Video Game Violence Debate

[Hiatus]

All form of media could affect how we think, including music, shows, movies, and of course, video games. There might be many reasons as to why video games in particular get extra attention, though; in my opinion, one would be is that you get to simulate all occurrences yourself, and not just watch from screen or listen from a speaker.

There are some people out there that simply don't have ability to draw a line and distinguish fantasy from reality, and this, I feel, is where the issue comes in. Those that are unable to do such things always have a possibility of being motivated from media, and actually perform whatever they see or hear. However, this is only the minority; I'm sure not all of us are like that. Those who are should be watched closely, and kept away from these kind of things as much as possible. To put it all together--if only a couple of people cause trouble, would it be fair for us all pay for the consequences? I don't think so. Most of us have been dragged into similar situations before, and we should know how they feel.

 

[Kotone]

All form of media could affect how we think, including music, shows, movies, and of course, video games. There might be many reasons as to why video games in particular get extra attention, though; in my opinion, one would be is that you get to simulate all occurrences yourself, and not just watch from screen or listen from a speaker.

There are some people out there that simply don't have ability to draw a line and distinguish fantasy from reality, and this, I feel, is where the issue comes in. Those that are unable to do such things always have a possibility of being motivated from media, and actually perform whatever they see or hear. However, this is only the minority; I'm sure not all of us are like that. Those who are should be watched closely, and kept away from these kind of things as much as possible. To put it all together--if only a couple of people cause trouble, would it be fair for us all pay for the consequences? I don't think so. Most of us have been dragged into similar situations before, and we should know how they feel.

Agreed. I remember watching the Katie show and this father blamed Halo for his son killing his mother. I guess he would sit in his room for days on end playing. His son said that he thought his mother would just "re spawn." I'm not sure if they ever diagnosed him with something, but I wouldn't just blame Halo on the game. Something else was probably wrong with him.
I think as little children, parents should keep their children away from these violent games until they can decide for themselves if they want to play these games. It always bothers me when parents at my work buy COD for a kid who is like seven years old.

 

[Lotus the Cat]

I always wonder why no one seems to propose the following: Violent people will simply gravitate toward violent video games. End of debate.

 

[Deleted member 211486]

"Video games don't cause violence, lag does."

 

[twocows]

The existence of mentally ill people does not necessitate a ban on things that can set them off. Otherwise, everything in existence would be banned.

 

[Captain Fabio]

The existence of mentally ill people does not necessitate a ban on things that can set them off. Otherwise, everything in existence would be banned.

QftW.

This is exactly how I feel. Violence doesn't single handily make a person into a killer or make them emulate what they see in a game; their mental state before they even touched the game is 100% to blame.
I get so angry when I see these stories of a kid killing x amount of people and the cause is because he gang banged a hooker on GTA:V and how he/she was the perfect example of a teenager before the game came into his/her life; it's all bull and so stupid. ​

​

 

[Trev]

I literally just did a 500 point research paper on this. Got a 415. I think this is well in my alley.

Video game violence is a factor in violent behavior, especially in young children. There is absolutely no denying that. HOWEVER, there are other factors that determine specific violent outcomes. Many of these outcomes are overlooked as they aren't as easy scapegoats as GTA V. Factors include the fact that parents give young children games that they are not mature enough to handle (Kotaku.com stated that 64% of parents didn't heed the warnings put on games by ESRB and that 55% thought that they were meaningless), which causes violence amongst younger kids because they do not possess the distinction of teenagers/adults that games are fantasy and life is reality, and that a majority of people blamed for violence in video games, namely mass murderers, had a history of behavioral issues and/or mental illnesses caused by outside sources that are not video games. It's also statistically stated that a large majority of mentally-ill patients go without treatment, and that, to the extent of Google's knowledge, there is no system in place at gun-purchasing establishments that require a check for any signs of mental illness within the family of the purchaser. Therefore, violent video games, while not not influencing IRL violence, are not the primary cause of violence.

 

[Palkia]

Glenn Beck's take on the matter that feels a decade old. Because, you know, you can hack into a computer using a ♥♥♥♥ing controller like Watch Dogs and playing a video game as a stress outlet will make you kill yourself.

 

[Esper]

There are so many things that influence how we think and act it's hard to say that any one thing can be the single cause of any particular action, but I don't think it's accurate to say that people are completely immune to their environment either.

Violence in media can be a problem if people aren't being responsible about it, i.e., parents letting their young children be exposed to too much of it, and so on. Ideally we'd all be good and responsible and there'd be no need to ban anything, but we're not all that responsible as a whole and sometimes we need things to be banned or curtailed in one way or another because it's the practical solution even though it makes some people upset or curbs their freedom in some way. I mean, that's what traffic laws are for, right? I don't know if that's the best comparison to violence in media, but I don't think saying that exposure to violence can never affect anyone is a helpful response.

 

[Oryx]

There are so many things that influence how we think and act it's hard to say that any one thing can be the single cause of any particular action, but I don't think it's accurate to say that people are completely immune to their environment either.

Violence in media can be a problem if people aren't being responsible about it, i.e., parents letting their young children be exposed to too much of it, and so on. Ideally we'd all be good and responsible and there'd be no need to ban anything, but we're not all that responsible as a whole and sometimes we need things to be banned or curtailed in one way or another because it's the practical solution even though it makes some people upset or curbs their freedom in some way. I mean, that's what traffic laws are for, right? I don't know if that's the best comparison to violence in media, but I don't think saying that exposure to violence can never affect anyone is a helpful response.

I think the main argument isn't that it doesn't have any influence on how you live, but that it doesn't cause you to be violent yourself. Not so much that it does nothing, but that it doesn't do that particular thing that people try to pin on it so often. There is a very clear desensitization that anyone who experiences more extreme media can attest to - the first time you see a person get a limb chopped off, it's scary and extreme, then if you see the same thing a few more times you become used to it and it's less scary. However, that doesn't mean that you will then want to chop off a limb; it just means that if you see it again on a TV it won't freak you out as much.

It's also important to note that those with a firm grasp on reality have a very solid line between what happens on TV and in games against what happens in real life. I've shot many, many guns in video games before. I've seen many guns shot in movies and television. I went to a shooting range a few months ago and had to leave early because I was so shaken by hearing real gunshots and shooting a real gun myself that I was near tears. That line is in the mind of most every person that experiences these media, which means that even if they see a limb get chopped off a million times in a game, if they saw one in real life the reaction would be drastically different.

 

[twocows]

I literally just did a 500 point research paper on this. Got a 415. I think this is well in my alley.

That doesn't really qualify you as an expert on the topic.

Video game violence is a factor in violent behavior, especially in young children. There is absolutely no denying that.

I deny it, and here's why.

Regarding the rest of what you said, there's not much anyone can do about parental discretion other than fund an informational campaign for the ESRB. Trusting in parental judgment is one of the assumptions the industry has to make; it's not their job to make sure parents are making good decisions, just to put the information out there. Also, firearms dealers are required to do criminal background checks, I believe. As for doing mental health checks, there's some argument there about whether requiring such a thing would discourage people from seeking mental assistance in the first place.

Also, your sources are a bit weak. You may want to provide stronger ones if you're going to put them out there.

 

[Trev]

That doesn't really qualify you as an expert on the topic.

That was a joke. I know this is D&D but lighten up.

I deny it, and here's why.

Agreeable. One of my points was on the paper was actually that no studies can reveal a proper correlation because that kind of study would be one that follows patients throughout their entire lives to see how they change from playing violent video games. Technically, a study like that would be completely impossible because every aspect of a subjects life would have to be examined. Every aspect.

Regarding the rest of what you said, there's not much anyone can do about parental discretion other than fund an informational campaign for the ESRB. Trusting in parental judgment is one of the assumptions the industry has to make; it's not their job to make sure parents are making good decisions, just to put the information out there.

Enforcement via vendor. While it may not be ethical, it would prevent it, piracy aside. An informational campaign actually isn't that bad of an idea though.

Also, firearms dealers are required to do criminal background checks, I believe. As for doing mental health checks, there's some argument there about whether requiring such a thing would discourage people from seeking mental assistance in the first place.

Having a mental illness isn't a crime. Also, no one who is personally aware that they have a mental illness will forgo treatment for the exclusive reason of buying a firearm.

Also, your sources are a bit weak. You may want to provide stronger ones if you're going to put them out there.

Right, I'll just tell that to the Kim Foundation. No one else is discredited for their equally-as-suspicious sources, or lack-thereof. If you're going to stoke one ember, stoke them all sweetie.

 

[Sir Codin]

Right, I'll just tell that to the Kim Foundation. No one else is discredited for their equally-as-suspicious sources, or lack-thereof. If you're going to stoke one ember, stoke them all sweetie.

Using Kotaku as a source practically begs you to be called out on.

This is the same site that called the Sorcerer in Dragon's Crown a "lolicon fantasy."

 

[Kanzler]

Petition to rename topic to "Let's See Who Can Be the Biggest Ass For No Reason", anyone? No? Then maybe everyone should get back on topic.

Well, Kotaku really isn't what most of us would consider a reputable source. I'm sure Kotaku didn't actually come up with that figure, more likely did it report it from some other report. But anyways, nothing wrong with being called out on, it's what we do here. We try not to mean it nor take it personally.

Video game violence is a factor in violent behavior, especially in young children. There is absolutely no denying that.

What exactly do you mean by that? Is violent behaviour like acting out, hitting other kids/people? Or imitating the behaviours they see onscreen?

 

[Trev]

Well, Kotaku really isn't what most of us would consider a reputable source. I'm sure Kotaku didn't actually come up with that figure, more likely did it report it from some other report. But anyways, nothing wrong with being called out on, it's what we do here. We try not to mean it nor take it personally.

I haven't seen anyone else get called out, but whatever. Moving on.

What exactly do you mean by that? Is violent behaviour like acting out, hitting other kids/people? Or imitating the behaviours they see onscreen?

More the first, but how that behavior is learned is kind of what I meant. Kids are very impressionable and usually can't discern between what is acceptable/what isn't. Violent actions in video games (punching, kicking, etc.) don't come across as "wrong" in the eyes of children because they're acceptable/encouraged in video games. That's why most violent video games are blamed for behavioral issues in children. Case point, a lot of young teenagers, generally around 13-15 bought GTA V, an M rated game that was intended for audiences 17+ years old (at least, that's what ESRB states). Even though, at that age, differentiating between real life and fantasy is easier, it still incites some kind of angry, violent responses during everyday situation. Does it mean that they're going to murder a family of four? No. Would it make them less-likely to solve problems with another student/person using words and instead solve it using yelling/fighting? Probably. There's no way to truly tell. It could or could not be a factor because every person reacts to every thing differently. But generally, it does make kids less likely to handle problems the right way.

 

[Oryx]

That's a lot of claims without any links to studies or sources to back it up. Almost every claim you just made was very arguable, most specifically "Violent actions in video games (punching, kicking, etc.) don't come across as "wrong" in the eyes of children because they're acceptable/encouraged in video games" and "But generally, it does make kids less likely to handle problems the right way." Do you have any evidence that backs up those very strong statements?

 

[Trev]

Once again I'd like to point out that no one else was required to provide sources for their arguments; I don't know what incites everyone to jump on me when I don't. I find it completely ridiculous that stating my opinion is apparently the worse thing in the world I can do yet everyone else is left completely alone for it. If this is some new kind of required thing, I don't see it being enforced on everyone else.

But since everyone asks, here:

Procon.org (states numerous times that children are more likely to solve problems violently when playing violent video games and also that they lack a decent ability of distinction between real life/fantasy; also has arguments against this, all of which I agree with).
HowStuffWorks.com (gives examples of linked violence, including ab example where a killer stated that "he trained for his attack using the war game 'Call of Duty'" [sources are provided as well]; also contains arguments against this, which I agree with as well)
PBS.org (claims that while there's no direct link, it's not harmless; states the argument I used earlier, that studies are inaccurate because of what would be necessary to take them out; also contains arguments against, which I agree with as well.)
ESRB.org (ratings guide I used)
Treatment Advocacy Center (statistics for mentally-ill patients that go untreated; couldn't find the one I used for Kim Foundation, but this is basically the same thing)

I'm not saying that video games will cause a child to go out and buy a gun and mow down an entire school. I just saying that there's no way that games aren't a factor in making someone more violent. Is it the only factor? No. Is it a possible factor? Yes.

 

[Poki]

Violent people are violent. They were violent before playing games, and they will remain as such afterwards. That's like saying that the guns kill people.

 

[Oryx]

Once again I'd like to point out that no one else was required to provide sources for their arguments; I don't know what incites everyone to jump on me when I don't. I find it completely ridiculous that stating my opinion is apparently the worse thing in the world I can do yet everyone else is left completely alone for it. If this is some new kind of required thing, I don't see it being enforced on everyone else.

But since everyone asks, here:

Procon.org (states numerous times that children are more likely to solve problems violently when playing violent video games and also that they lack a decent ability of distinction between real life/fantasy; also has arguments against this, all of which I agree with).
HowStuffWorks.com (gives examples of linked violence, including ab example where a killer stated that "he trained for his attack using the war game 'Call of Duty'" [sources are provided as well]; also contains arguments against this, which I agree with as well)
PBS.org (claims that while there's no direct link, it's not harmless; states the argument I used earlier, that studies are inaccurate because of what would be necessary to take them out; also contains arguments against, which I agree with as well.)
ESRB.org (ratings guide I used)
Treatment Advocacy Center (statistics for mentally-ill patients that go untreated; couldn't find the one I used for Kim Foundation, but this is basically the same thing)

I'm not saying that video games will cause a child to go out and buy a gun and mow down an entire school. I just saying that there's no way that games aren't a factor in making someone more violent. Is it the only factor? No. Is it a possible factor? Yes.

You are welcome to ask anyone else for sources as well. No one is "jumping on you" in any way; it's not rude to ask someone for a source for a claim, I'm not sure why it upsets you so much. The opinions you hold influence how you interact with people; the interactions you have with people influence society as a whole. The reason I am asking for your sources is because your opinion has a negative influence on the part of society I hold dear, especially when you advocate for actual change in that industry based on your opinions. You may think your opinion lives in a vacuum, but it lives in and changes society just like all of them do. If the change is negative, then it's logical to push back on them.

Now, to break down these studies. First of all, the procon.org ones:

Study 1: Basic correlation vs. causation error; this is like saying "90% people that have ran from the police have also done drugs vs. 30% of those that haven't, therefore running from the police causes people to do drugs."
Study 2: First of all, I want to point out that the games used in this study are from 1995 at the very latest. Second of all, what procon.org says about the study is actually false (which is why you should link studies, not websites, studies you've actually read), because the study cited does not address whatsoever how people react to games. It only looked at games and determined whether they were violent and other points related to gender. It makes one sweeping opinion statement like your own, without any data backing it up.
Study 3: This is what I said in my own post, that it desensitizes but does not cause, so no reason to argue against it other than to point out that it's not saying that video games cause violence at all.
Study 4: Not a study at all. Next.
Study 5: This one is actually interesting - longitudinal and everything. However, half the participants dropped out and the sample size was tiny. Also, according to the study itself, "additional variables that could have moderated the link between violent game exposure and aggression, such as the level of aggression in participants' social environment, were not considered in this study." Finally, their idea of how to measure violence in a child's life was asking them questions, which doesn't actually measure violence - it measures their thoughts on violence. Included in the violence was "I gossip about people I don't like." Despite the limitations, this one is the closest to actual proof and I wonder if there's further research with better methods.
Study 6: I can't comment on this one because the short blurb is too vague to give any real science and it's a book so I can't find it online to read it. In the same vein though, it can't be used as evidence because there's no science in this; unless you have the book?
Study 7: The "young children" here is under the age of 8. How many children under the age of 8 have committed mass murders lately? How many 8 year olds actually have these games?
Study 8: This is not an actual study. This is like your original post, opinions that may be influenced by sources but they're certainly not cited, so there's no actual science to address there.
Study 9: I don't even have to access the study for this one: "A 2009 study found that it takes up to four minutes for the level of aggressive thoughts and feelings in children to return to normal after playing violent video games. It takes five to ten minutes for heart rate and aggressive behavior to return to baseline." No one is going out and shooting people within ten minutes of playing a video game, so this is irrelevant. This is like saying "It takes up to four minutes for tears to stop after a tearjerker movie, therefore people who commit suicide must be watching too many of them."

Okay this is getting exceedingly long and it's clear that you haven't actually read these studies so I'm going to stop here. Instead of Googling "violence in video games study" and linking massive lists with no curating, I would recommend reading the studies or articles you're trying to put forward as proof.

 

[twocows]

Having a mental illness isn't a crime. Also, no one who is personally aware that they have a mental illness will forgo treatment for the exclusive reason of buying a firearm.

Probably not. The argument (which is not something I really have an opinion on either way) is that it just contributes to the more general stigma associated with seeking mental treatment.

Right, I'll just tell that to the Kim Foundation. No one else is discredited for their equally-as-suspicious sources, or lack-thereof. If you're going to stoke one ember, stoke them all sweetie.

Yes, but I wasn't responding to them. I would have made the same observation regardless of who I was responding to. All I'm saying is that citing Google or Kotaku doesn't really enhance the credibility of anything.

It's not like unsourced statements are evil or anything, either. I use them all the time and usually note them as unsourced or loosely sourced. You can talk about things predicated on such statements without necessarily claiming that they are true. Exploring hypotheticals can often be useful.