Video games cause violence in childeren?

I think its a crock. This has been thrown around the last few years heavily with the release of GTA. What do you all think?

I second that.

What you focus your mind on, what you entertain your attention with, is how you create your reality. Gravitate towards values of control, competition and seperation and guess what will gravitate around you.

Well, if it wasn't for all those bloody video games we had when the west was won, then just maybe we wouldn't of slaughtered as many indians! Duh!

Excatly.

Violence is actually much less common than it was even a decade ago, it's the media coverage that blows things out of proportion.

Exactly.

Link.



Keep in mind that GTAIII was released in october of 2001. It's mind poisoning effects are apparent just one year later! Look at violent crime shoot through the roof!

Videogames are such a violent media that 17% of games in 2004 had to be rated "M" by the ESRB. The MPAA found it fit to rate only 54% of movies in 2004 "R".

I have played violent video games all my life, and have never shot up a school, did drugs, killed anyone, and I do not laugh when I kill things in video games. LOL I just blew someone's head off YAY!

Action Man, is that the Six Million Dollar Man's Boss in your avatar?

Obviously Video game ratings board fanboys.

You seriously think that Wonderful William goes to Homeless Harry's "home" and shoots him because he Homeless Harry slept with his Wonderful William's wife. You have got to be kidding me. Homeless Harry didn't even shoot Wonderful William's wife, he slept with her. If Wonderful William did anything, he would have slept with Homeless Harry to get revenge. Like the prominent polictions, scientists, and geniuses always quote, "Monkey see, monkey do." Cause that it is true, and if you don't believe it, your a frickin retard who parks away from the handicap parking spots so that the non-existant population of less intelligently capable people can be closer to the smart people's library, thus they don't have to walk as far to the building. Friggin idiots.

Where do you get your ideas? Honestly, if Jackie Chan just killed 5 guys with his bare hands, I would bet I could do the same. Even yet, if I just watched the stations of the cross at mass, I have to go out and crucify myself, because I have a crown of thorns on my head, damn racists. If you think violence didn't make me do it, what do you think did? Improper brain chemistry, depression, genetically inherited aggresion? Those excuses are for the convicts who are afraid to go on death row, thats what they get for watching R rated movies those sons of bitches.

Case closed, mystery solved. I think I rapped up this discussion. And don't even try replying to this post because I just refuted every argument you pro-video game con artists can think of.

I don't personally think it's a crock. I do believe that video games can (and do) cause some children to be violent. I've personally witnessed 10 year old boys loose their minds after they finish playing a game of GTA or whatever. It does incite violence. I believe the same about violent movies too.

HOWEVER,

That doesn't mean I believe video game companies or games are to blame for the violence. In the end the personal responsibility does (and should) fall on the parents or the individual (if he or she is an adult). After all, titles like GTA are rated Mature. No kid should be playing that kinda crap. And it's ultimately a parent's responsibility to make sure their kid isn't playing it.

When I was a teenager the most violent game I ever played was probably Doom, Carmageddon, or Streets of Rage. However in those days games were not nearly as realistic as they are now.

Just my opinion. Guys like Joe Lieberman need to get their priorities straight- it's the parents he needs to go after.

-mpjesse

No one replies to my pathetic rants. If anyone does, its going to be me. Though that arguement kind of ironically refuted itself, if you apply common sense when trying to read it, that is.

If you are referring to the government going after parents for allowing their children to play video games knowingly or whether they sneak them, the government should go after parents?!!? To a point the parents are lyable, but only to a point. When they are tried as an adult for killing sprees, obviously they had been out of control of their parents for some time, and if they could prevent it they would, but their is only so much one can do. They are past the age of 12 and are becoming responsible for thier own actions and thus accountable, meaning that certain actions may result as them being tried as an adult, furher meaning that they are free to decide to do wrong if they desire, come hell or high water.
The government can not get $hit straight, and sure as hell does not need to be meddling more so into others lives, and when they do, usually the situation worsens.

What if you pistol whip someone? Bullets can't hurt people without a gun unless its hot shots 2 and you throw them at someone.

You're right, they can't. They do need a gun. Good point.

mpjesse,

Let me start of with saying that I agree with all what you said. I think it is of the utmost importance that parents get a clear understanding of what their children are doing, so that they can determine what is good or is not good for their children.

Having said that, what makes video games (and movies, or even books?) different than drugs, smoking, or alcohol for that matter? In principle parents must also be responsible for keeping their children safe from smoking, alcohol and drugs. Still we find it completely acceptable that drugs are illegal, and that alcohol and smoking is only available to adults (in most places). Drugs may be a bad example as possession of drugs is illegal for adults as well, but for the sake of argument, if we would ever decide to leave it up to each individual to determine whether they can use drugs or not, then certainly we would surely restrict it to adults only?

I think we need to separate two issues here, on the one hand the basic principle of freedom of speech, on the other hand the issue of public health of children. I'm by no means claiming it is already an established fact that violent games or movies indeed lead to violent behavior of children, I think we can safely assume that there is a group of children susceptible to being influenced by games, movies and other expressions of free speech. By looking at the public health issue, and in coming up with policies that may improve children's health (in statistical terms), one should not directly be branded as an opponent of free speech.

Using oneself as a reference in these types of discussion is seldom productive. Not every kid is a potential alcoholist either, but that does not mean one cannot have an opinion on policies for restricting access to alcohol for children.

Mind you, I fully agree that videogames are not the sole source of violence the youth of today has access to, far from it in fact. I'm not even sure it is a good idea to shield children from violence alltogether because it is a factor in life and children should be prepared for it. While we are at this: violence should also be addressed where it (often) starts: in home/family situations.

Well put.

I'm saying that it's impossible to avoid violence in the media, of all sorts, today. I'm not the only one who has seen The Predator or any number of other violent movies/games/newscasts etc. Even if you live on an isolated farm, chances are you've seen animals slaughtered. Or consider an activity like contact sports or even fishing. It's all violence.

There are people who are obviously affected by these things, lots of people have fragile psyches, but for those people the problem is much wider than the violence in video games so spending a large amount of time or resources on just legislating/censoring games is stupid. I mean, games have a rating and the rest is up to parents or professional psychological help, as the case may be.

I have watched R rated movies and played fantasy and violent video games since 7 or 8, and it does not cause me to kill others that make me angry. :? I have morals and convictions, as a result, I always let my victims go in the end.

no it doesntit just all thse damn politicians shifting blame on the real issue go here and you'll see what i mean (im gonna start a thread about this book now)

People now adays dont want to be responsible for their own actions. They are always looking for something/someone else to blame. My kid killed someone, lets blame the games. My kids on drugs lets blame the movies.
If parents were paying attention/gave a sh!t to what their children were doing we wouldnt have so many problems. We have kids that basically dont have parents at all, fatherless kids, or are being raised in gangs.

I ll will admit my 7 year old son has playerd unreal tournament and other fps games/ including GTAIII, quite a bit. BUT, he understands its not real and that in real life people dont come back to life. Times he has played GTAIII he mainly just drives around in the cars.
Hes not violent and doesnt act out what he plays.
I have since removed GTAIII, but UT is still there.

Time to go home from work, later.

ROFL

good point

best reply yet

Let me clarify, by "going after" I don't mean the government charging parents with crimes or anything like that.

What I mean is Joe Lieberman should focus on educating parents about the dangers of violent video games instead of going after the video game companies themselves.

Make sense?