What Came First, the Violence or the Videogame?

An anonymous reader writes "Another wave of video-game-violence panic is upon us. The pressed suits who read the pop news on television are wagging their so-called neutral fingers at an industry they have never understood. Planet Xbox 360 considers the many games they have played and the real-life murderers they have known in their own lives, and how little the talking heads know about either."

Which came first?

[ExPacis]

Before videogames, there was violence.

In the 60's, they blamed it on the rock 'n' roll.
In the 50's, they blamed it on Elvis' hips.

As far back as history records, there has been violence. Anyone who tries to claim otherwise is just grabbing for straws that aren't there.

wtf?

[AcidLacedPenguiN]

I'm relatively sure the crusades came before pac-man. . . So my guess is the violence, just a hunch though.

Excuses..

[tont0r]

Ever since someone pressed forward, down, forward + low punch and did Sub Zero's fatality in Mortal Kombat 1, people have been playing video games on todays violence. Then gas was dumped on the with GTA and all its little buddies coming out after it. And its a convenient thought that someone who plays those games commits violent crimes.

But here is the reality of the situation. Fucked up crimes were happening before video games. They are going to happen with video games. And guess what? They are going to happen (god forbid) after video games.

Correct me if I'm mistaken but...

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm pretty sure kids ran around shooting each other before Doom arrived on the scene. In fact, I believe the oldest known video game, Space War, was preceeded by millenia of violence, much of it perpetrated by persons under the age of 25.

Violence is a part of human nature. The only reasons you hear so much about the kids who kill other kids is a) the news media is pretty much 24/7 and spends a lot of that time twiddling its thumbs, and so it jumps on a story like Columbine; and b) because there are MORE OF US so it's more likely to happen.

It's not the fault of the video games. It's the fault of negligent parents and a society that doesn't seem to take any interest in disciplining children anymore.

Re:Mirror Neurons

[99BottlesOfBeerInMyF]

So, if studies consistently showed a mirror neuron response while playing shooters, would we not be obliged to take violent games off the shelf...?

No, we wouldn't. It undermines several principals of our government. The first is liberty. You might note boxing is not illegal. Watching boxing is a lot more likely to stimulate that part of the brain than video games are. Participating in boxing has been statistically shown to correlate with violent crime and sexual assault. It doesn't matter. We have free will and are responsible for what we do. Does red meat increase testosterone and increase the likelihood of violence? If so should we ban it? Meat in general? All sports? Walking into high oxygen areas in lower altitudes? Not taking hormone suppressants and sedatives to keep us passive and nonviolent?

It is not the government's job to take measures to force individuals to not take any action that might increase their chances of commiting crimes by running their lives for them. Arguably it is the job of parents to do that for their children, but never the government.

It's called personal responsibility.

Re:Wii brings in a new angle

[tarun713]

That sort of motion has been going on for ages though - look at first person shooters in the arcade - time crisis, house of the dead, things like that. Of course, this does make it far more mainstream.

Re:Um, what about television?

[PFI_Optix]

Supposedly, what makes video games worse is that you actually choose to engage in the act, even if the "act" is simply pushing a button. TV is passive; games are active.

Of course, the whole point of tfa is exactly what i've been saying for years: violent kids are going to play violent games. They're going to watch violent movies and listen to violent music and probably hang out with violent friends. They're making such choices because they appeal to them.

Re:Which came first?

[Enoxice]

He's not trying to prove that video games don't cause violence. The question he is answering is "What Came First, the Violence or the Videogame?". And he's answered it well.

I'm sorry, but you're totally wrong

[paladinwannabe2]

First point: Youth violence and crime is at an all-time low.
Second point: Have you read much (non fiction) about life 50 years ago? Kids then were just as bad as they are now- probably worse, because you would get beat up more often. And heaven help you if you were black, Jewish, Italian, etc.
Third point: You are complaining that kids are ruder today than they were- and I'll agree with this. Americans have definitely gotten ruder as a society. However, I also think that we are much less tolerant of violence than we were, especially amoung children. I'd prefer to be made fun of verbally than get beat up.