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.
Well, it depends. If the person playing the game has, well, for lack of a better word, a "roblem," then violence in video games may increase the chance of them going out and killing people. If they don't have a "roblem" (sorry if my choice of words is insulting), then there's less of a chance of them doing so.
Some younger children get the the wrong idea, about shooting people, and they think it's really cool. I had a really good think about killing someone and it put me off killing games* for a bit.
If the person playing the game has, well, for lack of a better word, a "roblem," then violence in video games may increase the chance of them going out and killing people
. It increases the chance of them going out and shooting people, not the overall chance of becoming a murderer. The "roblem" you are referring to is what is commonly known as "antisocial personality disorder", the cause of APD is a ruinous fusion of interpersonal, biological and sociocultural disasters. Psychopaths have an irrational antisocial behavior, lack of conscience, and emotional vacuity, hence its pretty simple for them kill a person. Now what the video game may do is plant -in their twisted minds- the idea that shooting persons is a lot of fun and very thrilling.; and they are definitely big thrill seekers. Frankly, that's not enough of a reason to ban video games. Hundreds of serial killers have quoted the Bible, should we ban it likewise?
True that many factors mentioned are true, but when you think about it and do some research, most killings the get pointed towards video games, the killer has some kinda problem like schizophrenia or bipolar disorder, or extreme anger management, or was high or something
Personally I feel like video games have little to no impact on a normal human being. The average person has the right mind set to know that killing is wrong. Additionally, the video game would act as a channel to I suppose the right word is express, any anger they may have solely in the game. I feel like video games got a bad reputation because someone pointed out that a killer played a lot of COD and it was covered in a woman's magazine and mothers got concerned, just collapsed from there.
I think that yes people could be influenced by video games, but that only games that influence people is games that SAYS ON THE PACKAGING NOT TO BE PLAYED BY KIDS! Older people might get influenced but by that time if they could be influenced that much by video games they would be in special care. For me the video games kindsa change my perspective on the world and what I look for.
I am sure people's ideas may be influenced by video games, however, the person's upbringing and mental health must surely be the deciding factor in whether they rampage around killing people. That is why there are a few of these horrific incidents, not millions. If everyone who played video games that allowed the killing of civilians started killing sprees, then video games could be blamed. However, the few people who commit acts of mass murder are almost certainly severely mentally ill, and therefore the games cannot be blamed.
Which is the exact reason why games that are violent, gory, offensive, and of extreme nature should be banned from all game retailers' stores because there is a weak but direct correlation between the local crime rate and the amount of time an individual plays violent video games or the number of violent video games that they own.
In more specifics, crime rate is the dependent variable plotted against the amount of time spent playing video games or the number of violent video games owned which is the influential variable.
The presumed direction of causation is from the influential variable to the dependent variable.
Which is the exact reason why games that are violent, gory, offensive, and of extreme nature should be banned from all game retailers' stores because there is a weak but direct correlation between the local crime rate and the amount of time an individual plays violent video games or the number of violent video games that they own.
No, there isn't. Au contraire, there is an OPPOSITE correlation. I will also say that correlation does not equal causation. Your argument is based upon...multiple variables. Why are there multiple variables? You know that if anyone who conducted an experiment with such ways and a peer reviewed it that said experiment would be instantly rejected.
Which is the exact reason why games that are violent, gory, offensive, and of extreme nature should be banned from all game retailers' stores because there is a weak but direct correlation between the local crime rate and the amount of time an individual plays violent video games or the number of violent video games that they own.
your funny, that, as freak showed, is a complete lie, mentally ill people, maybe, but for people like me i use video games to vent anger, the more gore and violence the more i can vent, so i don't vent it on my friends. I'd be in jail for many years by now if there was a ban on violent games
Actually, according the most current information from a researcher on the subject, the only correlation between video games and violence is identical to that with other mediums like music and television. While the study, and others similar, is ongoing, so far there seems to be no discernible difference.
