#151 Posted by MjHealy (1963 posts) -

Seems like a cop out to me. So the US gun lobby is super strong so they've decided to pick on the easy target of video games; trying to bait people into a distraction. These recent massacres can easily blamed on two things: very liberal gun laws and mental healthcare.

#152 Posted by Grixxel (812 posts) -

All sorts of horrid shit has been happening since man learned to walk. Why would they think it has -anything- to do with media, period? Oh well, whatever pleases the idiotic masses I suppose.

#153 Posted by hostyl1 (21 posts) -

I am 100% okay with having a scientific study done by the (relatively) impartial CDC. I am confident that they will find what we already know, there is no causal relationship between violent videogames and gun-violence. I am a scientist and believe that more information is better than less information.

As a gamer, I'm tired of old people who've never played one of these "violent videogames" talking out of their arse about how they are so sure that the games "desensitize" people. It really gets me when they dont include movies, TV, the News, hell even our National Anthem is about shit blowing up!

In this particular case though, the dude who shot up Newtown was an adult anyway. Young, as he was only 20, but that qualifies as an adult for every purpose other than buying booze.

Now, I'd *rather* that $10mil be spent on Early Childhood education or Childhood nutrition or even building some more playgrounds. But if it will shoot down (pun intended) this fallacious line of thought once and for all, go ahead and do it!

Then again I picked the nick hostyl1 (hostile one) so maybe I've already be compromised (desensitized). ;)

#154 Posted by crow13 (155 posts) -

@sissylion: What exactly is an "unhealthy positive perception of violence" ? Not trying to be sarcastic, I really don't know.

#155 Posted by haggis (1674 posts) -

Anytime a politician starts talking about "giving people choices" what they really mean is limiting choices. Truth is, none of the major studies of video games and violence have turned up anything but statistical noise. There's no visible connection. What they're looking for is the barest hint that will allow them to exert control over media. That's what politics has been reduced to these days: excuses for taking away free choice and replacing it with the decisions of some bureaucrat who supposedly knows better than we do what is good for us. Worse, it doesn't matter who is in control. They're all basically looking for the same thing.

I can't hardly believe that we're still talking about violent video games after so many privately and publicly funded studies have found nothing at all. They'll keep banging this against the wall until they get the result they want.

#156 Edited by deerokus (598 posts) -

@Archr5 said:

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...

Statistics can be misleading. What we class as violent crime in the UK seems to be different from what the US does, and there are many reasons why these figures might be higher (unlike the USA, basically everyone lives in densely-populated cities in the UK, for one).

Anyway the only DIRECT comparison to make is homicide rate. America's is about twice as high as ours for some reason. It's good to see your government trying to work out why.

#157 Posted by TehJedicake (943 posts) -

Yay more spending woohoo

#158 Posted by MikkaQ (10296 posts) -

@MildMolasses said:

@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

I agree, I think increased spending in medicine and education pave the way to a better future. But apparently it's more fun to panic about a nonexistent threat instead. Guess we got too used to that during the cold war.

#159 Posted by sissylion (677 posts) -

@crow13: Using it in a cathartic way, or believing that it can be used to get what's desired. Video games probably aren't teaching kids that killing a bunch of civilians is an okay thing to do, but they may be inspiring some sort of Machiavellian idea of violence or helping to form unhealthy habits in the way that children deal with and release stress, frustration, etc.

#160 Posted by crow13 (155 posts) -

You know I played a lot of "Burger Time" and it made me really want to eat burgers. Maybe I can blame video games for my obesity too...

#161 Posted by Serpentenema (242 posts) -

I was always allowed to play what would be considered violent games, or things that were M rated as a kid. My parents would just take time out of their day to lecture us about how video games were no way a reflection of how to act in real life and would watch us play it for a while. The only time they ever had a problem with a game was after columbine and the media was talking about how the killers played doom, so they just broke it in front of us in fear of my brother and I becoming shooters.

So like what everyone else said, it is up to parents being parents.

#162 Posted by rkofan87 (202 posts) -

@Jayzilla said:

With all due respect Mr. President: Get government out of my gaming and movies and religion and sexual life. Start fixing the budget and education and fiscal spending of our government and then maybe we can talk.


#163 Posted by Krakn3Dfx (2705 posts) -

If the CDC wastes time on stuff like this, they're not going to get ahead of this zombie apocalypse thing.

It's not a matter of if!

#164 Edited by heatDrive88 (2536 posts) -

@Archr5 said:

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...

To be fair, "chav" violence is simply gang violence, which the US has it's fair share of as well. So while gun violence and gang violence in the US are both interconnected, the comparison of gang violence or "chav" violence still exists as a separate problem that can still be equated on both sides.

That being said, the more notorious tragic events of gun violence in schools (Newton, Columbine) were not a result that came from gang violence. In other words, you're kind of speaking to a different problem that requires a different solution.

#165 Posted by Undeadpool (5237 posts) -

FANTASTIC! There needs to be a well-funded, centralized series of tests for this so that when it INEVITABLY says "Yes, violent videogames increase short-term aggression, like any and all violent stimuli including BOOKS or PLAYS, but do no long-term damage" there will FINALLY be a fortified position to defend from.

#166 Posted by crow13 (155 posts) -

@sissylion: All the more reason not to let kids play violent games. I still think this all just comes down to the misconception that most Americans have, video games are for kids. They are not toys, they haven't been for a very long time.

#167 Posted by Karkarov (3797 posts) -

@rkofan87 said:

@Jayzilla said:

With all due respect Mr. President: Get government out of my gaming and movies and religion and sexual life. Start fixing the budget and education and fiscal spending of our government and then maybe we can talk.


Well said. 10 million down the toilet for an answer any gamer with a shred of common sense can give you for free.

#168 Posted by Archr5 (32 posts) -

@deerokus: The homicide rate definitely factors in, but the UK's rape rate is over twice as high as the US... the "assualt" rate is also twice as high... the UK has the worst overall crime rating in Europe. Both places have their problems... I just wanted to point out that Games and Guns aren't it... not really, and there will soon be scientific data to back that up for Games like there has been for guns for years. And people will continue to ignore it... :)

#169 Posted by Hunter5024 (6371 posts) -

I'm confident enough a link won't be found, that I don't really mind this news. I wish he hadn't specifically called out games, and I think the Vice President seemed to handle it with much more tact the other day, but whatever.

#170 Posted by HatKing (6463 posts) -

@Grixxel said:

All sorts of horrid shit has been happening since man learned to walk. Why would they think it has -anything- to do with media, period? Oh well, whatever pleases the idiotic masses I suppose.

Other countries do not have the gun violence problems that America has. Even countries without restrictive gun laws. There is something wrong here, and I think this is just a step to find out what. I mean, like he said, there is no benefit to not knowing if there is a link or not.

Some of us know, from experience, that in healthy-minded adults, there is no link between video games and gun violence, but this will be awesome for us to point to in reference whenever somebody tries to blame video games in the future. It will be pretty concrete evidence, and government supported precedence (this is super important!!), that there is no link. That's very, very valuable information for this medium.

#171 Posted by phrali (677 posts) -

video game industry needs to hire lobbyists like the gun manufacturers. Because seriously, how fucking retarded do you have to be to think that video games might have more to do with this problem than being able to buy all the ammo you can carry from any walmart

#172 Posted by rkofan87 (202 posts) -


This could actually be good.

While it is unfortunate that a study like this is considered necessary, it could potentially be useful for gaming in the long term. A formal study by the CDC with a result reaffirming the reality that violent videogames do not contribute to real world violence could be used by defenders of videogames for years to come. Advocates will be able to point to a study like this and show that the government has already determined that there is no legitimate reason to infringe upon the rights of videogame developers to make the games they desire to make.

Now, in the off chance that the result is not positive, we will all have to consider the results and perhaps reevaluate our understanding of the issue, but for the moment, I see little chance of a study like this not concluding what many others have. That videogames simply do not contribute to real world violence. And if the study can be yet another affirming that, this could actually end up being good for gamers in our continued struggles against the undue restriction of videogames.


@MattGrant said:

I love the morning news program Morning Joe on MSNBC but this morning's discussion of violent video games was fucked up. Panel was quoting this study which suggested that there is not only a link, but that the violence in these games is cause for arousal. It boiled down to a bunch of high-paid journalists citing this and the ever-nebulous "other studies" as if it was the consensus of the land. That the ESA is getting out ahead of this is great. I'd really like to see those studies showing no correlation more broadly publicized.

wow msnbc thats dumb

#173 Posted by C0V3RT (1393 posts) -

@shodan2020 said:

@FCDRandy said:

@C0V3RT said:

I'm in the minority, but I'm kind of OK with this? If there is risk that can be found with violent means of media and someone with a mental condition that prohibits them from being able to distinguish truth from fantasy, by all means get that out there. What I don't want for this is to become a witch hunt with the ultimate goal of finding something to act as a catchall the place the blame on.

Yep. If the freedom that is being infringed upon is the freedom to not be shot by a crazy person, I will gladly present my ID to buy a violent video game or whatever.

Me too. I get carded for booze all the time and i'm 30. Doesn't bother me, besides I rarely ever visit brick and mortar anymore. The internet knows how fucking old I am. :)

Exactly. Age gates on video are doing the job. :)

#174 Posted by crow13 (155 posts) -

Does anyone know how long these tests will take? is there a deadline as to when we should expect results? or is this just going to get strung out over years and years?

#175 Posted by Phished0ne (2659 posts) -

@sissylion said:

@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.

how many of those children were exposed to other potential risk factors? I mean, you cant really ask a kid if their dad beats them, or if they were sexually abused. Hell, that opens up a whole new can of worms about what is considered child abuse. Is spanking fine? etc. These are the problems with these kinds of studies, its borderline impossible to create a valid study that takes all the risk factors into consideration. Then you have to get into dodgy statistical analysis about assigning weighted numbers/variables/math problems to risk factors. Then you realize the scale for trait hostility(or humorously shortened to the HO scale) hasn't been revised or even looked at in a serious matter since the late 80s when it was published.

But, my main problem with these kinds of studies is that they are easily abused by the media. They wont report what the findings of the study actually say. They will just report that "violent media makes kids violent" they dont report the caveats about risk factors and that the study actually says "well we think this, this, this, and this are all factors" we all just one the single end-all be-all answer that flat out doesnt exist. It defeats the purpose of even conducting the study if all the people that report on it are going to take what it says out of context.

#176 Posted by sissylion (677 posts) -

@crow13: I don't disagree with that idea, but with this research we may finally get the conclusive evidence that will make more parents look harder at what their kids are consuming, video games or otherwise.

#177 Edited by Dberg (840 posts) -
This will go nowhere. It's just like when the common man learned to read back when only clergy and nobles could read, and all the high class people thought that'd cause them to go nuts or whatever. Or how your dad got yelled at for listening to Beatles or Elvis or whatever because the music would turn him into a devil worshipper.
All of the Western world get the same sort of media content and entertainment that the US gets. If it was turning people crazy, there'd be shit like this happening all the time everywhere. It doesn't follow that pattern, which means the causes are more complicated than watching computer mans get shot.
#178 Posted by Bunny_Fire (360 posts) -

I can imagine a scenario where they decide that computer games are the major influence in violence and enact laws that make sure games that are sold in the USA only have a Kids rating. Doesn't take much to do just the right people in the right places. Lets hope it doesn't come to that... GB would have to move offshore.

#179 Posted by Shortbreadtom (940 posts) -

Granted I'm not an American and therefore don't know how much this venture is costing, or where better this money could be going, but I'm glad that this is happening.

#180 Posted by TheLastGunslinger (381 posts) -

I was writing a blog about the Dead Island Riptide issue from yesterday and just I was about to post I saw this. I had to go back and rewrite my opening.

#181 Posted by Nictel (2659 posts) -

If it is a good and thorough research then yeah go ahead please!

1: Videogames are just as "bad" as any other medium.

2: Videogames are serial killer trainers.

As much as I love to play these games, I rather decrease the chances of, my and those of others, possible future kids getting shot. Of course I would be totally surprised if it is anything but option 1.

#182 Posted by crow13 (155 posts) -

@sissylion: That's true. My girlfriend is a first grade teacher. I can attest that even though there maybe no links between violent games and violent actions, their are definitively social repercussions for kids who play violent games that I don't think parents even think about. They try to share their experiences with everyone they know at times when it's not really appropriate... like during a math lesson. :/

#183 Posted by drakesfortune (318 posts) -

This is nothing new for Obama. He's constantly gone after video games. To the liberals here, you can't have it both ways. You can't say it's the guns that are the problem and then say it's not video games. Either the person commits the act, or the device and what he consumes does. Tim McVeigh didn't need any guns to kill hundreds of people. Neither did the terrorists on 9/11. Weapons don't kill people. Video games don't kill people. Movies don't kill people. Twisted, mentally ill, or radicalized people, kill people.

The reason we have guns isn't for hunting. It's to prevent a tyrannical government from usurping the will of the people. Kind of like we have right now, which a president issuing unconstitutional and illegal executive orders, instead of going through congress and passing laws. History is littered with Democracies that gave up their rights and weapons and ended in failed states with mass murder in the process. We can ban cars, which kill FAR more kids. Or we can ban alcohol, which kills FAR more kids than guns. Or we can try to treat sick people, and live with the knowledge that people kill people, cars kill people, nature kills people, and that's part of life. You'll never legislate your way out of sick people killing lots of people. You'll only legislate your ability to defend yourself.

And I don't even own a gun. I just don't trust the government. You shouldn't either. Rome lasted a longer than we did, and ended in failure. We're headed for failure at a much more rapid rate with this usurpation of congress and the rule of law. If it were a Republican president banning abortion via executive order, you'd be screaming bloody murder. Which is why no president should have the authority to write law on his own. Yeah, it's hard to pass laws. It is SUPPOSED to be. That's the exact design our founders wanted. The didn't want a tyrannical majority of 51% to be able to rule and run over the other 49%. That's the design of our government, and it's been eroded by president after president, none worse than Obama.

#184 Posted by 2kings (149 posts) -

@Renahzor said:

The wording in this is all you need to know to determine the outcome. The CDC and it's researchers/scientists are being paid to: “Conduct research on the causes and prevention of gun violence, including links between video games, media images, and violence". There is a pre-determined outcome here, that states very clearly IS a cause-effect relationship between them, and they're being paid to study it. It isn't science, it's research into a cause-effect relationship that must be assumed for the research to continue (and, much more importantly, the funding).

"If it can save even one child's life, we must do whatever it takes" is a pretty dangerous slippery slope. But hey it's not like they're trying to ban shit that has, at best, a dubious link to violent crime in the US anyway right?

Yes, a skeptical and critical thinker with an eye for logical fallacies. Science doesn't assume an outcome and look for correlation. Not to mention that the government is maybe not the most reliable when it comes to science. CDC included. Also lots of people still think vaccines cause autism. Lotta good the CDC did there. just sayin. The fact that the government is even doing this SHOULD worry all of us who love games and movies and tv and music and books, because if you think for one second that the 1st amendment means it's safe, I wouldn't count on it.

#185 Posted by core1065 (585 posts) -

He's doing this study to shut up the NRA, who are blaming all of America's gun violence on the media; specially Video Games.

#186 Posted by CronoXtream (133 posts) -

really!? such a waste of US money when they could be using it for more productive things.

#187 Posted by ImmortalSaiyan (4745 posts) -

Really, Obama? I am not one for politics but this seems like a big waste of time for all involved. It is all about the individual. Some kids may have games, or any other violent media as a trigger. Most do now and can clearly see the difference.

#188 Posted by Sonny009 (86 posts) -

oh good, he instructed people to look into something we've already known for years. there is no specific correlation. good. great.

#189 Edited by crow13 (155 posts) -

@2kings: I don't think the 1st amendment protects anything, I think mass consumption does. If you ban anything that would be deemed inappropriate for kids, for the entire society, there are plenty of people who will do it anyways. Violent games won't go anywhere guys, they just may not be legal to buy at wal-mart.

#190 Posted by Alorithin (130 posts) -

13 years after the launch of the biggest games console generation, the United States government finally decides to make an official case study. Sad to see that the only way course studies are conducted is by reaction rather than an excepted necessity.

#191 Posted by Spoonman671 (5038 posts) -

"Here's ten million dollars, make it look like I'm actually doing something about this."

#192 Posted by Ravenlight (8057 posts) -

@Thoseposers said:

burning the roof of your mouth on a delicious calzone really sucks guys :/

We should really think about dedicating some funding to researching and putting an end to this epidemic.

#193 Posted by ikabubu (241 posts) -

@drakesfortune: I agree with what you said. Videogames don't kill people the same way that a gun or a car doesn't kill a person by itself. I'm not a US citizen, and I wouldn't claim any usual familiarity with the political landscape. However, it seems that either side likes to blame videogames as an easy patsy for violence in the media regardless of whether they support the first amendment or not. I've also wondered about the relevancy of the first amendment in context when it was first drafted then, as opposed to its context now. It's true, being a foreigner is weird.

#194 Posted by paparoach (98 posts) -

He should of given that money to Curt Schilling and 38 Studios so he can finish Project Copernicus and I can go out and crack open some fool's skull with my sledgehammer.

#195 Posted by Tesla (2007 posts) -

Pull the NRA's dick out of the government's ass if you want to control gun violence.

#196 Posted by Animasta (14821 posts) -

@crow13 said:

@2kings: I don't think the 1st amendment protects anything, I think mass consumption does. If you ban anything that would be deemed inappropriate for kids, for the entire society, there are plenty of people who will do it anyways. Violent games won't go anywhere guys, they just may not be legal to buy at wal-mart.

and, uh, the games industry still employs a lot of people and I doubt the NRA wants Call of Duty to go away either.

games are not going to get banned you people are nuts

#197 Posted by LegendaryChopChop (1320 posts) -


#198 Posted by bigsmoke77 (841 posts) -
Violence in video games can be part of the discussion with regards to the problem with gun violence in america but spending 10 million dollars on a study is beyond stupid when those resources can be used in the Mental Health sector i.e. the main factor behind the sandy hook shooting and that army base shooting. 
#199 Posted by drakesfortune (318 posts) -

I love the keeping the guns out of dangerous hands.

It's loose language like that which results in oppressed people. Who decides who is dangerous? There are liberals who think conservatives are dangerous or mentally deranged just by being conservative. Who decides? Does playing Call of Duty make you dangerous? There are plenty of idiots in congress who think so.

The real danger we have is that so many people trust politicians to safeguard their liberties. By the time we figure out we're screwed, it'll be too late to do anything about it.

Just because it's 200 years later doesn't mean we don't still require our liberty. The government CAN NOT be trusted to dole out liberty. That's why the constitution says that our rights come from Got and Nature, NOT the government. They are inalienable rights. Meaning, rights that the government can NOT usurp. We would be fools to give up our right to protect ourselves with guns, from government tyranny, because 5 to 100 kids die per year in gun violence with guns legally bought. Thousands die each year in cars. Should we give up our right to drive cars too? How about fly planes. Planes killed more people on 9/11 than all the school shootings the world has ever known. Life isn't safe. Nature kills more kids each year that school shootings do. Should we ban people from living in places where hurricanes can hit?

#200 Posted by tourgen (4568 posts) -

I think the popularity of violent media is more of an expression of our cultural values rather than a cause of violence. People in the USA get off on violence. Yeah it's an ugly part of our culture. So is the common opinion that knowing how to use something dangerous in a safe manner is an inconvenience and "dumb". Just a general lack of respect, failure to assess risks, and an anti-intellectual view of the world. It sucks and it's shitty.

This study is just the cherry on top. A failure to address the real issue while trying to make the crybaby idiots happy.