Quoted from one of my favourite sources for information on what is going and asking stuff 'mainstream' won't touch.
"Guns are not the problem. Bad medications are! The Connecticut shooter was on Fanapt, an "anti-Psychotic" prescription medication that according to its manufacturer frequently triggers increased aggression and delusion. We do not know what other medications Lanza was on, but he reportedly suffered from Asperger's Syndrome, which is usually treated with SSRI's, which have a well-documented link with episodes of extreme violence, including 66 cases of violence in schools. Eric Harris, one of the shooters at Columbine was on Zoloft then Luvox (Klebold's medical records have not been made public). The Colorado "Dark Knight" shooter was under psychiatric care, and like Klebold, the medications he was on have not been made public.
Congress held hearings into the SSRI problem, but because of fear they might lose fat campaign checks from Big Pharma, did nothing.
Corporate media will not report the story out of fear of losing fat ad contracts with Big Pharma.
So the blame falls on the guns, even though many of the SSRI-linked homicides involved baseball bats, sledgehammers, and knives. "
abaddon makes a good point that fingers must be pointed 'somewhere'. Society, as a unit, is very poor at accepting responsibility for anything that goes on, and must be quick to point the fingers at one aspect of it to make themselves feel better.
However, I have read the article. While I think the one-sided bashing nature of the article is obvious (to the point of "in-your-face"), it does raise some examples I was not aware of and made me raise an eyebrow.
I have to question the 'line' between video games and reality, and how much companies are pushing to dull that line and 'why' they are doing it. Are video games being used propaganda tools to demonize certain societies for the benefit of others? Are they used as training tools to condition parts of society into believing certain views because video games have them?
I think so. I think it is too coincidental that some of the most violent first-person shooters have adopted current government positions and foreign policy so they can shove you into a simulation where you go around and slaughter people of other nations, designed to seem as close to their idea of reality as possible. To top it off, they also glorify the brutal murders like it is a good thing; An acceptable practise is to shoot the living hell of people with different skin colour than yours, to put it bluntly.
Still, at the same time, I don't think playing Super Mario and kicking koopa shells around to gain 1-UPs is going to turn you into a homicidal lunatic. That is fantasy and it is made to be treated as such. I somehow doubt playing Dr. Mario that features the elmination of evil viruses in a jar is going to turn you into a someone who randomly goes around and tries to eliminate virus people by forcing them to sit beside oversized pills. (However that could possibly work).
I am opposed to any from of control of video games. At the same time, I don't like some of the trends I am seeing... >_>
Last Edit: Dec 19, 2012 14:51:28 GMT -5 by Kuro-chan
Before even considering digital games, one must first look at the root of the problem.
And so, so many don't even realize the problem? Should I cry or laugh?
The problem is so much in the culture and ignorance of the masses in that country... I mean, c'mon, just look at this: "[...], federal agents fanned out to dozens of gun stores and shooting ranges across Connecticut, chasing leads they hoped would cast light on Lanza's life."
Really? This many of THESE BOTH even EXISTS , AND within SUCH a relatively SMALL area?!!??!?! WTF?!?!?!
As if it was normal and all would end well!
To watch all these news is extremely frustrating, because you see people suffering due to drowning in their own stupidity and blindness... *and far even more when they attempt to extend these last two to other countries in even worse levels on innocents*
There's this, as well:
"The #1 predictor of whether or not someone will die from gun violence at any given time is if a gun is present. Because you canft be shot if therefs no gun around."
Baseball bats killed more people in the US than guns last year. Why aren't baseball bats a restricted item? ... Or knives? ... Or pin needles? ... Or pieces of fruit? (Oh wait, those already are, unless they are toxic GMO nonsense)...
A gun might make it easier, but it is not the only way if someone wants to go on such a crazy spree.
Also, why is no one (the ever-so-useless MSM) taking seriously the idea that the meds the guy was on was a contributing factor towards the tragedy?
Also, why is it one incident like this is getting so much damn attention in the first place? I mean, granted a tragedy is a tragedy, but why does this only apply to the US? What about the hundreds of people who recently burned to death in enclosed sweatshops in around Pakistan (I think)? Is there an objective behind promoting this?
As a society, Americans are very selfish and egotistical. Who cares about what happens in other countries? Pakistans burning? Not news worthy in America.
Guns are a problem, as I did say, however that doesn't mean it's the biggest problem. Tancients brought up one of the biggest of them all. There's a lot more to it than the society's selfishness and such, though, sadly... The amount and % of rape in the USA for example is another huge indicator... The overall outstanding ignorance, lack of knowledge and worse, wrong knowledge (well, all those are already "ignorance")... it's actually very, very sad and frustrating. And the list goes on and on...
However, I don't mean to say these are exclusive or anything. All countries share the same problems, to lower and higher extents. But, as my motto goes, "we do all we can do".
Slightly more offtopic, but for me the only hope (even then it could not change anything) for an actual solution to most of the world's problems is to totally mess around with the very human nature. Ideally it should be done within the ranges of messing with the DNA, but computer chips/cards for the brain might also be a good temporary solution. Of course, a lot could go wrong with both of these, but one can only hope... Perhaps with a proper plan, misusage of the technology could have all odds reduced to 0 or so? But that's likely a bit too hopeful.
Post by Red Hairdo on Dec 21, 2012 18:30:25 GMT -5
I'm going a bit further offtopic again, but IMHO communism's very pretense is wrong ("man is good when born/has a good nature"), so that's why it can't work. Well, that and socialism at least had some horrible rules even if otherwise. My mom's family side experienced socialism in Hungary back when it started there after the Russians invaded, and there are many horrible stories...
Post by ParanoiaDragon on Dec 21, 2012 21:41:56 GMT -5
They point the finger mainly at video games, but it's not just that. It's games, music, movies, & increasingly greedy, selflish, & impatient attitudes. I think these things combined do have an effect on us, but especially youngling's. I'd like game violence(or realism there of) in games to not keep increasing, but, some people just plain love violence, & game companies have to keep topping eachother to keep making money.
Same with music, movies. Everyone's gotta top everyone, it's a never ending cycle. But, even with that, I think people are getting spoiled & impatient by technology in general. Maybe I'm wrong, but it just seems like people want everything now, myself included, compared to how things used to be. Now we can get on the internet on our phones & communicate with anyone anywhere at anytime, & I think that is also having an effect on people, among other things.
Post by Red Hairdo on Dec 21, 2012 22:05:04 GMT -5
You are very correct. There's also more to it.
The US military actually develops some games to encourage people to join the army and support those wars, as well. They also further use them to feed prejudice and stereotypes in many ways, distorting facts as much as possible towards their goals, labeling both innocents and murderous criminals as just "murderous criminals", and get that idea through the younger audience's heads with those games. It's also there in some games not developed by the military. They all apply a lot of psychological concepts to do this as effectively as they can.
This might sound odd, but I'm just glad China exists... (not saying there isn't a lot to criticize aobut China, though!)
This does always seem to happen in that unfortunately whenever there is a tragedy like this, those are are in control of political power or the media search for answers for why such a tragedy occurred, and the easiest way to do that is to blame something else as part of either a political agenda, or just for the sole reason of looking for something, anything that can be controlled in order to give some kind of sense of security that they can prevent something like this from happening again. It becomes a scramble to search for control over the situation. Video games end up (easily I might add) being the scapegoat for a lot of these terrible senseless acts of murder mainly I believe due to the sheer amount of rich violent content that is so easily found in interactive media. Videos games make it pretty easy for these outlets to point fingers back at them, so it's really to no surprise there that games get blamed when the real culprit was one of two things or a combination of both:
1. True evil on an inhumane scale 2. Mental instability to not be able to handle normal violent media
Now, I'm not one to say that Video Games are not partly to blame for some of the actions that have happened, I'm sure anyone can make a case that First Person Shooters especially can train a human mind to kill opponents often and efficiently, perhaps even dumb-down the overall sensitivity to violence, gore, et cetera. I remember one game that I thought had gone even a little too far, I believe it was called "Bulletstorm" where you received rewards based on how long you could combo a dead body that had been previously shot by the player with a stream of gunfire. I see games like this come out and I think "no wonder games are targeted".
So while it isn't fair to gamers who enjoy video games, be they violent or not, who are able to handle them mentally, I really don't think that most people who are doing the finger pointing care to understand this fact that the majority is able to process and handle games of this nature and they likely do not play games themselves, or they might step back and make a exception for some series over others like I am here. At the same time, I can see that this is a classic "fear what you do not understand" mentality and a quick research about violent games on the Internet and you end up with the worst of the lot such as Kindergarten Killers or something like that and it immediately becomes an "Ah Ha! This is what kids are out there playing!" never mind that the majority of gamers out there would likely condemn games such as that.
My angle has always been to try to encourage those who do not understand video games (such as my parents and grandparents for example) so that they can better understand it as a genuine Art form that should be appreciated for the type of worlds, characters, stories and interactive game play that can only truly be brought out by this medium, instead of just what they hear on the news. My hobby is one that I want to proudly showcase as a mostly pure medium rather than one that gets a bad rap from a handful of violent games that target a specific market or demographic of the game playing population.