27 dead at Connecticut school, including 14 kids

[Animavore]

All these studies show (most are the same study), as I've pointed out, is that immediately after playing video games people show less reaction to violence. In the first study they only let people play a game for 20 minutes and measured them. The results aren't even that surprising. These games get you pent up so it's no surprise people aren't responsive to violence already being in that psyched out state. I haven't seen any studies which show real world links between violence in video games and violence in society. Gamers are usually the nicest people going. I play with whole clans of people over the net on the mics generally having a good laugh.

[Coito ergo sum]

http://psychcentral.com/news/2006/07/28 ... e/137.html
http://psychcentral.com/news/2011/10/17 ... 30428.html
http://curiosity.discovery.com/question ... sitize-you
http://scienceblogs.com/cognitivedaily/ ... nd-desens/
http://www.procon.org/headline.php?headlineID=005103
Multiple universities and psychological institutes have done studies to show that games do desensitize. And desensitizing is dangerous.

But, do they cause people to be more violent?

Desensitizing is not necessarily dangerous. Becoming desensitized can help a person handle dangerous and stressful situations better -- like how training desensitizes a person to being violently attacked, so that one can keep one's head and react to it skillfully.

Look at the first link:

Their latest study tested 257 college students (124 men and 133 women) individually. After taking baseline physiological measurements on heart rate and galvanic skin response — and asking questions to control for their preference for violent video games and general aggression — participants played one of eight randomly assigned violent or non-violent video games for 20 minutes. The four violent video games were Carmageddon, Duke Nukem, Mortal Kombat or Future Cop; the non-violent games were Glider Pro, 3D Pinball, 3D Munch Man and Tetra Madness.

After playing a video game, a second set of five-minute heart rate and skin response measurements were taken. Participants were then asked to watch a 10-minute videotape of actual violent episodes taken from TV programs and commercially-released films in the following four contexts: courtroom outbursts, police confrontations, shootings and prison fights. Heart rate and skin response were monitored throughout the viewing.

When viewing real violence, participants who had played a violent video game experienced skin response measurements significantly lower than those who had played a non-violent video game. The participants in the violent video game group also had lower heart rates while viewing the real-life violence compared to the nonviolent video game group.

“The results demonstrate that playing violent video games, even for just 20 minutes, can cause people to become less physiologically aroused by real violence,” said Carnagey.

So what? That's like saying someone who goes to see a movie depicting a lot of car accidents won't be as startled when they see a car accident shortly thereafter. That is certainly to be expected, because they're used to it. But, it says nothing at all about whether they will go out and drive more recklessly. It's like a person who sees porn for the first time and their heart rate goes up and they become excited easily, but after they've seen it a bunch of times it's not all that big of a deal for them. They're used to it.

It appears that individuals who play violent video games habituate or ‘get used to’ all the violence and eventually become physiologically numb to it.”

Yes, of course. That's inherent in training. One isn't surprised, shocked or amazed by something one is used to...

Whether people's heart rates increase or they become scared or react in horror to something, or are excited by something, doesn't mean they are going to be more violent.

[Kristie]

All these studies show (most are the same study), as I've pointed out, is that immediately after playing video games people show less reaction to violence. In the first study they only let people play a game for 20 minutes and measured them. The results aren't even that surprising. These games get you pent up so it's no surprise people aren't responsive to violence already being in that psyched out state. I haven't seen any studies which show real world links between violence in video games and violence in society. Gamers are usually the nicest people going. I play with whole clans of people over the net on the mics generally having a good laugh.

They aren't the same study. One was Bonn University, one was Univrsity of Mussouri, one was a university in Iowa, one was the American Psychological Instition (or something like that).
A gamer telling me a video game has no effect on him or his buddies carries as much weight as Gallstons telling me her guns are necessary and that people kill people.

[Audley Strange]

Okay, Kirstie, while I have some sympathy with regards to the repetitive nature of video games being an issue, as usual, the pyschological experiments (such as you linked above) are left wanting.
w
The first, as an example, points towards playing violent video games desensitizing people towards acts of "real" violence but the experiment doesn't show that. What it shows is that (if anything) the interactive elements of game playing make passive entertainment dull in comparison. They showed those who were volunteering, images from violent T.V. shows and movies.

The issue with that is, that prior to video games violent T.V. and Movies were the factor which people blamed. Anyway those were not acts of real violence and I would question whether players of games would be immune to the tangible and visceral affects of real violence, though clearly it would be unethical to drop a bunch of spoiled young Westerners in the middle of a warzone to test that.

Games and media do not motivate and inspire people to butcher others though clearly people with serious mental issues tend to blame them along with the panic brigade, because people who cannot conceive of any reason why someone might shoot up a school need to find a motivating factor other than the person who did it. Guns, rock music, drugs, booze,media, games, religion all used to avoid the fact that really there are mad fuckers out there whose behaviours cannot be blamed on anything but insanity.

Though that ritalin generation must be hitting their 20's now...

[Coito ergo sum]

All these studies show (most are the same study), as I've pointed out, is that immediately after playing video games people show less reaction to violence. In the first study they only let people play a game for 20 minutes and measured them. The results aren't even that surprising. These games get you pent up so it's no surprise people aren't responsive to violence already being in that psyched out state. I haven't seen any studies which show real world links between violence in video games and violence in society. Gamers are usually the nicest people going. I play with whole clans of people over the net on the mics generally having a good laugh.

They aren't the same study. One was Bonn University, one was Univrsity of Mussouri, one was a university in Iowa, one was the American Psychological Instition (or something like that).
A gamer telling me a video game has no effect on him or his buddies carries as much weight as Gallstons telling me her guns are necessary and that people kill people.

Sure, but you have to admit that the first study - which I quoted relevant material from - doesn't tell us anything about whether people will be violent.

So what if people aren't wigged out by violence right after they'd been jazzed up by a violent video game? What does that actually tell us?

I mean - if you watch a series of videos involving nasty car crashes, and then 2 minutes after you're done watching them you see a car crash, don't you think your mind would have been prepped to see that, and hence you would not have as visceral a reaction to it as if it came out of the blue while you were walking down the street minding your own business with thoughts of having pizza for lunch?

The study that you cited conspicuously did not make a very important finding: It did NOT find that people became more violent. All it found was that people did not sweat as much and did not have as high a heart rate if they viewed violence after having played a violent video game. That doesn't mean they're becoming more violent. It is as reasonable to say they are becoming LESS violent as more violent. Neither conclusion can be reached. There is no reason to believe they're not just staying the same level of violence and simply aren't as agitated by violence they see, because they're used to it.

It's like a person who is afraid of snakes becoming less afraid of snakes by being exposed to videos of people holding and caring for snakes without incident. Then they can start encountering snakes little by little and feel less and less stress about it. They're being "desensitized" to the snake.

[Animavore]

All these studies show (most are the same study), as I've pointed out, is that immediately after playing video games people show less reaction to violence. In the first study they only let people play a game for 20 minutes and measured them. The results aren't even that surprising. These games get you pent up so it's no surprise people aren't responsive to violence already being in that psyched out state. I haven't seen any studies which show real world links between violence in video games and violence in society. Gamers are usually the nicest people going. I play with whole clans of people over the net on the mics generally having a good laugh.

They aren't the same study. One was Bonn University, one was Univrsity of Mussouri, one was a university in Iowa, one was the American Psychological Instition (or something like that).
A gamer telling me a video game has no effect on him or his buddies carries as much weight as Gallstons telling me her guns are necessary and that people kill people.

It should carry all the weight in the World to someone who doesn't even play video games or understands how much of an online community we have going. It's these scientific studies which have no weight. The samples are tiny and the tests done in such a way they wouldn't help but get the results they got. They tested them whe they were already in a pent up state. Of course they weren't going to become more pent up on seeing further violence. I'd like to see if they would get the same results the day after playing the game. A week after. A month after. These studies seem incredibly flawed to me.

[Kristie]

I'm not going to argue this any further. There are studies that support both sides. Besides, it's like the gun issue. People are going to believe what they want regardless of arguments and studies put forth by the other side. This will be my last post on the video game topic.

[Seth]

Driver's licenses are not the property of the individual, they are the property of the state that issues them. Moving about on public highways is a right that cannot be licensed. Operating a motor vehicle on the other hand is not a right, so the state can license such operators and condition that license upon display of the license upon a lawful demand of a police officer when one is operating a motor vehicle on a public highway. One is not obliged to present one's driver's license in any other context whatsoever, except in court during a hearing regarding a traffic offense.

do you not realise, Seth, how ludicrous this argument is?
Both cars and guns, when carelessly used, carry a terrible cost in death and maiming. It is, therefore, right and proper that both should require a license, and that license should not be issued lightly.

It's not ludicrous it's the law. The Founders drafted the 2nd Amendment precisely to prevent Congress, and by extension all of the federal government, and through the 14th Amendment the states, from being able to license the right to keep and bear arms. The authority to license presumes the authority to deny, and a fundamental right may not be denied except as a consequence of abuse of that right by the individual.

The 2nd Amendment was drafted explicitly because the King of England continuously infringed upon the rights of the Colonists to be armed for self-defense, in violation of the Rights of Englishmen at the time.

Nothing has changed in the intervening 237 years to change the nature of the right that accrues to each individual citizen. Unless and until some specific individual demonstrates by his behavior that he or she is not able to properly and safely exercise their rights, they are free to do so without the government's let or hindrance.

[Coito ergo sum]

I'm not going to argue this any further. There are studies that support both sides. Besides, it's like the gun issue. People are going to believe what they want regardless of arguments and studies put forth by the other side. This will be my last post on the video game topic.

Not correct. The studies you posted did not support the assertion that video games made people more violent. They didn't even CLAIM to show that.

The studies, like the one I quoted from, showed that people's heart rates, etc., did not increase as much when exposed to violent images from TV and movies as they would if they had not been playing violent video games before hand. The study's conclusions did not even claim that this meant the people were becoming more violent. They concluded that they were becoming desensitized to it. But, that, again, is saying nothing more than people aren't going to react as strongly to something they are used to.

[Seth]

Oh dog, do I hate it when people compare cars to guns.

Fair enough. It shouldn't be much of a comparison; guns should be far more regulated than cars. But it's the other way around.

Horseshit. When was the last time you had to have a background check through the FBI to buy a car?

There was the time I had just gotten back into the country after being deployed for 6 months, during which time my driver's license expired (being younger and less careful, I didn't think about it before I left). Trying to buy a new car once I was back was quite a headache. I had to get copies of my utility bills and other proof that I was a Virginia resident, and the DMV had to get my old license credentials from Connecticut. My fiance had to drive me around for a couple days before I could get my new license from the DMV so I could finally get the dealer to sell me a car. But I certainly don't blame the DMV - for obvious security reasons they can't just hand out photo ID's to anyone who shows up with an expired out-of-state license. And I don't blame the dealer either - they would rightly be in trouble for selling a car to anyone showing up who merely promises that they are qualified to drive.

But if my fiance drove me to a gun show during those few days, I could've walked out with a nice little arsenal with no background check at all.

Horseshit is what you are shoveling.

Wrong. There is no law that says you have to have a driver's license to buy a car. The dealer may want to see it to identify you, particularly if you're financing the car rather than paying with cash, and he may decline to let you drive a car off his lot without seeing your license due to liability issues, but if you show up with cash and a tow truck, he can sell you the car legally. Perhaps his company policy won't allow him to do so, but that's irrelevant.

Besides, you didn't have to get a federal background check before you bought the car, did you?

So no, I'm not, you're just ignorant of the details of the law.

[Seth]

The price of the freedom to own machines which fire little pellets of alloy so fast they can kill people is that you tolerate those little pellets killing people at a level most of the world finds breathtakingly puzzling and staggeringly stupid.

However I doubt that this blind spot in your national psyche is going to change much at all in the near future.

Fools.

Do you think freedom came free? No one gave their life for the liberty you enjoy and take for granted today?

Soldiers, sailors and airmen legitimately employed by a government were a vital part of ensuring western freedom, sure - none of us is running a pacifist or anti-military or law enforcement angle... In WW2, people in the armed forces gave their lives in what was arguably a just war.

Selfish civilian gun freaks have nothing whatsoever to preserving liberty, and everything to do with enabling sick fucks to shoot little children.

And the soldiers who gave us our freedom to begin with were civilians first who were armed with their own weapons, which in some cases they were REQUIRED to own by the Ordinances of the Colonies. The "militia clause" of the 2nd Amendment protects the ability of Congress to raise armies from the citizenry who come to duty bearing their own arms, with which they are familiar and competent. It was necessary to put that clause in to PREVENT the states from banning the possession of firearms by the citizenry because in doing so, the state would infringe upon the ability and authority of Congress to raise armies.

If there is one thing that is indisputable about the 2nd Amendment it's that Congress has the full authority to require that each and every member of the Unorganized Militia keep, bear and remain proficient with arms suitable for use by the individual soldier.

In other words, If Congress so chooses, it can, like the Swiss, require citizens to be armed, it can require them to attend mandatory training sessions to maintain proficiency, and it can require those who qualify for the Militia to bring those arms with them when and if called to duty.

But neither Congress nor the states can do the opposite and infringe upon the right to keep and bear arms by banning those arms suitable for use by the individual soldier. That's why the National Firearms Act merely imposes a tax and some paperwork on the possession of machine guns, grenades, rocket launchers, field artillery, tanks, and other suchlike military arms. It's perfectly legal to own a machine gun in the United States if you're not a felon or otherwise disqualified from possessing firearms. You fill out the forms, send them in with $200, and about six months or so later you get the tax stamp back and the dealer can transfer the Class III weapon to you.

Some states prohibit the possession of machine guns, but those laws are more than a little suspect as to their validity what with the Heller decision.

At any rate, the reason the NFA was configured as a tax law rather than a ban on machine guns is precisely because the Supreme Court, in a number of cases, has stated that of all the arms referred to by the 2nd Amendment, the ones that are the MOST protected against Congressional infringement are specifically and precisely those arms that are suitable for use by the individual soldier, which includes machine guns, but not sawed-off shotguns. The reason why sawed-off shotguns are not openly legal (but are instead NFA weapons like machine guns) is arcane, and has to do with court procedure and the specifics of the case involved, not because such shotguns were not and are not currently used by soldiers. It's likely that US v Miller would be overturned today because the scholarship on the applicability and use of short shotguns and short rifles (like the M4) has advanced quite a bit since then, and proving that they are both suitable arms for the soldier is today child's play.

So, once again you're wrong.

[devogue]

The 2nd Amendment was drafted explicitly because the King of England continuously infringed upon the rights of the Colonists to be armed for self-defense, in violation of the Rights of Englishmen at the time.

Nothing has changed in the intervening 237 years to change the nature of the right that accrues to each individual citizen. Unless and until some specific individual demonstrates by his behavior that he or she is not able to properly and safely exercise their rights, they are free to do so without the government's let or hindrance.

While I completely disagree with you and I think that the bare facts regarding gun crime between, for instance the USA and UK, show how epic the problem in the USA is, I thank you for putting forward your opinion throughout this thread - much of what you have said has been illuminating and thoughtful.

The quote above caught my eye - a combination of history, theory of autonomy, and legal and governmental minutae similar to earlier posts you have made here.

In Ireland, the Provisional IRA built a case for their campaign of terror and destruction at the end of the 20th century which has parallels with this way of thinking. They claimed to be the true representatives of the Irish people, the true standard bearers of the proclamation taking up the fight for Pearse and Connolly's republic after they were "sold out" and partition happened. Technically and morally, they could make a case that they were absolutely right, and absolutely within their rights.

The trouble is, the Ireland they were fighting for in the 70s and 80s was completely different from the Ireland of 1916, the majority of people in Ireland didn't care for their fight and had moved on. No matter, the minutae was followed and thousands died horribly because of stirring words and perceived rights and needs - "inalienable rights", demands, chest thumping for "freedom" and self-determination while all around innocent men, women and children were slaughtered, people were gunned down in their beds, blown to bids, tortured...

And now that PIRA has gone and "sold out" (laid down weapons) another bunch have taken up the baton as the "true heirs" of the 1916 heroes and see themselves as sons of Ireland fighting a heroic cause. They hold a warped perception of justice, righteousness and freedom. The romance, theory, technical quibbles, questions of sovereignty and paperwork keep getting distilled down and down - so more people will die horribly and prematurely, more families will suffer for an idea that is wrong on the surface, just under the surface and in the depths.

[mozg]

The reason why sawed-off shotguns are not openly legal (but are instead NFA weapons like machine guns) is arcane, and has to do with court procedure and the specifics of the case involved, not because such shotguns were not and are not currently used by soldiers. It's likely that US v Miller would be overturned today because the scholarship on the applicability and use of short shotguns and short rifles (like the M4) has advanced quite a bit since then, and proving that they are both suitable arms for the soldier is today child's play.

So, once again you're wrong.

It's because Miller was dead and his side of the case was never actually heard by the Court. They made their ruling entirely based upon a one-sided argument.

[Rum]

I see Obama has decided to try to re-introduce a ban on assault weapons.

I'm not sure, given all that is on his plate, he will do much more than this.

I see nothing significant changing in the USA on this issue frankly.

[mozg]

I see Obama has decided to try to re-introduce a ban on assault weapons.

I'm not sure, given all that is on his plate, he will do much more than this.

I see nothing significant changing in the USA on this issue frankly.

I have already written to my Senators and Representatives to let them know that if they vote for additional gun control, I will not vote for them.