Many instances of school shootings, bombings, or killing is often pointed at video games as the cause, but is it really their fault? Just because a game allows you to kill civilians does not mean that someone will want to do it, I have recently had a discussion with a friend who saw on the news that the game Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2, was to blame for the recent Russian bombing because the game has a level where you are able to kill civilians in a Russian airport. [url=http://www.inquisitr.com/96636/russian-media-pins-blame-for-suicide-bombing-on-call-of-duty-game/]
The video games that allowing innocent killing does not mean they support it. How a person is raised and treated growing up is why they would even consider this, which most kids have enough commen sense to know, you cannot "restart" or "respond" in life. I strongly disagree to the idea that video games are the cause of most killings today.
Videogames are a tool. They are commonly used to release stress and for enjoyment. But they are not a definite good or bad. They have properties of both. But videogames currently do not cause most people who play them to grab a gun or a knife and kill their neighboor. It has been proven that people who play violent videogames for enjoyment and then go out to kill people really weren't all that stable to begin with. There's no reason to say that a videogame is the sole reason somebody is very violent and does something bad. You have compleate control of yourself. And if you think that just because you do something in a digital world that you can do the same in real life then you have a problem to begin with. Just because superman can fly doesn't mean you can too. I think the same applys to shooting people. If they're sane the should at least remember that there are laws against it.
I remember some kid on the news playing 'Manhunt', then going out and smashing another kids' head in with a hammer whilst his friend suffocated him with a plastic bag, but no. This is not the games' fault, this is the kids' fault, always.
It has been proven that people who play violent videogames for enjoyment and then go out to kill people really weren't all that stable to begin with.
I'm not saying it makes you go out and kill peepes, but I have seen that kids who play violent games at young ages become more violent and rage.
I remember some kid on the news playing 'Manhunt', then going out and smashing another kids' head in with a hammer whilst his friend suffocated him with a plastic bag, but no. This is not the games' fault, this is the kids' fault, always.
Yea I don't consider that manhunts fault that the kid did do that, but I bet it gave him the idea, he wasn't all that stable to begin with, but I noticed when you play violent games long enough you aren't digusted with the brutal ways of killing people anymore, so it made them more deadened to the idea of accomplishing something that way.
Does porn really make people have sex on a pool table? lol random question, and I would sayyyyy no.
He's comparing porn to violent vidoe games. Basically he's saying, if seeing porn doesn't make you repeat it, why would seeing a video game make you repeat it.
He's comparing porn to violent vidoe games. Basically he's saying, if seeing porn doesn't make you repeat it, why would seeing a video game make you repeat it.
It dposen't MAKE you do it, but it certainley makes doing in on the pool tabel an option dosen't it?
That's not the point. The analogy is stating that viewing porn will make you have a compulsion to do the act. While the porn analogy is more tame than actual violence, I don't think that viewing an imitation will all of a sudden make us have more will to *do* it.
That's not the point. The analogy is stating that viewing porn will make you have a compulsion to do the act. While the porn analogy is more tame than actual violence, I don't think that viewing an imitation will all of a sudden make us have more will to *do* it.
But what i'm saying is you already have to want to *do* it, but by watching porn it gives you ideas on how to *do* it and also it makes it more casual of a thing to you if you watch it alot. Same goes with playing violent video games where you might already have potential of killing some1, but the video game gives you the how.
Which kills the idea that video games cause people to kill people. If they have the potential, aka the mind, to do such a thing, then said people already are afflicted and video games aren't causing them.
It's the same reason why we have a select few cases of this happening instead of a large percentage.
Which kills the idea that video games cause people to kill people. If they have the potential, aka the mind, to do such a thing, then said people already are afflicted and video games aren't causing them. It's the same reason why we have a select few cases of this happening instead of a large percentage.
I agree with you that they won't prompt a healthy minded person to start killing people, but now I'm saying that with almost everyone being allowed to play M games, we should have a new in rating that in btwn M and A, bacause all of the games tha JUST just cut it for A, go straight back to M and it's unfair to the companies that make those games.
I'm looking at the ratings now, and it's pretty hard to do something like that, since AO is 18+ and Mature is 17+. It's pretty much given that if you are 18, federally an adult, you should be given access to the full content that games can deliver. Games that are trying to put as much as they can into Mature ratings are treading a fine line. If their games reach AO, then public stores are forbidden to sell them openly and that loses a ton of sales for the developers. It's up to the company if they want to risk a lot of sales for the content they add. And then you have the federal regulations that state that stores cannot sell Mature rated games to people under 18 (which is kinda weird since the label says 17+). The point here is that parents are the ones responsible for allowing children to play those games. The libertarian in me says to not regulate this any further, because it is pointless. Teen rated games have violence and blood content, isn't this what we are discussing? Even E10 games have violence and "killing" involved. How much more should we regulate this, if any?
I'm looking at the ratings now, and it's pretty hard to do something like that, since AO is 18+ and Mature is 17+. It's pretty much given that if you are 18, federally an adult, you should be given access to the full content that games can deliver. Games that are trying to put as much as they can into Mature ratings are treading a fine line. If their games reach AO, then public stores are forbidden to sell them openly and that loses a ton of sales for the developers. It's up to the company if they want to risk a lot of sales for the content they add. And then you have the federal regulations that state that stores cannot sell Mature rated games to people under 18 (which is kinda weird since the label says 17+). The point here is that parents are the ones responsible for allowing children to play those games. The libertarian in me says to not regulate this any further, because it is pointless. Teen rated games have violence and blood content, isn't this what we are discussing? Even E10 games have violence and "killing" involved. How much more should we regulate this, if any?
My suggestion is move down the age for mature (seriously, who waits till their 17 to play anyways?) and just add it in their, the reason I say that is it takes ALOT of hardcore violence to get into that catagory and games that don't make the cut but are still "ultra violent" (quoting that from what they said about postal series) don't get stocked because they know parents will just buy them for their little kids and they feel that it's not right and people won't even play the game for the machanics (like did you know Thrill Kill was the first 3d fighter game?)and just rate it badly because of their violence, I think that's unfair that that game dosen't even have a CHANCE so I propose an extra rating to give those games a chance.
