Columbine Video-Games Suit Dismissed 455
Dr_LHA writes: "This story on Yahoo! reports that the federal judge on Monday dismissed a lawsuit that claimed the influence of video games and movies where what caused the Columbine High School massacre. Obvious to those of us who play GTA3 regularly but still manage to overcome the urge to plough over pedestrains on the way to work in the morning, but good to see someone high up showing some sense."
Finally, some common sense. (Score:2, Funny)
Now, who's up for a quick game of Global Thermonuclear War?
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Finally, some common sense. (Score:5, Insightful)
I agree with your point, but not your example. See Legal Myths: The McDonald's "Hot Coffee" Case [citizen.org] for more info. The basic deal is that McDonald's has been serving coffee at an arbitrary high temperature, knew that over the years there had been a number (~700) of injuries due to this, and did nothing to reduce the chance that these injuries would occur. So the question isn't really whether one coffee burn is cause for suit, it's whether a repeated pattern of coffee-related injuries constitutes reckless conduct on the part of McDonald's. Should spilling coffee in your lap make you feel stupid, damp, and very warm? Yes. Should it give you third-degree burns in three seconds? Considering that there's no advantage to serving coffee at that temperature, I would say no.
I agree with your point about personal responsibility, though - a video game doesn't make someone kill; if those kids were killers then it was because of something else that had already made them like that. Perhaps the fact that they could plan the whole thing in a parent's garage without the parent knowing is a good indication of where the problem may lie.
Re:Finally, some common sense. (Score:3, Insightful)
I dunno. It may be a legitimate question to ask, but I think the personal responsibility of the person involved should be a mitigating factor with regards to damages.
It would be one thing if the woman in question was sitting at a table in the restaurant, reading a newspaper, misjudged where the coffee was and spilled it into her lap. It is entirely another thing to have a cup of potentially-scalding hot coffee wedged between your legs while driving (and, frankly, if you aren't assuming that hot coffee can burn you, you are being stupid).
McDonalds was at fault for making their coffee so hot for no good reason; however, I think in this particular case the damages awarded to the woman were totally outrageous considering how negligent she was in the role she played.
Re:Finally, some common sense. (Score:5, Informative)
It was. The jury awarded $200,000 in compensatory damages, but this amount was reduced to $160,000 because the jury also found that Liebeck was 20% at fault for the spill. The massive $2.7 million punitive damages award was, well, punitive, and likely had a helluva lot to do with the 700 claims McDonald's had settled since 1982 involving people scalded by its coffee, was aware that its coffee could cause and had caused serious burns, and was utterly unrepentant of that fact.
McDonald's knew its coffee burned people, and did nothing about it. A quality enforcement manager at McDonald's testified before the court that the coffee was required to be held in the pot at 185 degrees, +/- 5 degrees, and admitted that this would cause burns, but also that McDonald's had no intentions of reducing that holding temperature.
The judge reduced punitive damages to three times the compensatory damages, and called McDonald's conduct "reckless," "callous," and "willful."
It is entirely another thing to have a cup of potentially-scalding hot coffee wedged between your legs while driving.
It is, indeed. But that's not what this woman did. This woman wasn't even driving the goddamned car. She was a passenger. Her son was driving, and he stopped the car at her request so she could take the lid off the coffee and add cream and sugar. She held the coffee between her legs to pry the lid off, at which point it spilled.
She was not driving. She was not holding the coffee between her legs while she was driving. The car was not even MOVING when this incident occurred.
if you aren't assuming that hot coffee can burn you, you are being stupid
Do you routinely assume that beverages served to you for your consumption are capable of inflicting full-thickness third-degree burns in 2-7 seconds should they touch your skin? I'm aware that I should treat my coffee as if it were a hot beverage, not as if it were hydrocholoric fucking acid.
I'm sorry for the off-topic post, but I'm sick and fucking tired of how people who are ignorant of the fundamental facts of this case feel qualified to pronounce judgement upon it.
Re:Finally, some common sense. (Score:2, Funny)
The ironic thing is... (Score:2, Insightful)
One more stupid lawsuit out of the way. (Score:5, Insightful)
Now lets work on the rest. All we have to do is wait for some money hungry family to start suing.
Re:One more stupid lawsuit out of the way. (Score:4, Insightful)
I agree that bad parenting is often at least partly to blame - I can't talk about Columbine specifically because I don't know the full facts of the case.
However this is a complex issue because of the age of the people involved. At some age people need to take responsibility for their own actions and not blame (parents/society/computer games/whatever). Clearly very young children are not full individuals with full accountability, as adults are.
But where do you draw the line? When is it reasonable to demand that a person accepts full responsibility for his/her actions? Legally the answer varies somewhere between 13 and 21 (in the US) depending on the state and the act being considered. But even if there was a single age, this would be an arbitrary cut-off point. Some people mature earlier and should be held responsible at a younger age. Some people mature later or not at all - for example if they have severe mental incapacity.
The problem with Klebold and Harris is that they at the age where they are leaving their parent's influence and becoming their own people. Clearly these two could not handle the transition, for whatever reason(s). Should their parents take at least some of the responsibilty? Probably. Should most of it lie on the shoulders of the murderers? Probably. It seems like they were old enough to act largely independently of others. Are there other factors that should be considered? Probably.
There aren't simple answers to this.
Re:One more stupid lawsuit out of the way. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:One more stupid lawsuit out of the way. (Score:2, Funny)
Man, that phrase almost makes sense in this context. Wierd.
Re:One more stupid lawsuit out of the way. (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:One more stupid lawsuit out of the way. (Score:3, Insightful)
^ I'm sorry, but that is flamebait ^
I'm one of the few conservatives here, yet I hate none of these groups. What are you suggesting here? That conservatives hate violent video games? or the people that play them? Well I must be a hypocrite for playing "Return of Castle Wolfenstien" all night last night.
I just can't believe that someone would compare the hatred of Jews or Blacks to the hatred of video games!
You know what I hate? The many people on slashdot who seem to make it their life's purpose to blame every problem in the world on conservatives. All that does is turn me off to any idea they pose.
Then what did it? (Score:2, Insightful)
*Not a direct quote, just a summary.
Re:Then what did it? (Score:2, Informative)
It's not video games, it's not music, it's not "posters on their walls", it's high school. -kwishot
Re:Then what did it? (Score:2)
Re:Then what did it? (Score:4, Interesting)
I tend to look at these things, and shrug. Nuthing new. Humans will always have a few who fall through the cracks and are forced to scream out for attention and revenge for perceived wrongs; its just too bad we strive so hard to 'categorize' the influences instead of trying to understand the less material catalysts behind their physcological state at the time of the tragedy.
I was teased, ridiculed, and ostricized from school, and I thoguht about suicide more than a few times. To me, it doesn't seem like that far of a leap from what these kids to from the psycological states that thousands upon thousands of outcasts suffer from school. Their reaction was out of line, their actions uncondonable, but I cannot simply dismiss the fact that popular school goers get away with psycological torture that is far more of an influence on what these kids did than video games.
And if you don't understand, thats half my point. Humans look for the bright red flags that say, "Look at me, I caused people to do this," and usually dismiss what outcasts are consistantly saying: "It fucking hurts to be hated by so many people." You have to take the extent of the pain caused by seemingly flippant adolescent peer to peer behaviour on faith.
Re:Then what did it? (Score:2)
Re:Then what did it? (Score:2)
Well, I *did* conceal a lot of Cokes and food in it...
GTRacer
- Not looking forward to 10-year reunion
Re:Then what did it? (Score:2)
One more question: Where is the trenchcoat wearing dude in Doom?
Re:Then what did it? (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Then what did it? (Score:2)
Well, almost.. (Score:4, Interesting)
Then again, maybe it was the combination of a bad environment and GTA :) (*attention Columbine parents)
Re:Well, there's always exceptions (Score:2, Troll)
I could be way off base here, but after playing GTA3 for numerous hours and then getting in my car, I tend to believe that some with less willpower [cnn.com]might find it hard to control themselves.
The game is just too damn fun.
Re:Well, almost.. (Score:2, Interesting)
Walking past a police car having finished playing I will have a look thinking 'how foolish to leave a police car there, maybe there's ammo in it'. Seeing a helicopter of any form may have me considering the line of sight and availability of get-away cars.
But these thoughts are in the context of the game, they are fleeting and humorous. We are all aware that things we do affect our outlook. Skateboarder game players will look at street scenery in a similar way to RL boarders, although in the context of the game. Carpenters look at furniture differently to the way I do, some people make judgements about status based on the shoes they wear.
This is just a simple summary, but surely as a species we've noticed the trend to be influenced by everything we do. The argument isn't about that.
As has been stated many times before, most more effectively, even people with serious problems need influences.
Good but........ (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Good but........ (Score:4, Funny)
Also consider the number of times that America has had to flex its millitary muscles since Battlezone and Missile Command. It's no wonder people are scared to death of video games.
Now, if you'll excuse me I need to go threaten my supervisor with a joystick up-down-right-right-left-left high kick medium punch if she doesn't give me a performance bonus.
Re:Good but........ (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Good but........ (Score:2)
Re:Good but........ (Score:2, Insightful)
However, that was coming down from the excitement of having just seen the movie, and probably wore off on the way home. This Columbine thing was drawn out and planned. I think this goes far beyond the realm of slight subliminal influence.
mark
Re:Good but........ (Score:3, Insightful)
You're absolutely right. If someone is unbalanced, they can be influenced, by damn near anything. That includes TV, video games, movies, books, magazines, newspapers, friends, music, and just about anything else. The point is that those things aren't responsible for your actions, you are. If you are unbalanced, you are unbalanced. We can't ban anything that could ever have a bad influence on someone who is unbalanced.
Re:Good but........ (Score:2, Insightful)
The point is that stable, well-adjusted kids won't shoot their classmates because of video games. As for the unstable kids, what we should do is look into how they got that way.
Re:Good but........ (Score:3, Insightful)
This is probably true to some extent, but the fact is that millions of people indulge in violent video games and movies on a daily basis but still keep their finger off the trigger. The influence is most likely negligable.
Don't underestimate the power of suggestion on an individual who is under a pressure situation or lives in an environment without consequences
Now you're getting warmer. But again, I don't think this has anything to do with video games. More than likely it is the myopic world view of most teen-agers mixed with romantic notions of death. Torment day in and day out, an authoritarian school administration that merely re-enforces the social pecking order at the school, and the inability for a teen-ager to realize that there is a better life after those four years of Hell called "high school" - pressure situation is right. If a person is not given a way out of an unbearable situation, they will make their own. Violence and ridicule is all these kids were subjected to on a daily basis - it shouldn't be surprising that they responded in kind.
It wasn't about video games or movies - it was about power - it was about acting out an unanswerable revenge.
Re:Good but........ (Score:3, Funny)
"Graphic violence in the media...
Does it glamorize violence?
Sure.
Does it desensitize us to violence?
Of course.
Does it help us tolerate violence?
You bet.
Does it stunt our empathy for our fellow beings?
Heck yes.
Does it *cause* violence?
Well, that's hard to prove.
The trick is to ask the right question."
Best Quote: (Score:2, Interesting)
oh god. DUH.
----rhad
Re:Best Quote: (Score:2, Insightful)
To you and I it's "Duh!" - but a wrongful death suit was filed. It's obvious that some people need to hear, in plain, unambiguous terms, "The killers are responsible, not the makers of Quake III or The Basketball Diaries!"
Huh? (Score:5, Funny)
What the hell are you talking about? It's well-documented that no murders or school violence took place before Magnavox created the first videogame system thirty years ago.
Re:Huh? (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Huh? (Score:2)
Re:Huh? (Score:2)
Unfortunately.
Re:Huh? (Score:3, Interesting)
Wow, that sure sounds like a response coming from someone who believes that video games are all-powerfull. America was founded by people who stood on their own two feet and took care of themselves. Somehow, this country is devolving into a society where people are no longer expected to shoulder the blame for the mistakes they made, and this is an example of that belief. (Also throw in a whole heaping serving of there's-a-big-corparation-we-can-get-money-from.)
That teacher's family thinks that when bad things happen, it must not be the just fault of the individuals holding the weaponry.
We live in a society, people, where there are outside influences produced by others (individuals, companies, governments) all the time! Positive and negative. As a responsible member of that society, you make decisions for yourself. Any pointing the blame at others is a huge sign of pitiable, unforgiveable weakness.
A new video game idea (Score:2, Funny)
It should be very easy to skin "bad guys" so you can scan the yearbook and place specific cheerleader and football player skins on models.
Man, if I had the capital, I'd fund the development of this game myself!
Re:A new video game idea (Score:2)
and the sequal could be you running from the us military.
Please, that suggestion is so tacky.
Re:A new video game idea (Score:2)
Re:A new video game idea (Score:2)
Was it JetFighter-II where you could take out as many tall buildings as you had missiles for, followed by flying under Golden Gate bridge and bombing Alcatraz?
Of course, you could play the nice sensible microsoft flight simulator, which has lame aircraft that can't survive building crashes!
Re:A new video game idea (Score:3, Informative)
Do a search on Google for the Columbine Mod for Half-Life, you'll find it.
Re:A new video game idea (Score:2, Funny)
I don't think so.
Where's your sense of adventure man ? I think a few quicktime VRs of the head cheerleader sucking off the principal would be a better use of technology.
Not to mention the entire football team in an accordion-stack of anal sex 40+ people long, wearing YMCA outfits.
_Thats_ putting technology to work.
Re:A new video game idea (bah!) (Score:2, Funny)
Smurf Hunt!
You, a shotgun, and Papa Smurf... need I say more?
Re:A new video game idea (bah!) (Score:2)
The real problem. (Score:4, Insightful)
Pretty much anything can influence someone, but it depends on how you were raised whether or not you're going to actually want to copy it or do something similar. When MOST people play a game like Doom, they would never ever even consider doing anything remotely close to that in real life. But some people don't have that type of conscious or morals(or ability to distinquish between reality and fiction), and when they see a movie or play a game and enjoy it, sometimes they go and do it themselves. It's possible they were influenced by it...it gave them an idea. That's all it takes when someone hasn't been raised right or fell off the wagon along the way for some other reason. But games/movies/music/etc are not to blame, the parents are. If the kid is going to be influenced by something like that, they shouldn't be playing/seeing/reading it in the first place.
It should also be noted that video games are a popular scape goat because they are relatively new. Books had the same problem back in the day. And most of you can probably remember all the hooplah when rap and the like became popular.
Re:The real problem. (Score:2)
Don't forget the whole D&D thing of the 80's. Man, that was lame.
Re:The real problem. (Score:2, Insightful)
No, I don't think that's a gross overstatement; all the problems in this country are caused by people, and I'll bet that most of those people are the products of negligent parenting. In this age of Prozac and Ritalin, we need to stop trying to foist the blame onto "ADD" and "Media Violence" for the lack of sensitivity in today's youth and focus on the real problems, those which start in the home.
Just my two cents.
High Testosterone, Low Serotonin (Score:3, Funny)
Like Itchy & Scratchy (Score:5, Insightful)
Meyers: I did a little research and I discovered a startling thing... There was violence in the past, long before cartoons were invented.
Kent Brockman: I see. Fascinating.
Meyers: Yeah, and know something, Karl? The Crusades, for instance. Tremendous violence, many people killed, the darned thing went on for thirty years.
Kent Brockman: And this was before cartoons were invented?
Meyers: That's right, Kent.
Replace "cartoons" with "video games" and add a hearty "get bent" to the censors.
Obvious... (Score:5, Funny)
Let me tell you that urge is getting harder and harder. Thank God I don't have access to Rocket Launchers, M16's and Uzi's.
Re:Obvious... (Score:3, Funny)
Ok gradma, you somehow dodged the rocket, but you won't miss me running over you
Ahh, thank god you still believe the depression is going to happen again. $618, woohoo.
The true cause of violence. (Score:2, Funny)
Videogames don't make people violent. Twinkies do.
NYC (Score:2)
Um.. isn't it a case of art imitating life? I have fun doing this in NYC on the subway as it is. >=)
In other news... (Score:2)
Re:In other news... (Score:2)
*grin*
Re:In other news... (Score:2)
Look ma, we "created" grand "theft" auto!
Weak minds... (Score:2)
The moral question... (Score:4, Interesting)
It seems all too popular these days to blame the symptom rather than the disease. When are we going to wake up and realize that guns don't kill people and video games don't corrupt youth. The problem with Columbine isn't the guns. Its the fact that two teenage boys thought that it was OK to kill all of their buddies.
The root of the problem lies in the continual de-moralization of our society. I think it would help to remember our priorities: when we say - Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness, life comes before liberty. And in order to preserve life morals are essential. It becomes a delicate balance between an individual's freedom to believe and carry on as they choose and if some of these activities and beliefs are downright bad for society as a whole.
Re:The moral question... (Score:2, Funny)
Actually, I don't think the people that were killed were their "buddies".
Re:The moral question... (Score:2)
Is it about the decline or morals in society? I think it's more a society desensitized and unable to empathize with other people, living in a pressure-cooker where being different is bad and leads to being ostracized. And at 17 years old, being ostracized can seem to be a fate worse than death.
Re:The moral question... (Score:2, Interesting)
You have a point, I think that desensitization is a definite problem. More and more people care less and less about anyone else. I heard something somewhere from somebody that might be relative: first there was a magazine called People, then there was a magazine called Us, then Self. - you get the point, though I'm sure I didn't remember that right...
Re:The moral question... (Score:4, Insightful)
Actually, I believe that the founders intended all these rights to be equal in importance. They thought that you could do whatever you wanted, so long as you did not infringe on one of those rights. Oliver Wendell Holmes said it best: "You have the right to extend your arm, but your right to do that ends where my nose begins."
DDDDDDDUHUUUUUHHHHHHH! (Score:2)
The judge said the two gunmen were the ones responsible for the teacher's death.
Jesus the Christ, we have to waste a judge's time with this crap?
Maybe, you know, the gunmen liked violence and violent movies/games because they were unbalanced, violent people?
Nah, that would be too illiberal.
Say what you will... (Score:2)
When young people are that impressionable, in an already emotional state (all of us remember the strange mood swings of being a teen), and are then bombarded wtih scenes of graphic violence, is there any wonder why they react in such a manner?
When young people are presented with, what seem to be, earth-shattering problems (breakups with a girlfriend, divorce of parents, failures at school, etc.) and at the same time they are watching television shows, movies, and video games in which violence is the answer to all of life's problems, these kids can be influenced subconciously to believe just that.
This is not to say that ALL violence in video games and movies caused ALL of the violence in our society, or that it causes violence in ALL teenagers who view it. I played Doom, Quake, et al all through high school. I'm a big Steven Segal fan and watched all of his movies when I was a teen. But, I've never acted out violently. Nor do the thousands of other teenagers who view the exact same types of thing each year. However, we can't rule out that it could be that these specific individuals WERE in fact influenced by the media they were watching.
Re:Say what you will... (Score:3, Insightful)
So yeah, video games have an effect on me.
Luckily, I never had the urge to shoot her with my assault rifle, because:
1) i dont have the lucidity to grab an assault rifle while im half asleep
2) i dont keep an assault rifle in my bedroom
3) IM NOT A MALADJUSTED FUCKING MORON
Collective sigh of relief. (Score:2)
Safe for another month or two. Until some whackjob one-in-a-million loonytunes hears God speaking to him from his TV or monitor and goes on a rampage. Then it starts all over again.
Although I don't usually watch network TV (the box is there for PS2 and DVD watching) I happened to catch one of those John Stossel news reports on bullying on the playground. I can see why kids want to strike back. Bullying looks like it's a LOT worse than when I was a kid (and that was hell)... and it's not because kids are really any more vicious, or teachers are any more dumb... What they neglected to mention during the report is that the overcrowding of classrooms and playgrounds means you have a dozen duty teachers trying to track 1200+ kids at once. It makes for a lot more kids getting away with tormenting each other. Is that the cause? I don't know, but I spent a lot of time wishing I could make the 6 foot, 200 pound grade six kid explode when I was in elementary school. (Now he's got no teeth, and a considerably lower IQ... so I win)
People will shove the blame around where they can, that's for certain. Even the parents who love their children dearly don't spend enough time nurturing them because society says you both have to work long hours for shit money to provide your kids with stuff they don't need. Forego the luxuries sometime, and go outside and play ball together. Or build a fort. Hug your kid, and ask them what's going on in their life.
But I'm preaching to the choir here. You guys know the score, maybe it's time other people tuned in to the game.
absurd (Score:2, Insightful)
gunmen Eric Harris, 18, and Dylan Klebold, 17, -- who were also killed during the massacre-- were avid fans of violent video games and the movie ``The Basketball Diaries.''
So, if it were discovered that the killers were fans of chocolate ice-cream should we sue Baskin Robbins?
Columbine was truely tragic, my heart goes out to the victims. However, being hurt does not automatically make one right. Nor does being a victim entitle one to blame and attack anyone remotely related to the crime.
In this case the families of those killed could not see justice done to the killers since they are already dead. The natural human urge is to get back and exact justice in attempt to compensate for suffering. Since the perpetrators of the crime were dead, a substitute had to be found. But, that doesn't make it right or just.
The judge said the two gunmen were the ones responsible for the teacher's death.
Thank God for a judge with common sense.
Killing in the name of video games (Score:3, Informative)
Maybe the events of September 11th, the current and ongoing war in the Middle East, and all the other various world conflicts made the judge smack himself in the forehead and say "It ISN'T video games that cause violence." I feel for the families of these kids, and the families of the victims, but sometimes you can't find someone to blame. Sometimes bad things happen, for no reason that makes any sense. Sometimes there ARE no answers. A lot of people blame the parents, but in fact they probably aren't to blame for this. I am sure there are a lot of worse parents out there, and their kids didn't go ballistic.
What is even more depressing to me is that I had almost forgotten about Columbine.
Does there HAVE to be blame? (Score:5, Insightful)
But what about parents who do a good job? Parents who read Dr. Spock, have family dinners, spend a night a week with no TV but playing games and talking to their children, and yet STILL have children who grow up to be Charles Manson?
It's entirely possible that even the best parents in the world could have evil, maladjusted, sociopathic children.
We, as a society, are very quick to (1) Assume that someone "must" be responsible for anything that goes wrong, and (2) sue the crap out of whomever is currently assigned blame for #1.
For a while it was ADHD and Ritalin. It's often lousy teachers. Then it was rap music and/or video games. Sprinkled in there occasionally are parents, teachers, and school administrators (not to mention on-site security officers or the bus driver).
Hasn't anyone thought to blame the people who actually commit the crimes?
We as a society have to get used to the fact that you don't always know why, that there isn't always someone who has the power to stop things, and that we aren't always entitled to restitution.
Alright, everyone, repeat after me: "Shit happens."
Re:Does there HAVE to be blame? (Score:2, Insightful)
Being a "good parent" simply means you child is not a detriment to society. That means you child is not a murderer, rapist, Enron executive, politician, etc.
What about John Walker Lindh's parents? They think they're good people, and that may be true. They even think their son is a "good person at heart." The problem is that they're his parents, and it will be hard for them to really see him as a "terrorist" (assuming he is one). He has obviously chosen a path separate from the norms of our society; that isn't always bad, but in his case it led to treason.
Were they bad parents? They didn't educate him enough on the "right" way (say what you want about what is truly the "right" way, but whatever our society decides is "right" is just that) to behave as part of our society. He left to another society, and got involved in a war on the wrong side.
So should we blame parents? Yes. Always. They are responsible for the education, socialization, and (when necessary) medication of their child. If any of those has failed when the child "grows up" then stand back...
Does that mean parents are exclusively to blame? No, of course not. But for them to deny responsibility is completely rediculous.
Re:Does there HAVE to be blame? (Score:4, Insightful)
Putting blame on the surrounding environment comes out of psychology -- in particular behaviourist psychology, which came out of the US. Its basic premise was that everyone is born equally -- it's the environment that shapes you into what you end up being. This is actually a pretty huge premise. Academic psychologists don't completely subscribe to it any more, but the idea has been embedded into the American psyche. Of course, it doesn't just come out of psychology... "All men are born equal," anyone?
It becomes clear then, that regardless of how it came to be, the notion that the environment should be blamed is deeply etched into the American psyche. It's hard to blame the individual; most people (in the US) wouldn't stand for it.
It's only the most heinous of crimes that get blamed on the individual -- we don't want to ever believe that society could produce such a monster (e.g. serial killers).
Re:Does there HAVE to be blame? (Score:2, Insightful)
Yes, it does. Getting a flat tire on the way to work is shit. Having school kids gunned down by their classmates is not shit. It's fucking nuts.
There had to have been some influences on the lives of the shooters to get them into a mental state where they could be capable of committing this horrible act. I'm not saying it's the parent's fault, but I'm not holding them innocent either. A complex combination of factors caused this, and it is important to at least gain an idea of what they were. If parents become involved in their children's lives because of this, at least some positive has come out of this whole thing.
It's entirely possible that even the best parents in the world could have evil, maladjusted, sociopathic children.
Yeah, okay, but can you name one? It's possible, but not very likely.
We're all the result of our upbringings. Our parents, involved or not, contribute a great deal to how we develop on both a physical and emotional level. There is a strong correlation between the behavior of the child and the behavior of the parents. Positive parenting will most likely result in reasonably well adjusted children, while negative parenting will most likely result in maladjusted children. Very rarely do you see a person who grew up with very loving and non-violent parents become a wife beater.
At least 1 document case of game related violence (Score:2, Troll)
Um... you sure there's no GTA3 connection? (Score:2, Interesting)
I could be way off base here, but after playing GTA3 for numerous hours and then getting in my car, I tend to believe that some with less willpower [cnn.com]might find it hard to control themselves.
The game is just too damn fun.
I thought Manson was to blame (Score:2, Insightful)
C
Behaviour can be learned. (Score:5, Insightful)
1) Behaviour Can Be Learned
2) Video Games Can Be Educational
3) Video Games Cannot Teach Negative Behaviour
Does this belief make sense? Children take their cues from all aspects of life, including the games they play. No, I don't believe violent video games should be banned - but I believe they should be rated, and those ratings enforced. 18+ for games like Quake. "Let's see some ID kid. No? Well, I can't sell you this game - I'd risk a fine or revocation of my business licence."
The parent could still buy it for their child, but at least they'd be forced to accept their responsibility as a parent.
Columbine happened right smack in the middle of a time period when we are witnessing the breakdown of the basic family unit, and the collapse of parental responsibility.
Video games are not the direct cause, but neither are they unrelated or innocent. They are one contributing factor in the fabric of society.
Society is Bunk! (Score:4, Insightful)
Studies of bullying behavior are just now starting in the scientific community. One of the things that researchers are recognizing is that people who are abused tend to have *different* values for what is abuse and bad behavior - basically, someone who goes through abuse or neglect tends to "grow up" faster and not recognize abuse in themselves. That is one reason why children of abusive families tend to carry on the vicious cycle to their own kids; and it is also a key to how someone who is bullied in school (or maybe bullied at home and carries that to school) would resort to such mind-bogglingly violent options.
There needs to be more investment in counceling and positive reenforcement in schools - perhaps as early as elementary school. Yes, a significant number of people who read this site were probably bullied and ostracized when they were younger (I still have bad memories of a rather unfortunate day in 6th grade when I wore a yellow hair band that did not match the rest of my attire). Most people do not go home and gather up the dynamite and a few gallons of gasoline, but some individuals have different receptors for pain and abuse. This is just a prime reason of how environment can alter our brains at the *cellular* level - changing even how the DNA is transcribed.
"If the whole world depends on today's youth, I can't see the world lasting another 100 years." Socrates
Heard on NPR this morning... (Score:5, Insightful)
About a new possible Bill in the State of Michigan regarding the sale and rental of video games that have violent content in them.
I am going to find out who this idiot is and ask him why he believes that parents are incapable of raising their children.
I was also going to point out that a law similiar to this was passed and then reveresed in court, in the city of Indianapolis recently.
Parents do not need additional laws that give them even more reason to shirk their duties in raising their children. If they do, then they really shouldn't be parents. Work a few less hours and frikkin' raise your children. I know that when I have children, I or my wife, whomever is making less, will stay home and raise the children.
Again, those children in Columbine, including most of the "Copy-cat" children, were all on some kind of psycotropic medication, had two parents that worked more hours than they spent with their kids and probably barely knew what their kids were doing, thinking or planning.
That never happened to me, because my parents were there. Sure, sometimes they seemed annoying, but for the most part, they spent time with me and my siblings. They took us places, explained the actual difference between right and wrong and helped us become the good citizens that we are today.
Today's children don't have parents, they have lax animal trainers that are barely there to feed and change, let alone train the children they bore. Get a grip people, stop supporting these silly laws and start supporting your children.
Another thing, your children are growing up. If you don't teach them about the REAL WORLD, then they are going to learn all the dangers on their own. If that means they get pregnant at 15, then that is really your fault for choosing not to talk to them about sex. If they end up whacked out on drugs, again, you should have talked to them about drugs.
My parents did that for me and yours may have done that for you. If you turned out okay and actually had parents there to raise you. What makes you think that your children will be okay without parents?
--
.sig seperator
--
Ultimate Soldier (Score:2, Funny)
I play Mortal Kombat
I play Flight sim
I play carmageddon
I... am the ultimate soldier
Why stop at violence and teens. (Score:5, Funny)
Check the research! (Score:4, Informative)
Of course playing Quake did not make those guys into what they became. But there is a sizable body of legitimate, peer-reviewed psychological research that shows there is a definite relationship between exposure to violence and violent behaviour.
Here are some discussion papers from The American Psychiatric Association [psych.org] and the American Psychological Association [apa.org]. that provide a bit more information
Granted that there is only a corelation between the exposure to violence and violent behaviour, and I am well aware that this does not imply a causal relationship. On the other hand, I don't think that we should not ignore the long-term effects of exposure to violence on children. Certainly it is not helpful to disregard the whole issue by pointing out that lots of people play Quake and aren't mass murderers...
Re:Check the research! (Score:3, Insightful)
I would like to present myself as an example of what I am talking about. I consider myself to be a more-violent-than-average individual. I have a fascination with guns, knives, swords and other weapons. I fantasize in my daily life about exactly what I would like to do to people who get on my nerves. (ie, punch, stab, shoot, mutilate etc) Sometimes I have real difficulty coping with these impulses I get, and I either snap at people or find some other method of release- I also have a problem with self-injury, by the way.
You are free to call me a sick fuck (and y'know, you'd probably be right), but part of me thought that Columbine was kinda cool.
Guess what folks. I play violent games and I like to watch violent movies. I love Doom. I love the double barreled shotgun. I love taking out three or four human-like characters at a time. Imagine my joy when I got quake and found I was able to see chunks of bodies flying in all directions! And Quake 3 Arena with its flying skulls and ribcages and showers of blood was pure bliss. My only complaint is that there isn't enough blood. I love violent movies too. The nasty bits of vietnam films that were meant to be shocking and disgusting? I get a little flutter of testosterone and adrenaline when I see Private Pyle's brains splattered across the wall in Full Metal Jacket. Fight Club struck me as tame compared to what I did (and had been doing long before Chuck Palahnuik even wrote the book) at my own fight club. Etcetera etcetera etcetera.
I have been a violent person as long as I have been able to interact independently in society, which I'd say is since I was about six or seven. I didn't have any exposure to violent media until I was at least ten. (Which by American standards is probably kinda late, but hey, I'm not American.)
My point is that in my opinion (and I'm no psycologist) there is most definitely a causal relationship between my violent impulses and my fondness for violent entertainment. It just happens to be the opposite way round to what many think it is. I was born a violent person, and there's sweet fuck all I can do about that except keep going to Anger Management classes. I know one thing though- If I didn't have outlets like Doom and Quake to get rid of my pent-up agression, I would probably have done more harm to more people than I currently have.
Just my two pennies.
Violent person or antisocial? (Score:3, Insightful)
You're not a violent person, you're antisocial, and that crops up as violent behavior... cause I have been there.
Some people are less adjusted to others.
For you that might be an understatement. I know that you are most likely anti-social because you have had a bummer luck being born with bad parents, or been outcast with your peers, and that makes you express aggression because you didn't cause that. I understand this because I was quite possibly one of the most outcast people I ever met. I am ugly. It slows down all social interactions. I felt the jabs of others on me, personally and physically in the schoolyard and in front of classes... and at home. IT MADE ME ANTISOCIAL. That anti-social behavior made me fantasize about revenge and violence, because I saw others as less than human for their less than humane treatment of me.
Guess what? I got over it by getting companions.
I got in better with people when I made a clean break to college, and it all changed. I wasn't an outcast, and the feelings of rage against my fellow man quelled slowly over two years. Now the idea of hurting others is left to talking smack in video game contests, which is just teasing. Hardly violent at all.
I have a friend that is a ER psychiatrist, and he says that a full on 95% of all suicide cases are people who have no person to fall back on. The violent ones? The same. 95% have not a friend in the world. IT'S NOT MENTAL ILLNESS. IT IS CIRCUMSTANCE BASED BEHAVIORAL PROBLEMS AND A DETACHMENT FROM OTHERS. That is what causes people to kill. If you are violent, you are a loner, or you have a chemical imbalance that my friend could probably spot instantly and diagnose to fix in a few minutes.
So get some friends, and you won't want to kill or hurt others. If you still do, it is chemical. I am not talking about one friend. I am talking about several with different, differing viewpoints.
If you think this is all psychobabble, then tell it to my brilliant friend who prescribes drugs that make people's lives better, and has been in a University environment busting ass for TEN YEARS to fix people's minds, and diagnose mental deficiencies. Take it up with a real professional who works in a real, quanitative field of study. They know.
THE MORAL? Change your behavior with friends and comrades that are different from you. Hanging with violent nutties just makes you more confident. DO IT NOW, before you harm others. Work at it. Prescriptions only quell urges. Your behavior will make the difference.
Make a clean break. Change things about yourself (even a haircut or wardrobe change works wonders) and then leave it all behind. It will fade if you put it away. And just throw away your antisocial fears.
Anybody ever watch Picket Fences? (Score:4, Interesting)
The city that this show takes place in is a small town and many of the people there suffer from knee-jerk over-reactiveness to events like these. They immediately blamed television for the shooting and pulled it off the air. The defense of the child that fired the gun (not the potato gun) was that television taught him that shooting guns is ok, therefore it's TV's fault.
The way the episode ended (if memory serves...) is that the prosecuting lawyer asked the kid a very interesting question. "When you watch TV, do you see people get shot?" "Yes." "Do they die?" "... Yes." "So television taught you that when you shoot somebody with a gun, they die."
I thought that was an interesting response to this whole TV/Video Games/Music causes violence debate. Movies like Robocop taught me that guns are not something you really want to play with at all. Some would say Robocop glorified violence, but it sure didn't for me. The idea of getting my arm blown off and surviving to feel it didn't settle too well with me at all.
It bothers me that this aspect of television is never explored. Personally, I think TV teaches that guns are dangerous, and that you're really playing games with your life expectancy vs. solving problems with them.
GTA3 (Score:3, Insightful)
[This isn't a troll, but it sure is going to sound like one.]
My brother has GTA3 (and ironically, he's also a cop). We've both played it and come to the same conclusion - it's just too damn violent.
Don't get me wrong - I do not think it should be censored. I just have to question what is going on in your head when it takes shit like GTA3 to entertain you. It's like watching an animated Faces of Death.
I enjoy games with violence as much as the next guy. Games like CounterStrike or HALO where violence is an effect of realistic gameplay, and it's not done in a gratuitous fashion. It's the pointless violence like beating old ladies to death in GTA3 that I find a little disturbing.
So tell me - what are you GTA fans thinking when you watch blood pool around a dead bystander's head in GTA3? Is it really necessary for the game to be THAT violent? How does it make the experience more enjoyable?
I sure hope it's not just me getting old, because I'm gonna get a hell of lot older than 24.
Re:GTA3 (Score:4, Interesting)
Like your post, this isn't a troll, but might sound like one. The violence doesn't make the game more fun, in fact, the game simply isn't violent in ways you describe - it's consistant. If you choose to beat up an old lady, why should the game intervene, stop you, and say "hey - that's not nice, you can't do that"? In other words, it's just like counterstrike, Halo etc - an artifact of creating a consistant world.
I haven't played all that far into GTA3, but from all that I have seen, you are NEVER required to beat up an old lady to progress or finish a mission. In fact, if you are so violently inclined as to use your weapons on an old lady, you're much more likely to have a run-in with the police, ending your game.
That's the interesting thing about GTA3 - unlike most games, there are serious consequences if the player commits random acts of violence. When you first get the game, it might be fun to try and rack up as many stars as you can get, but when you're actually playing it, you try pretty hard to avoid hurting people, else the police response makes it almost impossible to progress.
So in a sense, I see GTA3 as less violent than the shoot-everything-in-sight games, even though both might be very graphic.
That said, there are some pretty dodgy missions (though you still get to decide whether or not you want to do them). (I really didn't like the idea of being muscle for a protection racket for example. I was glad when it turned out to be a trap
GTA is also needlessly gratutious. The prostitute thing for example. (Not to mention - the idea that sex with a prostitute makes you healthier is somewhat counter to reality
I agree that it goes over the top, I just wanted to make the point that the game discourages violence - it seems more violent because whenever someone starts playing it, they discover that they are in a consistant world in which they be as violent as they want. And thus the PLAYER rips loose, NOT the game. When they start playing properly, it's completely different.
I think it would be a tragedy if game tech was retarded on the premise that offering a consistant world is too violent.
Re:Is THAT why I ran over all this school children (Score:2, Flamebait)
Re:Video games cause death? (Score:5, Insightful)
There is nothing quite like the feeling of having 16-on-16 in a good CounterStrike game.
Re:Video games cause death? (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Video games cause death? (Score:5, Interesting)
I think in earlier times, it was easier to work out this rage, either fighting was more accepted (my parent's time), or you had to actively hunt for food (grandparent's time), or by 13 or 14, you were out fighting [i]real[/i] wars.
I don't think I was an atypical teen, but I had a lot of anger and angst I needed to work out. Luckily I had an outlet for that. I don't think it was unhealthy, most of my angst was about things I couldn't control and didn't have the emotional maturity to deal with yet. Adolescence is a very hard time to deal with. Mine was made better knowing that someone felt the same way I did (or at least did at one time) and there were outlets for my irrational rage and aggression.
Unfortunately, I see many parents trying to take away every one of these outlets, on the idea that they somehow cause violence. They'd like to ban everything from football to video games to violent television, because they aren't comfortable with the violent aspect of them. Somehow, they think if you just take these things away, people will somehow stop being "animals". It doesn't work that way. Man is violent by nature, and I'm sure that's part of the reason we survived to build society. You don't breed that out in a generation or get rid of it by legislation. And, the more you close off the places to get rid of this aggression safely, you will encourage more and more school shootings.
Re:Damn.... (Score:2)
Re:Anyone else find it funny... (Score:2, Funny)
Re:Finally! (Score:2, Funny)
Re:my tax dollar hard at work (Score:2)
Re:video games donīt kill people... (Score:3, Interesting)
So let me get this straight... You've been presented with a problem. Kids have somehow been raised with the inclination and ability to kill their companions in cold blood. Some aspect of social engineering has failed, and they've been dramatically warped.
Your solution? Don't give them guns.
How wonderfully shortsighted of you. So what happens when they build slingshots? Do you take away all their wood?
Now here is a classic example of treating the symptom, and not the problem.