Violent Video Games - Page 1

Finally both sides are working together on this.

Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D-W.Va) reintroduced his bill to study the impact of violent video games and programming on kids. But this time, the bill comes with the firepower of four co-sponsors from both sides of the aisle, including Sens. Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.), Mike Johanns (R-Neb.), Dean Heller (R-Nev.) and Tom Coburn (R-Okla).


http://www.adweek.com/news/television/rockefeller-reintroduces-bill-study-violent-video-games-146779

More wasted money to cover the real problem.

Ninja, there are already dozens of studies to read and draw conclusions from. Here is one.

http://www.science20.com/news_releases/video_games_and_violence_are_studies_biased

Does playing violent video games make players aggressive? It is a question that has taxed researchers, sociologists, and regulators ever since the first console was plugged into a TV and the first shots fired in a shoot ‘em up game.

Writing today in the International Journal of Liability and Scientific Enquiry, Patrick Kierkegaard of the University of Essex, England, suggests that there is scant scientific evidence that video games are anything but harmless and do not lead to real world aggression. Moreover, his research shows that previous work is biased towards the opposite conclusion.

Video games have come a long way since the simplistic ping-pong and cascade games of the early 1970s, the later space-age Asteroids and Space Invaders, and the esoteric Pac-man. Today, severed limbs, drive-by shootings, and decapitated bodies captivate a new generation of gamers and gruesome scenes of violence and exploitation are common.

Award-winning video games, such as the Grand Theft Auto series, thrive on murder, theft, and destruction on every imaginable level, explains Kierkegaard, and gamers boost their chances of winning the game by a virtual visit to a prostitute with subsequent violent mugging and recovery of monies exchanged while games such as World of Warcraft and Doom are obviously unrelated to the art of crochet or gentle country walks.

Media stories about gamers obsessed with violent games and many research reports that claim to back up the idea that virtual violence breeds real violence would seem to suggest so.

However, Kierkegaard studied a range of research papers, several of which have concluded since the early 1980s that video games can lead to juvenile delinquency, fighting at school and during free play periods, and violent criminal behavior. Evidence from brain scans carried out while gamers play also seem to support a connection between playing video games and activation of regions of the brain associated with aggression.

However, Kierkegaard explains, there is no obvious link between real-world violence statistics and the advent of video games. Despite several high profile incidents in US academic institutions, "Violent crime, particularly among the young, has decreased dramatically since the early 1990s," says Kierkegaard, "while video games have steadily increased in popularity and use. For example, in 2005, there were 1,360,088 violent crimes reported in the USA compared with 1,423,677 the year before.

"With millions of sales of violent games, the world should be seeing an epidemic of violence," he says, "Instead, violence has declined."

Research is inconclusive, emphasises Kierkegaard. It is possible that certain types of video game could affect emotions, views, behaviour, and attitudes, however, so can books, which can lead to violent behaviour on those already predisposed to violence. The inherent biases in many of the research studies examined by Kierkegaard point to a need for a more detailed study of video games and their psychological effects.

Keep trying I do commend you for trying to find any reason you can but the gun angle.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Video_game_controversy

Controversies over video games center on debates around game content and the potential negative impacts on player behaviour. Video games have been studied for links to addiction and aggression but results have been conflicting. A 2001 study found that exposure to violent video games correlates with at least a temporary increase in aggression and a decrease in prosocial behavior (caring about the welfare and rights of others).^[1] Another 2001 meta-analysis using similar methods^[2] and a more recent 2009 study focusing specifically on serious aggressive behavior^[3] concluded that video game violence is not related to engaging in aggressive behavior. Potential positive ramifications of video game playing have also been proposed.^[4] Recent research has suggested that some violent video games may even promote prosocial behavior in certain contexts.^[5]

Some commentators have argued there is lack of substantive studies on the connection between games and violence, and that the video game industry has served as a fallback scapegoat for societal ills.^[6][7][8] The most recent large scale meta-analysis, examining 130 studies with over 130,000 participants worldwide, concluded that exposure to violent video games causes both short term and long term aggression in players and decreases empathy and prosocial behavior. However, this meta-analysis was criticized for a number of methodological flaws, including failure to abide by quantifiable measurements of aggression and for failing to engage dissenting studies, thus aggravating the sampling bias of incorporated studies.^[9]

What about cartoons like the roadrunner and other violent cartoons? Do they cause violence?

This lady has been studing video games since 1999. Very good article.

http://www.theesa.com/facts/STERNHEIMERCONTEXTSARTICLE.pdf

do video games kill?

When white, middle-class teens kill, the media and politicians are quick to blame video games. Are they right?

I firmly believe they are part of the problem.

The other part, being COMBINED with certain psychiatric drugs.

And there could be a few other factors.

The assault weapons and high capacity mags aren't driving people to Mass Murder.

We need to see what exactly is causing this problem.

To complex to know because each person is different.

Assault weapons aren't driving people but it sure makes it easier to kill 20 6 year olds in a matter of seconds.

There is no reason the AVERAGE person needs assault weapons, none. Name one legit reason a person needs an assault rifle with high capacity magizines?

Let' see....

Parents not being parents (parentally challenged kids, see far too many of these)

Kids not taught respect, empathy, responsibility, and accountability (yeah it was cool to watch him kick the other guy's a**; so what if I videoed those guys raping that drunk girl)

Readiness of the medical community and many parents to medicate their kids rather than figure out what is really going on

The "all about me" culture along with the "instant gratification" that people expect and "not my problem"

Elistist mentality (so write me a ticket, I make more money in a month than you will in your lifetime, how much will it cost me to make this go away for my son/daughter, and so on)

There is no reason people need a car that goes 120 when the maximum speed limit is 65. And speed is a major contributor to car accident deaths. So everyone in this country is driving an assault vehicle.

There is no reason people need several homes.

But this is America and you should be alowed to make your own personal decisions.

You GSD support pro choice, I should have the right (Pro choice) to decide what weapon I want to defend myself and my family with.

So, more deflection and changing the debate to something inane and non-relevant to the debate.

Simple question since you are the gunner and that is

Name one legit reason a person needs an assault rifle with high capacity magizines?

Last sentence, my last post.