#101 Posted by LikeaSsur (1513 posts) -

When will people learn it's not video games' fault?

#102 Posted by Tychoid (52 posts) -

This just in: water is fuel for murderers. Study being conducted on water.

#103 Posted by Xtrminatr (261 posts) -

This is what UVB-76 was warning us about.

#104 Posted by CornBREDX (5106 posts) -

That's fine, although a little redundant. It seems like they are just doing more research into this, though, which isn't necessarily a bad thing. 
 
While I agree we need to find some kind of solution, I feel sometimes, like they are looking in the wrong place. 

#105 Posted by Deathpooky (1386 posts) -

I don't like games being singled out, but otherwise who cares? Let them do a study on violent media. We still have the First Amendment, and an accompanying Supreme Court case, saying government action against games is as bad as government action against any other medium. It's not like the status quo was preventing legislatures from passing stupid anti-game bills as it is.

If it turns out they find violent media is bad for kids, then hopefully it'll convince more parents to keep a closer eye on what their kids buy and play. Or hell, even if they don't find a link. I sure as hell wouldn't let my kids play everything I play, no matter what they find. Of course, I also would keep an eye on TV and movies for the same reason.

#106 Posted by clank543 (94 posts) -

There are definitely games with unnecessary violent images that may be disturbing, but I don't think its any worse than something like the UFC. I love the UFC, but I would never let a young child watch it because it is extremely violent and can really change the outlook on that violence in a young child's mind.

We have a rating system for a reason, and parents need to be proactive in their childs life by explaining to them what this media is and how they should be consuming it.

#107 Posted by Elwoodan (818 posts) -

oh good. I feel much safer now. no one will ever commit a gun crime again now that the CDC is on the case.

#108 Posted by AiurFlux (902 posts) -

Knee jerk reactions made by an incompetent twat designed to appease the masses of ignorant uninformed idiots.

There have been studies done. Most if not all have shown that there is ZERO correlation between violence in games and movies and mass shootings. At a time when America is 16 trillion dollars in debt and in the worst recession since the 30's they drop 10 million on something that has been done. Multiple times. The only good thing is that this also includes the media and how they handle things like this. FBI profilers and registered psychiatrists have said for YEARS that the way that the media handles these people, holding them up like pariah's, contributes more to mass shootings than anything else out there.

Nice to see Obama ripping apart the 1st and 2nd Amendments. Let's see how far he can go.

#109 Posted by Brandino (249 posts) -

@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?

As a gamer i am not afraid, i am more upset at the fact that it's a waste of time, money and energy. I would rather that money go towards something more productive.

Video Games will never get banned here (in the US) no matter what bullshit they try to spin with their research so that's why i am not worried.

#110 Edited by MikkaQ (10283 posts) -

This seems like a waste of time and money. Even if there was a real link between violence and video games there haven't been enough massacres to really justify panic or taking drastic censorship action. I mean if it really were an epidemic of violence, we'd have a Sandy Hook every month or something.

The fact is more people die from street violence than from angry teens massacring people, and even more die from car accidents, cigarettes and alcohol. I would worry about the stuff that's actually killing us en masse instead of the occasional massacre that is more or less unavoidable. Yes it's tragic, but as they say one death is a tragedy, thousands are a statistic. We need a better sense of perspective as a society.

I'd rather see a study that looks for a link between guns and murder. But you don't need 10 million to connect those dots.

#111 Posted by mrfluke (5130 posts) -

@GioVANNI said:

And they are going to find exactly zero. Studies have been done on this before, and violence has only been going down since the prevalence of videogames.

@RecSpec said:

This is just a study, no big deal. They won't find anything. Although, IF by some chance they do find a link, this will just snowball and drag movies and tv along with it.

these

#112 Posted by PatrickisLiterallyHitler (1 posts) -

Come on, man! You're not John McCain. You aren't 75. Don't go and ban violence in games because you are too scared to act on the real issue. COME ON, MAN!

#113 Edited by GooieGreen (454 posts) -

@heatDrive88 said:

@billyhoush said:

@GooieGreen said:

@billyhoush said:

What a waste of 10 million. I guess at the very least it will create some bullshit jobs in academia that may stimulate a bit of the economy.

No, you're right. We as a society know the impact of everything on everything.

My point is they already have studied it and there are current studies in progress. Obama just did this to try to shut up the NRA's use of scapegoating video games. There is nothing wrong with trying to appease everyone and 10 million really isn't that much money. It's just eye rolling bullshit politics.

If you really think about it, everyone should have zero problem with a $10 million dollar investment aimed at building a checklist of "things the NRA can't use as a bullshit excuse for gun violence".

In the grand scheme of things, it isn't a lot of money; absolutely. For decades we followed certain learning models only to find how poorly-implemented they really are. Common sense dictates that we might not find anything, but it is certainly worth at LEAST a $10 million investment. We might be looking for one thing but find out something new altogether.

Shutting the NRA and irrational media pundits up is priceless though.

#114 Posted by Brandino (249 posts) -

@SpicyRichter said:

Asking the CDC to do the study?

Doesn't the CDC have anything better to do?

Their "flu epidemic" isn't going over the way they wanted so no.. No they do not have anything better to do.

#115 Posted by Anund (883 posts) -

Thanks, Obama.

#116 Posted by AMyggen (2862 posts) -

@AiurFlux said:

Knee jerk reactions made by an incompetent twat designed to appease the masses of ignorant uninformed idiots.

There have been studies done. Most if not all have shown that there is ZERO correlation between violence in games and movies and mass shootings. At a time when America is 16 trillion dollars in debt and in the worst recession since the 30's they drop 10 million on something that has been done. Multiple times. The only good thing is that this also includes the media and how they handle things like this. FBI profilers and registered psychiatrists have said for YEARS that the way that the media handles these people, holding them up like pariah's, contributes more to mass shootings than anything else out there.

Nice to see Obama ripping apart the 1st and 2nd Amendments. Let's see how far he can go.

Why did you bring the 2nd amendment into this?

And personally, I have no real problems with this. In the grand scheme of things, 10 million is absolutely nothing, and this will more than likely just support the facts: That video games don't turn people into killers.

#117 Posted by Abendlaender (2788 posts) -

@Tarsier said:

"We don't benefit from ignorance. We don't benefit from not knowing the science of this epidemic of violence." yes you do you criminal scum. thats the reason youre spreading so much misinformation. this is part of their plan people. wake up.. this isnt an alex jones kookoo crazy conspiracy.. these people are evil and they want full control. they will never blame the real problem which is DRUGS.. these drugs that are one of the main reasons theyve been in afghanistan in the first place. soldiers came back wondering why they had been guarding poppy fields... this is why. so that the mass pharmaceutical drug epidemic can spread and cause suicide and death across america, so they can blame it on the 2nd amendment and continue to take more and more freedoms while the sheep eat up every bit of bullshit they put out, because theyve been brainwashed since childhood through school and media.. if people dont start shifting their ideas about what is going on in the world, outside of the spectrum of what they see on TV and what theyve been taught in school, we are not going to have liberty for much longer.

Amusing.

Then again I could probably laugh about every text with the words "wake up" and "this is not a conspiracy theory".

#118 Posted by Franstone (1111 posts) -

Have I ever told you the definition of INSANITY?

#119 Edited by fluxbit (125 posts) -
We don't benefit from not knowing the science of this epidemic of violence.

At first, this seems like a reasonable appeal to logic and method. But, there is no statistical epidemic of violence; the President is being deceived by someone or himself. As such, it seems this endeavor is predicated on a falsehood and serves no purpose other than to give politicians ammunition (unintentional pun) against their foes and make them appear compassionate.

We don't benefit from people misusing the word epidemic and claiming fallacy as fact.

#120 Posted by ultra2extreme (102 posts) -

Oh good, another american administration decides to scapegoat gun law inadequacies on violent media. Well done america. You know that in the UK we have Tits, all the different swear words you like, along with a few of our own, and as much violent media as you can chew. Yet, whats that? no one is shooting toddlers in schools? Well there must be some mistake!? Or is it just that we dont give fucking guns to everyone? Go figure.

#121 Posted by ShatterShock (70 posts) -

Sometimes I feel like a ban on violent video games is ultimately inevitable. As long as humanity exists, you'll have crazy people who will act out extreme displays of violence. As long as these tragedies happen, you'll have people who want quick, easy solutions to their problems and political leaders looking to enact them so they can look good. Meanwhile, as technology advances, video games will become ever more realistic in their displays of violence, to the point where FPS games will look less like shooting at wax statues and action figures and more like an interactive snuff film.

The CDC research may end up clearing video games from any blame, but it won't matter. There will always be people who think that media should be controlled for society's own good, and all they'll have to do is wait for the next major tragedy or the next shocking video game to try all over again. Why shouldn't they? Either they win, and they successfully fought for family safety against the mean old gaming industry, or they lose, and they fought the good fight against the mean old gaming industry.

#122 Posted by frankfartmouth (1016 posts) -

I'd like to say this study will put the issue to rest, but it probably won't. The theory of evolution is still rejected by about half the country. You can spray idiots with facts all you want, they just don't sink in if the person is unwilling to consider them. Games have been a nice, tidy scapegoat for 20 years now. I think it's gone on too long to prevent a large number of people from holding onto it for good. Once something rises above general suspicion and becomes accepted like this, without questioning it, it gets pretty hard to unravel. See marijuana.

#123 Posted by HeyImPhoenix (169 posts) -

What an absolute joke.

#124 Posted by DetectiveSpecial (466 posts) -

@sissylion said:

Man, it's going to be a real bummer for you guys when the research reveals that there's totally a connection between the consumption of violent media and the expression of violence.

I mean, except for the stuff that already exists. Of which there is a lot.

Your first link is an essay, not a peer reviewed study. Your second link attempts to show the physical changes (of which they include aggression) in people who are using advanced virtual reality equipment instead of a "desktop" environment. And your third link is more focused on predictors of violent behavior, and even finds that past physical altercations are a much more significant risk. They discount the media argument themselves at the very end when they state "The goal of this research is not to test whether media violence exposure itself is a significant predictor but instead to demonstrate how risk factors (including media violence exposure) individually and collectively are associated with aggression. Therefore, our analysis strategy..."

There may be a correlation, as there is between almost anything, but none of your sources have found a connection.

#125 Posted by MarcusTorrent (8 posts) -

Yes, the CDC is doing research the connection between gun violence and video games, but like the article clearly states it's also the connection with other forms of media as well.

I'd be interested to see the results of the study, given that apparently since the mid 90's the NRA has been freezing funding towards this research (http://vitals.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/01/16/16532333-obama-plan-eases-freeze-on-cdc-gun-violence-research).

#126 Posted by Demoskinos (14769 posts) -

I see Operation Scape Goat is in full swing.

#127 Posted by MildMolasses (3219 posts) -

@MikkaQ: There's plenty of studies that would show healthy, well-educated societies are both safer and happier, yet for some reason a lot of people are upset by the idea trying to provide health-care for everyone or, god-forbid, trying to pump money into the schools to decrease class sizes and provide better teaching tools for the poorer areas. You'd be amazed at how much being well and have prospects for the future can do for people

#128 Posted by sarahsdad (1087 posts) -
@Phished0ne

@sissylion said:

Man, it's going to be a real bummer for you guys when the research reveals that there's totally a connection between the consumption of violent media and the expression of violence.

I mean, except for the stuff that already exists. Of which there is a lot.

Except the caveats: Violent video games increase violent FEELINGS, not violent BEHAVIOR. There is quite a large difference. What about the idea that people that are predisposed to violence are more likely to enjoy violent video games. Have you ever read Grand Theft Childhood? they do a great job in that book of summing up some of the problems with the nature of these studies. Their conclusions were quite good also. Violence in media isnt the issue, improper parenting is. The problem is that the guberment's reaction to these findings is to attempt to ban violent media, instead of helping parents learn the rating scale, or trying to get parents to be parents and actually pay attention to what their kids are consuming.

Was really starting to wonder if my immediate family and I were the only ones who thought that the main link in most of these cases was poor parenting.
#129 Posted by sissylion (679 posts) -

@Brodehouse said:

@sissylion said:

Man, it's going to be a real bummer for you guys when the research reveals that there's totally a connection between the consumption of violent media and the expression of violence.

I mean, except for the stuff that already exists. Of which there is a lot.

Because of course there is. Because if I'm a violent fuck who wants to kill people, why wouldn't I involve myself in media that involves killing people? In the same way if that I'm the type of person who kidnaps babies, I'm probably watching a lot of programming about parenting and babies. Neither justifies censorship.

But the primary author of that last paper, Douglas Gentile, has entire works which support the idea that video games make their players more violent, including a study which documented the effects of violent video game exposure on children who didn't play games. As they were exposed to more violent video games, their likelihood to have fights skyrocketed.

I'm not saying we should censor all video games, but to stand around and pretend like our culture of violence doesn't have any negative repercussions is fucking asinine.

#130 Posted by poperamone (78 posts) -

there 100% is a link between video games and violent tenancies.

I played this pile of wank today and wanted to smash my iphone with a brick

#131 Edited by bemusedchunk (686 posts) -

Scientific research and international and domestic crime data all point toward the same conclusion: entertainment does not cause violent behavior in the real world.

However, 'Murica is a statistic anomaly...and hopefully one day we'll find out why.

#132 Posted by gogosox82 (424 posts) -

@Brodehouse said:

@bricewgilbert said:

@Brodehouse: lol again who's giving up free speech? A study is a being done. No one is even saying that if the study gives positive results than they would even do anything. They would need to replicate such results even more. I would be surprised if that were possible considering the research so far, but there is nothing wrong with fine tuning around knowledge. Being sure about something. This brings up a scary thought too. What if violent video games DO cause people of a certain age to act violent? I don't believe this, but what if it was conclusive? Would you still scream free speech? We are talking about children here and we do curtail certain rights for them.

YES I WOULD STILL SCREAM FREE SPEECH.

We're not talking about children here, we've already prohibited children from buying M rated games with graphic violence. We're talking about adults, and their right to say, think, view, hear WHATEVER THEY WANT.

I think your being a bit paranoid. He only giving them $10 million to study this. That is absolutely nothing. Hell, you couldn't run a small town in the middle of nowhere with a $10 million budget. So they don't have the resources to actually study this effectively so they wont actually be able to say anything other than w/o studying more there's no conclusive evidence. And its just a study. Its quite a big leap from a study to actual legislation that would ban anything in a videogame. Also, any banning of anything in a videogame would be unconstitutional so I think your overreacting a tad bit.

#133 Posted by GrizzlyAdams (9 posts) -

It's ridiculous and most certainly a waste of money and time.

BUT as everyone seems to be saying already; having the research and being able to wave it in people's faces will be something better than just saying it with no proof. And even if it works out against video games somehow, maybe it can help us pinpoint what the real problem may be and how we can go about trying to prevent it; since violence is an issue that is never going to go away.

We will never solve it, there is no cure, you cannot stop every crime and protect every victim.

It goes without saying though, that everyone against will still not believe the studies and say they were rigged or something.

#134 Posted by huser (1076 posts) -

@Tricky69 said:

Here we go, more useless research...

If it might finally move videogames out of the cultural ghetto so it's no longer a convenient scapegoat it'll be useful research. And under the auspices of the CDC, it might actually have the weight to make that difference and come to definitive conclusions one way or another. Will likely take years if not a decade regardless.

#135 Posted by believer258 (11800 posts) -

@Brodehouse said:

@WinterSnowblind said:

@Brodehouse said:

And here is where an entire nation gives up their right to free speech with triumphant applause.

Who's giving up free speech and why would you quote that movie?

Hopefully there's no parallel in a massive ignorant crowd, paralyzed by fear and doubt, extinguishing the one thing that has allowed them to come as far as they have. Free speech fucking matters, and anyone who wants to curtail it for 'safety' is a fucking Sith Lord in disguise.

Hmm... the same thought occurred to me but the major difference between Palpatine and Obama is that Palpatine was not initiating a program that, if proving unfavorable results, may end up in a few million jobs and a few million dollars lost in an already bad economy.

Could there malevolent intention here? Maybe. But also remember that the intention may just be to placate the people, not to open the door to restriction of freedom of speech.

I'm not saying that you're wrong in being wary, but I am saying that you may want to hold back any knee-jerk reactions.

#136 Posted by Pozo (56 posts) -

@sarahsdad said:

Was really starting to wonder if my immediate family and I were the only ones who thought that the main link in most of these cases was poor parenting.

Bingo! Seriously parents are completely absolved of any responsibilities in these cases. It's very convenient for parents to say they have no control or influence over their kids when things go badly, but when their kids succeed, they'll be sure to take as much credit as possible.

#137 Posted by sissylion (679 posts) -

@DetectiveSpecial said:

@sissylion said:

Man, it's going to be a real bummer for you guys when the research reveals that there's totally a connection between the consumption of violent media and the expression of violence.

I mean, except for the stuff that already exists. Of which there is a lot.

Your first link is an essay, not a peer reviewed study. Your second link attempts to show the physical changes (of which they include aggression) in people who are using advanced virtual reality equipment instead of a "desktop" environment. And your third link is more focused on predictors of violent behavior, and even finds that past physical altercations are a much more significant risk. They discount the media argument themselves at the very end when they state "The goal of this research is not to test whether media violence exposure itself is a significant predictor but instead to demonstrate how risk factors (including media violence exposure) individually and collectively are associated with aggression. Therefore, our analysis strategy..."

There may be a correlation, as there is between almost anything, but none of your sources have found a connection.

I concede my first link. I was trying to find a paper by Craig Anderson and that was the best the internet would give me. But as for the second link, the point is more that, when introducing a greater degree of involvement and realism, games tend to leave a greater impact on their players, at least concerning violence. While the fact that it was a VR simulation may be somewhat confounding, the study still found that a greater level of immersion can have negative effects, and video games are only getting more immersive and realistic (see: Jeff's uncomfortable reaction to the drawn-out death scenes in the Black Ops 2 quick look). As for the connection, I believe that my more recent links do a better job supporting the idea of media-drawn aggression.

But even if they don't, I'm not really that concerned. My point isn't to definitively prove that video games are negatively impacting any group of people, it's to point out that there's at least a chance that they do, and that there's merit in conducting more studies. I'm not trying to turn everyone against violent media, but when most of these comments straight up dismiss any sort of scholarly pursuit into the subject, it totally comes like people are only so recalcitrant to the idea because they don't want to consider the possibility that video games, or violent media as a whole, can have real effects on society.

#138 Edited by ChrisTaran (1584 posts) -

Disappointed in the President and the ESA for even considering such a ridiculous waste of taxpayer money and time to be a good move. Let's prove something we already know to be fact a couple more hundred times and waste a ton of money doing it, all while not changing the minds of the idiots that will always think that there is a direct link between media and human action.

#139 Posted by Hef (1112 posts) -

@sissylion: As a Canadian who experiences the exact same media as americans, we have significantly less school shootings. And most of them are "some kid shot a gun at someone he got in a fight with and was arrested." The last one I can think of that was a major news event was the Montreal School shooting in the 80's. And it was something about feminism and how it ruined his life, not violent video games.

While there are probably some effects from violent video games, I can't imagine that being the major cause in going on a killing spree. Honestly if you have trouble separating fantasy and reality and go around shooting people because you did it in a videogame, there is something seriously wrong with you.

#140 Posted by MyNiceIceLife (618 posts) -

I hope when they discuss looking into the media affects on violence that they include all the news networks that report obsessively about every tragedy that happens. Last time I checked they talk about real murder and real actions, while video games and movies are fake (except those based on real events, but the movie itself is still fake). Then again they'll just focus on the effects and completely ignore the whole parents shouldn't be letting their kids be exposed to this stuff at a young age, but it's never the parents fault.

#141 Posted by crow13 (139 posts) -

So, i'm a little confused. Even if this study shows that there is a link between kids being exposed to violence and then committing violent acts, that doesn't mean an end to violent video games. It means we re-educate parents to show them that not all games are for kids and that the ratings on games really do matter. Something most mature gamers already know.

#142 Edited by PhilESkyline (774 posts) -

I think game developers do play a part in this as well as the parents. I see game developers as the suppliers of the product, and us the gamers, the users.

We don't lock up parents because their kids use drugs, we lock up the drug dealer. So Gamestop, Best Buy, Walmart, Amazon, and all you mom and pops stores...get ready to do some hard time or get fined.

On a "serious note" after playing hours and hours of GTA III my brother and I actually thought about selling a that was left unlocked. The door was open and all...the thought passed quickly but it was there...thank you Rockstar Games.

#143 Posted by mystakin (100 posts) -

@Pozo said:

@sarahsdad said:

Was really starting to wonder if my immediate family and I were the only ones who thought that the main link in most of these cases was poor parenting.

Bingo! Seriously parents are completely absolved of any responsibilities in these cases. It's very convenient for parents to say they have no control or influence over their kids when things go badly, but when their kids succeed, they'll be sure to take as much credit as possible.

Not necessarily. Mainstream discussion about media violence, with research to back it up, would leave parents with less excuse to let media raise their children. I think most people here assume that this study is bound to lead to censorship, but it could just as likely lead to better media effects education in schools and in media.

#145 Edited by Kosayn (452 posts) -

I fall pretty strongly on the side of gun control rather than media control on this one - it's a small percentage, but some people lose the plot and accidents happen, and I'd rather there be some defined limits on how efficient the killing tools we have available to us are. When nobody in your family or friends has guns in their lifestyle, not even some weird uncle, they are basically just not something you think about.

But I also think investigating how media affects people could be worthwhile - if it's actually about science and not just a pretext for legislation. My first exposure to American news and TV was around the time of the 1st gulf war, and it was really surprising to me how much more the overall tone was embattled, nervous and fearful compared to Canadian TV, which still has the matter-of-fact, detached aspect of the BBC about it.

#146 Posted by Stimpack (849 posts) -

If you should be disgusted about anything, it should be this.

#147 Posted by sissylion (679 posts) -

@Hef: Don't get me wrong, I definitely don't think that video games are some tool that teach people how to murder. But in a lot of them, expressing anger and violence sees little consequence or repercussion. Grand Theft Auto isn't teaching people how to fire a gun, but it might be contributing to an unhealthily positive perception of violence.

#148 Posted by MisterSamMan (364 posts) -

The good news, the outcome will be the White House declaring that there is no link between violent games and violent actions.

#149 Posted by Archr5 (30 posts) -

While I understand the sentiment that having a CDC study available to point to and say "See there's no proof that violent games cause violence!" sounds like it'll help...

But Trust me, the CDC has done gun research that says an assault weapons ban does not impact violent crime, and less than 3% of violent crime is committed with "assault rifles." Those results have been on the books for quite some time, and having those facts on hand does absolutely nothing to influence the type of people who are anti game or anti gun, they simply don't care about the facts, they just want "feel good" legislation because it's "common sense"...

These are the same people who think the UK has it better... when the violent crime rate in the UK is actually worse http://www.nationmaster.com/compare/United-Kingdom/United-States/Crime they just have less "gun" crime... but guess what, getting shanked or set on fire by a Chav isn't any better or worse than being shot, you're still dead, or in a coma, or permanently damaged for the rest of your life...

#150 Posted by heatDrive88 (2310 posts) -

@hagridore said:

And in 1974 Kiss made all our kids worship the devil. We've been at this for years! I say just try to ban games, music, movies, & comics. Try or shut up.

YO DAWG THAT SONG LOVE GUN? HE'S SINGING ABOUT HIS DICCCCCCCKKKKKK.