media coverage, because if you shoot up a school and get a high enough kill count, you're going to be on the front page of CNN etc. for weeks.

    In this society we have an ugly tendency to assume that methods and not inner motivations, including ability and mental health, are important. We think that memorizing facts is more important than having mental ability; we look at whether people are obedient to social norms rather than whether what they're doing is right.

    These types of situations suggest our society has some pathological need to avoid looking at our motivations. Perhaps we're afraid we'll find nothing but making money, watching TV, and eating Taco Bell.

    I hope not.

  7. Smart cop? by vvaduva · · Score: 5, Funny

    I think I have a problem with a cop's ability to judge the quality of research as "PhD quality."

  8. Children used to watch "The Three Stooges" . . . by PolygamousRanchKid+ · · Score: 5, Insightful

    . . . and somehow, they didn't go around tearing hair out, gouging eyes or putting someone's head in a vice.

    Because they knew that was TV, and it wasn't a grand idea to try it out on your kid sister.

    If video games cause a kid to go postal, there is something else wrong with the kid.

    --
    Schroedinger's Brexit: The UK is both in and out of the EU at the same time!
  9. Or how about by rsilvergun · · Score: 5, Insightful

    we blame the lack of mental health services? I don't particularly care about gun control one way or another, but I am tired of people ignoring root causes. In every one of these shootings there have been signs of schizophrenia. Schizophrenia has been shown to be a brain chemistry problem. Fixing it is very, very, very expensive. Even the guy from Aurora (who's dad had lots of money) would be pressed. You need a lot of very specific treatment. So we waste time talking about violent games and guns and anything else but actually paying to identify and treat these people because that would take tax money, and as we all know we're perpetually Taxed To The Max (TM).

    --
    Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
  10. Re:I Don't Care About the Physical Game Itself by night_flyer · · Score: 5, Insightful

    you don't have he right to protect yourself?

    who's going to protect your precious 1st amendment rights?

    --


    Thanks to file sharing, I purchase more CDs
    Thanks to the RIAA, I buy them used...
  11. It blows my mind... by bennini · · Score: 5, Insightful

    It blows my mind that anyone (especially American lawmakers) would seriously consider banning video games before banning guns.

  12. Re:Another one bites the dust? (well, not yet) by Xest · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I have, one of the first things I saw the NRA do after the last school shooting was to blame video games, and mental health.

    Between blaming video games, and lobbying to block laws that impose greater background checks on gun sales (what? didn't they just blame people with mental health problems for these massacres?) it seems obvious the NRA has one interest - ensuring the gun lobby can sell more guns, even to crazy people.

    Whatever the reason for people getting to the point where they carry out these massacres whether it's guns, games, mental health, alien mind implants or whatever other theory you have, one things is clear and that's that the NRA is an evil and hypocritical organisation who on one hand blames mental health, and on the other tries to block laws that would go some way to blocking sales of guns to people with a history of mental health problems whilst also trying to deflect attention onto the video games industry.

    The first thing tells me they don't really care what the real cause is, they just want to sell more guns.

    The second thing tells me that they've got something to hide.

    Neither of these things paints a picture of an organisation that has anything of value to say on the subject, yet if US politicians continue to listen to them, video game players will be the next victim of their extensive lobbying - in this respect, the NRA is a pro-censorship group, whatever they might scream about the constitution when it suits them.

  13. It isn't training. by neoshroom · · Score: 5, Insightful

    >They now know how to frag large groups of people because they do it on CoD and Halo. It's like free training for emotional disturbed people.

    You can't rocket jump in real life. Video games are not realistic. Firing a gun in a video game is nothing like firing a gun in real life. Guns are crude, noisy, horrible, low-tech devices. No matter how much you play a video game, it isn't going to do much for your real-life accuracy. At most, video games can be a form of mental preparation, desensitization or even glorification, but very rarely an actual teaching tool.

    --
    Big apple, new Yorik, undig it, something's unrotting in Edenmark.