Obama Instructs CDC to Research Links Between Violent Media and Real-Life Violence

@NickyDubz said:

Chemtrails

Lol oh America and your insistence on ignoring to the point of creepy cultishness the correlation between the availability of guns in the general populace and the murder rate. Sigh. I guess the rest of us just get to watch and cover our faces with our palms as you repeatedly come up with more and more absurd studies into whatever random boogieman is making people shoot each other this week. Oh but they cry our civil liberties we are so scared of our government if we don't have guns they will oppress us! Funny how if you look at the murder rates and the availability of guns a significant amount of nations who have easy access to guns are dictatorships or highly questionable governments. But America of course cannot compare itself to the rest of the world as they are the chosen people of god... at least if you ignore the fact that the predominant faith in America names the Jewish people as their gods chosen people but hey who am I to stand in the way of the refusal to accept logic as a viable reasoning tool rather than dogmatic repetition of propaganda. To be honest I feel sorry for the sane and intelligent among you who are forced to live in a nation of madmen ruled by fear of their government and paranoia. Then again many of us have to put up with our own foolish fear filled imbeciles spouting their own brand of dogmatic anti-thought. Here's a thought to be soundly rejected by those of you so inclined, if you fear your government so much yet profess to live in a democratic nation then simply elect another government. A novel idea I know but how about it? Don't bother spouting the usual anti whatever nationality you decide I am none sense at me I'm sure I've heard it before, the foolish rarely have original thoughts. If you suddenly find yourself filled with hatred toward me for expressing this thought I had no intention of expressing it to you so feel free to go punch a pillow or even do something constructive just to show me how wrong I am, hey you never know you might like it :) most of what I'm saying is tongue in cheek and meant to be taken that way. Oh and if you want references go google it I can't be bothered to do it.... Aaagain.

Chemtrails

@Darkstorn said:

@deadrody said:

@chrissedoff said:

@NinjaTard: There's a lot wrong with Barack Obama's presidency, but using executive orders to enact sensible restrictions on the second amendment

Let that part sink in for a bit. Then change it to "sensible restrictions on the first amendment" and see how you feel about that.

The US constitution is sacrosanct. If you want to change it, there is a process for that. Get on with it. Otherwise, there ARE no "sensible restrictions" to my god given rights. And if you dispute that "god given" part, maybe you ought to go re-read the Declaration of Independence.

Rights are given by governments, not 'God.' Otherwise we wouldn't need a historical government document to come to that conclusion. Also, there was debate among the founders on whether or not the Constitution was static or if it would change and grow with time. Strict constructionism vs. loose constructionism wasn't invented by Constitutional scholars by any means.

If there isn't an authority beyond civil government, there are no rights. Rights come from God, and governments are insituted to protect and preserve those rights. Without that, we are left with either mob rule or authoritarian dictatorships. Not all the founders were completely sound, theologically speaking, but they were able to agree on the premise of "the Law of Nature and Nature's God" as the standard from which they based all their complaints against the Crown. In one of the singular moments in human history, the architects of a new government acknowledged that they themselves (government) were the greatest threat to liberty, and codified limits to their own power in both the Articles of Confederation and the Constitution.

The secular-humanist view, either from statists (Marxism, National-socialism) or anarchists (Ayn Rand adherants) both put all their stock in the nature of man, either collectively or individually. If one thinks that an invisible Creator-God is a foolish idea, how can you put faith in the historically obvious evil nature of man?

I don't think George W Bush is the smartest man in the world but I truly believe he dwarfs Obama in mental capacity. He's also petty and a narcissist. Makes a dangerous combination.

I think the current media and Big Brother have watched A Clockwork Orange one too many times. Why can't they go about looking for a scientific study in a scientific way?

Step one: Find usual causes for onset violence in youths.

1:Extreme poverty.

2:Feeling backed into a corner.

3:Gang peer pressure.

4:Exposure to violent images all the time (as in Clockwork Orange)

Step two: Find the one that fits the horrific scenarios of today's cases of extreme youth violence. In this case, option 2 seems to fit best with what we see in the news lately.

Step three: Figure out the scenarios that may make these people feel backed into a corner where violence is the only option. Find ways to inform youth that violence is not the only option. Demonstrating true no win scenarios, and give a helping hand to those who feel they may be in them. Open dialog about pressures and manufactured fears that may lead to a backed into a corner feel.

This isn't an attack on video games.

Instead of issuing an executive order, detailing legislation against video games, or creating a 'committee' to deal with the violence-violent video games link, Obama is simply announcing a $10 million research project. How is that a bad thing?

Considering that no one actually knows if there is a link between real world violence by the mentally unstable and virtual brutality that could potentially push them over the edge, then research is the best possible outcome right?

This is excellent news!

@deadrody said:

@chrissedoff said:

@NinjaTard: There's a lot wrong with Barack Obama's presidency, but using executive orders to enact sensible restrictions on the second amendment

Let that part sink in for a bit. Then change it to "sensible restrictions on the first amendment" and see how you feel about that.

The US constitution is sacrosanct. If you want to change it, there is a process for that. Get on with it. Otherwise, there ARE no "sensible restrictions" to my god given rights. And if you dispute that "god given" part, maybe you ought to go re-read the Declaration of Independence.

Rights are given by governments, not 'God.' Otherwise we wouldn't need a historical government document to come to that conclusion. Also, there was debate among the founders on whether or not the Constitution was static or if it would change and grow with time. Strict constructionism vs. loose constructionism wasn't invented by Constitutional scholars by any means.

I agree with Milkman. If there is no reason to blame video games for violent behavior there should be no worry. If anything you should be saying "It's about time we get this over with". Some of you guys are letting your hatred of the president blind your better judgment.

@chrissedoff said:

@NinjaTard: There's a lot wrong with Barack Obama's presidency, but using executive orders to enact sensible restrictions on the second amendment

Let that part sink in for a bit. Then change it to "sensible restrictions on the first amendment" and see how you feel about that.

The US constitution is sacrosanct. If you want to change it, there is a process for that. Get on with it. Otherwise, there ARE no "sensible restrictions" to my god given rights. And if you dispute that "god given" part, maybe you ought to go re-read the Declaration of Independence.

@NinjaTard said:

@Milkman said:

Question: if we as "gamers" or whatever are so sure that there's no link between violence in real life and violence in video games, why are we so afraid of an official study?

Because I don't trust THIS president to be the one to give it an unbiased eye. A President who wants to use Executive Orders (my understanding designed for vital actions when he can't meet with Congress in a timely fashion, such as in a war scenario) to do anything he wants and who seems too ready to severely restrict or worse basic freedoms like the right to bear arms and possibly the freedom of speech via games, movies, music, etc. is not the kind of leader I picture giving a fair shake if he doesn't like the results.

Let me paint you a picture from my conspiracy theory section of my mind: the study is done, it's inconclusive at best like half the studies done. Well we can't take action based on "inconclusive", he thinks to himself before deciding that for the "good of all mankind" he MUST bend the rules and save our children and future generations. Before we know it we have either restricted the content allowed in our media and arts (also known as censorship) or dare we go one further and fudge the results in such a way to lead to overly restricting gun ownership laws....no need to ban weapons now, we can do that in our third or fourth term!

Obama is a liar and he is NOT considerate of what's best for the democracy he leads but rather in doing what he wants when he wants and fuck you if you disagree. Just wait and see, we'll see him start tightening the belt around America soon and we'll all be choking to death on a dictatorship unless people start questioning the shit he does on a near daily basis.

Are you my mother-in-law? She puts this kind of low-information-high-rhetoric garbage on Facebook all the time.

Obama does what to China Don't Care?

@gorndonfredoman said:

Inte@JasonR86 said:

@gorndonfredoman said:

@JasonR86 said:

@gorndonfredoman said:

@JasonR86 said:

@gorndonfredoman said:

@JasonR86 said:

@Mike76x said:

@ProfessorEss said:

I love how we'll entertain and investigate every potential cause of gun violence except for guns.

and mental illness

You both seem like good dudes so don't think I'm trying to pick on you. I also have seen this sentiment a lot involving shootings and every time I have this thought and I guess today I just feel like airing the thought.

A shooter at a mass shooting is not necessarily mentally ill. Further such a belief perpetuates the notion that the mentally ill are somehow unsafe or unstable. The reality is that most mentally ill are either quite stable and have lived in misery rather remarkably functionally for a long time or they are more often then not the victim of crimes rather then the perpetrator.

Ok, I'm done.

I think you have an incorrect definition of mental illness you're working with. If someone goes into a school and murders a bunch of children and then themselves, I don't think it's a wild leap of logic to suggest maybe they had trouble functioning in society, which is all that term means.

I'm speaking more as a mental health therapist. As a therapist, I can't say for sure whether someone who shoots someone else is necessarily mentally ill from a professional standpoint. I'm sure I can gin up some diagnosis for that person but my guess is that there are more pertinent factors that lead to the shooting besides whatever disorder I might decide to diagnosis. I guess the bigger issue I have is that this logic may lead to the theory that the mentally ill are somehow automatically dangerous. I would really dislike it if that were to happen.

I've certainly heard of cases where someone has committed a horrific act of murder and then when interviewed turned out to be articulate and comfortable with what they have done. Anders Breivik was initially diagnosed as schizophrenic, possibly for political reasons, only to later to be found legally sane. The difference I see is that most of these mass shootings involve suicide, and unless in your professional opinion there are rational reasons one would follow up such action with suicide, I feel comfortable saying this person was mentally ill.

People who commit suicide aren't necessarily mentally ill either.

It might be helpful if you could define what you mean by mentally ill. I only have some psych 101 type stuff where we were told that the ability to get up everyday and function in the world is what chiefly determines someones sanity. Certainly killing yourself would violate such rules, but maybe I'm just working with a layman's definition.

Here's a list of diagnoses I can diagnosis http://behavenet.com/dsm-iv-tr-numerical-listing-codes-and-diagnoses(when the code has a 'v' in front of it that can only be an adjunct to another diagnosis). Every diagnosis has its own criteria that have to be met. I can stretch some things and interpret things different ways as long as I can justify my reasoning but by and large the criteria is the criteria and that's that. I couldn't tell you if a shooter meets any criteria for any diagnosis unless I meet with that person and do an assessment. Simply killing people or committing suicide isn't enough for a diagnosis.

Interesting. Though I think this comes full circle in that if our government invested more into mental health services we could have more diagnosis before the events and less speculation afterwards.

I'm not sure more labeling is the way to go.

@gorndonfredoman said:

@JasonR86 said:

@gorndonfredoman said:

@JasonR86 said:

@gorndonfredoman said:

@JasonR86 said:

@Mike76x said:

@ProfessorEss said:

I love how we'll entertain and investigate every potential cause of gun violence except for guns.

and mental illness

You both seem like good dudes so don't think I'm trying to pick on you. I also have seen this sentiment a lot involving shootings and every time I have this thought and I guess today I just feel like airing the thought.

A shooter at a mass shooting is not necessarily mentally ill. Further such a belief perpetuates the notion that the mentally ill are somehow unsafe or unstable. The reality is that most mentally ill are either quite stable and have lived in misery rather remarkably functionally for a long time or they are more often then not the victim of crimes rather then the perpetrator.

Ok, I'm done.

I think you have an incorrect definition of mental illness you're working with. If someone goes into a school and murders a bunch of children and then themselves, I don't think it's a wild leap of logic to suggest maybe they had trouble functioning in society, which is all that term means.

I'm speaking more as a mental health therapist. As a therapist, I can't say for sure whether someone who shoots someone else is necessarily mentally ill from a professional standpoint. I'm sure I can gin up some diagnosis for that person but my guess is that there are more pertinent factors that lead to the shooting besides whatever disorder I might decide to diagnosis. I guess the bigger issue I have is that this logic may lead to the theory that the mentally ill are somehow automatically dangerous. I would really dislike it if that were to happen.

I've certainly heard of cases where someone has committed a horrific act of murder and then when interviewed turned out to be articulate and comfortable with what they have done. Anders Breivik was initially diagnosed as schizophrenic, possibly for political reasons, only to later to be found legally sane. The difference I see is that most of these mass shootings involve suicide, and unless in your professional opinion there are rational reasons one would follow up such action with suicide, I feel comfortable saying this person was mentally ill.

People who commit suicide aren't necessarily mentally ill either.

It might be helpful if you could define what you mean by mentally ill. I only have some psych 101 type stuff where we were told that the ability to get up everyday and function in the world is what chiefly determines someones sanity. Certainly killing yourself would violate such rules, but maybe I'm just working with a layman's definition.

Here's a list of diagnoses I can diagnosis http://behavenet.com/dsm-iv-tr-numerical-listing-codes-and-diagnoses(when the code has a 'v' in front of it that can only be an adjunct to another diagnosis). Every diagnosis has its own criteria that have to be met. I can stretch some things and interpret things different ways as long as I can justify my reasoning but by and large the criteria is the criteria and that's that. I couldn't tell you if a shooter meets any criteria for any diagnosis unless I meet with that person and do an assessment. Simply killing people or committing suicide isn't enough for a diagnosis.

@believer258 said:

@JasonR86 said:

@gorndonfredoman said:

@JasonR86 said:

@Mike76x said:

@ProfessorEss said:

I love how we'll entertain and investigate every potential cause of gun violence except for guns.

and mental illness

You both seem like good dudes so don't think I'm trying to pick on you. I also have seen this sentiment a lot involving shootings and every time I have this thought and I guess today I just feel like airing the thought.

A shooter at a mass shooting is not necessarily mentally ill. Further such a belief perpetuates the notion that the mentally ill are somehow unsafe or unstable. The reality is that most mentally ill are either quite stable and have lived in misery rather remarkably functionally for a long time or they are more often then not the victim of crimes rather then the perpetrator.

Ok, I'm done.

I think you have an incorrect definition of mental illness you're working with. If someone goes into a school and murders a bunch of children and then themselves, I don't think it's a wild leap of logic to suggest maybe they had trouble functioning in society, which is all that term means.

I'm speaking more as a mental health therapist. As a therapist, I can't say for sure whether someone who shoots someone else is necessarily mentally ill from a professional standpoint. I'm sure I can gin up some diagnosis for that person but my guess is that there are more pertinent factors that lead to the shooting besides whatever disorder I might decide to diagnosis. I guess the bigger issue I have is that this logic may lead to the theory that the mentally ill are somehow automatically dangerous. I would really dislike it if that were to happen.

I wouldn't assume that all mentally ill people are dangerous - not at all - but I would assume that all school shooters/mall shooters/what-have-you do, in fact, have mental issues. Stable people do not go shoot up schools. Would you disagree with that?

There are a lot of unstable people aren't mentally ill. I'm just thinking from what I can diagnosis. Every disorder have criteria that need to be met. I have done many intakes with unstable people who didn't meet criteria for any mental illness so I couldn't work with them. Unstability can be a sign of many things. One of those things could be mental illness but that isn't a foregone conclusion.

@JasonR86 said:

@gorndonfredoman said:

@JasonR86 said:

@Mike76x said:

@ProfessorEss said:

I love how we'll entertain and investigate every potential cause of gun violence except for guns.

and mental illness

You both seem like good dudes so don't think I'm trying to pick on you. I also have seen this sentiment a lot involving shootings and every time I have this thought and I guess today I just feel like airing the thought.

A shooter at a mass shooting is not necessarily mentally ill. Further such a belief perpetuates the notion that the mentally ill are somehow unsafe or unstable. The reality is that most mentally ill are either quite stable and have lived in misery rather remarkably functionally for a long time or they are more often then not the victim of crimes rather then the perpetrator.

Ok, I'm done.

I think you have an incorrect definition of mental illness you're working with. If someone goes into a school and murders a bunch of children and then themselves, I don't think it's a wild leap of logic to suggest maybe they had trouble functioning in society, which is all that term means.

I'm speaking more as a mental health therapist. As a therapist, I can't say for sure whether someone who shoots someone else is necessarily mentally ill from a professional standpoint. I'm sure I can gin up some diagnosis for that person but my guess is that there are more pertinent factors that lead to the shooting besides whatever disorder I might decide to diagnosis. I guess the bigger issue I have is that this logic may lead to the theory that the mentally ill are somehow automatically dangerous. I would really dislike it if that were to happen.

I wouldn't assume that all mentally ill people are dangerous - not at all - but I would assume that all school shooters/mall shooters/what-have-you do, in fact, have mental issues. Stable people do not go shoot up schools. Would you disagree with that?

@gorndonfredoman said:

@JasonR86 said:

@gorndonfredoman said:

@JasonR86 said:

@Mike76x said:

@ProfessorEss said:

I love how we'll entertain and investigate every potential cause of gun violence except for guns.

and mental illness

You both seem like good dudes so don't think I'm trying to pick on you. I also have seen this sentiment a lot involving shootings and every time I have this thought and I guess today I just feel like airing the thought.

A shooter at a mass shooting is not necessarily mentally ill. Further such a belief perpetuates the notion that the mentally ill are somehow unsafe or unstable. The reality is that most mentally ill are either quite stable and have lived in misery rather remarkably functionally for a long time or they are more often then not the victim of crimes rather then the perpetrator.

Ok, I'm done.

I think you have an incorrect definition of mental illness you're working with. If someone goes into a school and murders a bunch of children and then themselves, I don't think it's a wild leap of logic to suggest maybe they had trouble functioning in society, which is all that term means.

I'm speaking more as a mental health therapist. As a therapist, I can't say for sure whether someone who shoots someone else is necessarily mentally ill from a professional standpoint. I'm sure I can gin up some diagnosis for that person but my guess is that there are more pertinent factors that lead to the shooting besides whatever disorder I might decide to diagnosis. I guess the bigger issue I have is that this logic may lead to the theory that the mentally ill are somehow automatically dangerous. I would really dislike it if that were to happen.

I've certainly heard of cases where someone has committed a horrific act of murder and then when interviewed turned out to be articulate and comfortable with what they have done. Anders Breivik was initially diagnosed as schizophrenic, possibly for political reasons, only to later to be found legally sane. The difference I see is that most of these mass shootings involve suicide, and unless in your professional opinion there are rational reasons one would follow up such action with suicide, I feel comfortable saying this person was mentally ill.

People who commit suicide aren't necessarily mentally ill either.

People won't ever stop using games as a scapegoat.

@gorndonfredoman said:

@JasonR86 said:

@Mike76x said:

@ProfessorEss said:

I love how we'll entertain and investigate every potential cause of gun violence except for guns.

and mental illness

You both seem like good dudes so don't think I'm trying to pick on you. I also have seen this sentiment a lot involving shootings and every time I have this thought and I guess today I just feel like airing the thought.

A shooter at a mass shooting is not necessarily mentally ill. Further such a belief perpetuates the notion that the mentally ill are somehow unsafe or unstable. The reality is that most mentally ill are either quite stable and have lived in misery rather remarkably functionally for a long time or they are more often then not the victim of crimes rather then the perpetrator.

Ok, I'm done.

I think you have an incorrect definition of mental illness you're working with. If someone goes into a school and murders a bunch of children and then themselves, I don't think it's a wild leap of logic to suggest maybe they had trouble functioning in society, which is all that term means.

I'm speaking more as a mental health therapist. As a therapist, I can't say for sure whether someone who shoots someone else is necessarily mentally ill from a professional standpoint. I'm sure I can gin up some diagnosis for that person but my guess is that there are more pertinent factors that lead to the shooting besides whatever disorder I might decide to diagnosis. I guess the bigger issue I have is that this logic may lead to the theory that the mentally ill are somehow automatically dangerous. I would really dislike it if that were to happen.

10 million for that kind of research will produce a 15 pages report filed with 5 pages of intro, 5 pages of graph and 5 pages of credits/references; it’s basically a joke so I don't have high hopes.

@slyspider said:

Thanks Obama. At least we can be done with being accused right? The other research wasn't good enough i guess so MORE MONEY SPENT

Think of it not as money spent, but jobs for scientists. You'll feel better!

FUCK THE POLICE. Wait wrong place?

@Mike76x said:

@ProfessorEss said:

I love how we'll entertain and investigate every potential cause of gun violence except for guns.

and mental illness

You both seem like good dudes so don't think I'm trying to pick on you. I also have seen this sentiment a lot involving shootings and every time I have this thought and I guess today I just feel like airing the thought.

A shooter at a mass shooting is not necessarily mentally ill. Further such a belief perpetuates the notion that the mentally ill are somehow unsafe or unstable. The reality is that most mentally ill are either quite stable and have lived in misery rather remarkably functionally for a long time or they are more often then not the victim of crimes rather then the perpetrator.

Ok, I'm done.

@NinjaTard said:

and fuck you if you disagree.

Aw, shit. I could've been winning arguments all the time if I knew about this trick!

@NinjaTard: There's a lot wrong with Barack Obama's presidency, but using executive orders to enact sensible restrictions on the second amendment shouldn't be considered to be a strike against him. Considering the mass shootings happen literally every other week, it's clear that something has to be done. Unfortunately, however, many members of the senate and house are so beholden to the extremist NRA that they can't or won't be seen as opposing them even a little bit legislatively. Add to that the fact that the Republican party will, in bad faith, block and demagogue anything that Obama or the Democrats propose that doesn't sync perfectly with the Republican party platform, and you have a situation in which something needs to be done in order to ensure Americans' safety and preserve their quality of life, but nothing will be done by going through the usual channels, for reasons that have nothing to do with America's elected representatives trying to serve their constituencies in good faith. The majority of Americans support the measures that the Obama administration is pondering, so I consider this a pretty helpful use of the executive order.

more research is never bad, i know weapons are important in the US and as a Norwegian i have no idea how deep in the culture it goes, here, you can own hunting weapons and handguns, but to be allowed you have to pass a test in proper weapon use and stuff like that. normal people are not allowed to own semi or fully automatic guns. i believe the reasoning is that it would be easy to kill more people faster or something like that.

inb4 it finds something factually accurate and gamers call them ignorant assholes who just hate technology.

@Milkman said:

Question: if we as "gamers" or whatever are so sure that there's no link between violence in real life and violence in video games, why are we so afraid of an official study?

Because I don't trust THIS president to be the one to give it an unbiased eye. A President who wants to use Executive Orders (my understanding designed for vital actions when he can't meet with Congress in a timely fashion, such as in a war scenario) to do anything he wants and who seems too ready to severely restrict or worse basic freedoms like the right to bear arms and possibly the freedom of speech via games, movies, music, etc. is not the kind of leader I picture giving a fair shake if he doesn't like the results.

Let me paint you a picture from my conspiracy theory section of my mind: the study is done, it's inconclusive at best like half the studies done. Well we can't take action based on "inconclusive", he thinks to himself before deciding that for the "good of all mankind" he MUST bend the rules and save our children and future generations. Before we know it we have either restricted the content allowed in our media and arts (also known as censorship) or dare we go one further and fudge the results in such a way to lead to overly restricting gun ownership laws....no need to ban weapons now, we can do that in our third or fourth term!

Obama is a liar and he is NOT considerate of what's best for the democracy he leads but rather in doing what he wants when he wants and fuck you if you disagree. Just wait and see, we'll see him start tightening the belt around America soon and we'll all be choking to death on a dictatorship unless people start questioning the shit he does on a near daily basis.

After the mass murder of 77 men/women/children here in Norway by Anders Behring Breivik, the fact that he played WoW was brought up in the media, and it legitimately scared parents and others that really don't know jack shit about games. A red herring if I ever saw one.

Among the millions of people that play games, there HAVE to be, just by thinking statistically, some murderers, rapists, bad people. It makes perfect sense.

But it has also been uncovered that 99.9% of criminals eat bread. Maybe we should ban that as well?

@householddutch: Handguns are far and away the most popular gun crime weapon in the US. Owning a handgun and a few rifles/shotguns for hunting(typically you want several types of each for different game if you hunt a lot) is pretty common, most people don't need more than that. The problem is two fold. First, the second amendment isn't about hunting. Secondly, those restrictions will have little to no impact on violent crime rates, it's simply a stepping stone for more gun laws. Long rifles of all sorts, including "assault rifles" account for a tiny percentage of gun deaths in the US, it's simply not going to make a difference. When it makes no difference, they don't go back and repeal it, they move forward with more aggressive bans on more "bad guns". Some members of congress, and some governors have readily admitted that national registry databases are a good first step to forced buyback programs(though I don't think it will happen anytime soon, it's a pillar of some people's beliefs). General mistrust and skepticism of the government keep lots of people from supporting virtually anything regarding gun control laws.

My personal feelings: stricter background checks etc would be fine with me, more funding for research and treatment of mental health disorders is excellent, and community interaction programs along with a relook at the war on drugs would all be much better, more helpful solutions. But banning certain specific "bad guns" is ridiculous and will accomplish little, and the problem is MUCH more multifaceted than banning "assault rifles", because in reality they aren't even a fraction of weapons used in killings and crime in the US anyhow. The people I know who own AR-15 style rifles (and much more, being FFL holders and enthusiasts) are collectors who take them to the range but otherwise keep them in a safe 24/7.

I think this is good news, to my knowledge the CDC doesn't have any studies in regards to this matter, and if they come up in our favor (as they will if done properly) then we could succesfully leave videogames as a scapegoat behind.

@householddutch said:

So...I love my vidya games, and hopefully something out of this whole big initiative ends up doing some actual good. But I gotta ask, me living in a country where we don't have a whole lot of violent gun incidents (not saying it's the best country in the world, far from it), what would the US residents on this site think of actual gun ownership restrictions? Like you can't own anything more than a handgun and something for hunting if you had a hunting licence. Not implying that would fix the problem, because crazy people would still exist. Just curious what your thoughts would be...

As someone who has no interest in owning a gun and, admittedly, isn't the most "informed" person out there, I wouldn't mind stricter gun laws. Crazy people will still be crazy, I agree. That's just reality and we can't change that. However, I feel like the chances I'll wake up and have to hear about another mass shooting miles away from my house, in a theater I visit often, or at my future children's school would, in theory, be lower is worth it. I'm usually never in favor in taking away freedom, but shit has got to change somewhere at some point. Again, I don't think this is the end all, be all solution by any means, but it's a start.

Thanks Obama. At least we can be done with being accused right? The other research wasn't good enough i guess so MORE MONEY SPENT

So, like...I'm curious if anyone who's too busy slathering the internets with "DEY DONE TOOK R VIDYA!!!" or "OBAAAAAAAAMMMMAAAAAA!!!" actually bothered to read up on this or, you know, gotten their facts straight before blasting their opinons on here? Unless I missed the secret wording that said Obama is going to push an initiative to remove all violent video games from stores.

THEY TOOK R FREE SPEEEEACH!!!!

Do I agree that the idea of a direct correlation between video games and violence is ridiculous? Absolutely. Little Timmy isn't going to blow off someone's head with a shotgun just because he saw it GTA.

HOWEVER,

when mixed in with media violence (music, television, books, etc) as a whole, as well as keeping in consideration education, social status, and other thiings--I think there is something worth studying here. While I certainly agree that gun regulation should be required--it's not the end-all solution. It's just a band-aid over a much bigger, deeply rooted problem. Saying only crazy people enact in weaponized violence is not only bullshit, but keeps us from realizing that gun violence is entirely a societal issue.

@pyrodactyl said:

@McGhee said:

@Superfriend said:

Wait, the guy who ordered more drone killings than any other president before him does that?

You´d think someone like that would have no problem with violence in games.. Well, if that will put his mind at ease. If this whole situation gets out of control and you guys end up with fucked up laws like Germany, I hope you fight it as much as possible.

For now: Nanny state: 1 - Any thinking individual: 0

Exactly. Isn't a drone attack the truest and realest definition of a "violent videogame?"

You're aware that this study is mainly a means to shut down people or congressmen sharing your political ideal right? This bill aims to reduce gun violence in the US and the reason that study is included in the package is to deflect any ''it's not the guns, it's the video games'' arguments. Necessary since, you know, right wing nutjobs will find any excuse to protect their rights to own a 50 clip military assault rifle and the Congress is now run by right wing nutjobs.

Who the fuck are you arguing with right now? The two of us were talking about drone attacks and hypocrisy over here.

Digging the picture IGN used for Jeff in that article.

Also, thanks Obama.

This all sounds like good news.

So...I love my vidya games, and hopefully something out of this whole big initiative ends up doing some actual good. But I gotta ask, me living in a country where we don't have a whole lot of violent gun incidents (not saying it's the best country in the world, far from it), what would the US residents on this site think of actual gun ownership restrictions? Like you can't own anything more than a handgun and something for hunting if you had a hunting licence. Not implying that would fix the problem, because crazy people would still exist. Just curious what your thoughts would be...

Really can't believe the government is spending money on this. I really doubt anything ever comes from the so called research being performed. What a joke.

I am ok with the study, if it can help to finally put this part of the debate to rest. I don't see why the wording had to list games separate from other "violent media." Unfortunately no matter how conclusive the study is, this will probably continue to resurface ever so often. Funny how no one is talking about the economy all of the sudden . . .

@Godlyawesomeguy said:

@JackG100 said:

Every nation in the world play violent videogames, yet USA is the one with schoolshootings... seems like the liberal gunlaws that only exist in the stats are more likely to be the cause of shootings than violent media that is common all over the place...

Oh jesus.

1. The United States is NOT the only one with school shootings, and much less is the only one with gun violence.

2. The gun laws in the United States are far from liberal. If you want liberal gun laws, go search most other nations gun laws and do a quick compare and contrast between the two.

3. You may have been being incredulous, but I seriously doubt strict gun laws have anything to do with shootings.

1. Since 2000 Europe had 12 shootings, USA had 43, and Canada had 4... South America, Asia and Australia had 8 together. I suppose African schoolshootings might be more common than American, but I can't find statistics to back that up. But yeah, USA has more shootings than the rest of the world combined. So pretty much the only civilized nation with a school shooting issue that needs to be adressed.

2. You don't think gunlaws liberal when you are in many if not most states able to possess an assault weapon? I find that an odd perspective, but maybe it is cause I grew up in a society where guns weren't allowed, other than for military purposes and hunting wild animals.

3. You don't think easier access to guns make school shootings more common, or what are you trying to say?

@Mike76x said:

@Jokers_Wild said:

@HellBound said:

This is a joke.

First of all the CDC is a joke. They have a "Zombie Survival Guide". I mean really?

As a future scientist and researcher myself, in order to do good and ACTUAL research on this subject, they would have to spend years and years. Determining the developmental and mental affects something "violent" has on a person would take years. You would have to watch that person grow and develop. Not only are you straining ethics at that point, but also money.

The evidence is right in front of them. Millions of people play violent video games and movies. They have for years. The percentage of violent crimes based on that would show how it does not have an affect. The violent crimes that do happen can't necessarily be linked to violent media. Parental abuse is the biggest factor.

If someone can't tell the different from fake and reality, that is a mental issue. Research better ways to help the brain.

"I watched Django so killing White people who like Slaves must be good!" Am I doing it right?

Yeah, the institution that has overseen the elimination of some of the worst diseases in human history is a joke. Thanks for letting us know, internet scientist!

Videogames is a disease?

"First of all the CDC is a joke." Are you selling camo-fatigues and store-able food? If not, you should be.

@ProfessorEss said:

I love how we'll entertain and investigate every potential cause of gun violence except for guns.

and mental illness

So mere hours after me getting approval for my Psychology Research Project on the study into real life violence and playing violent video games, Obama goes ahead and commissions $10m to the CDC to investigate the exact same thing. Utter mug Barack, I'd have done it for 500 quid and a McRib.

@Jokers_Wild said:

@HellBound said:

This is a joke.

First of all the CDC is a joke. They have a "Zombie Survival Guide". I mean really?

As a future scientist and researcher myself, in order to do good and ACTUAL research on this subject, they would have to spend years and years. Determining the developmental and mental affects something "violent" has on a person would take years. You would have to watch that person grow and develop. Not only are you straining ethics at that point, but also money.

The evidence is right in front of them. Millions of people play violent video games and movies. They have for years. The percentage of violent crimes based on that would show how it does not have an affect. The violent crimes that do happen can't necessarily be linked to violent media. Parental abuse is the biggest factor.

If someone can't tell the different from fake and reality, that is a mental issue. Research better ways to help the brain.

"I watched Django so killing White people who like Slaves must be good!" Am I doing it right?

Yeah, the institution that has overseen the elimination of some of the worst diseases in human history is a joke. Thanks for letting us know, internet scientist!

Videogames is a disease?