Fox Saying Violent Video Games Training Kids to Kill (About Newtown Incident)

#111poppen695Posted 12/17/2012 12:09:35 PM
Prototype_1 posted...
badbutttuesday posted...
Prototype_1 posted...
ZodiacKillerJr posted...
They are kind of right...

It desensatises children from violence, that's why violent games are rated for Adults. On top of this, Al Queda actually uses Call of Duty as a training device for it's soldiers (one reason why one of our soldiers can kill hundreds of theirs)

I totally hate those who say video games are bad because they're violent. I say it's a parents responsibility to know when their child is mature enough for a game that is violent. But sadly parents are letting toddlers play these games.


Totally agree with this. I have played video games, violent and non-violent ones for a long time. My first console was an Atari 2600 Master System when I was 4. I had an original NES at 5. I have played games on every major console released in the US from NES to Genesis to NEO-Geo to Atari Jaguar to Dreamcast. I am 30 years old and have never been playing a game and thought to my self "Gee, I think I will obtain a semi-automatic rifle, get in my car, and shoot kids in an elementary school", ever. Maybe there is a desensitizing attribute to video games, but there is a psychological aspect to those who take a weapon into their hands and perform an act of violence like what occurred on Friday. FOX News is just trying to spin this into a frenzy and get things that they and the right-wing religious fanatics want, to take the problem away from availability of semi-automatic rifles, hand guns, and mental illness and put it on something that has little to no relationship to ths actual problem, video games. The Columbine shooting was also focused on video games and heavy metal music. I do not know if the Virginia Tech shooting was spun in the direction of video games or not. But what I am getting at is that this is not the first time this has occurred. And it will not be the last. As long as people can get their hands on weapons without having to pass some kind of psychological evaluation or anger management type evaluation, this will continue to plague our nation, our freedoms, and our way of life. I am not preaching for a reversal of the 2nd amendment in anyway, shape, or form. The right to bear arms is not in question. Its the individuals that are allowed to receive those arms and the types of arms available to them.


"Right wing religious fanatics" is quoted from your post... perfect

There have been 10's if not 100,s if not a billion people killed because of religion. The U.S. is still fighting a religious war right now. It may not be on the U.S. side but it is on the other.

the thing that has desensitized me to death and killing is the news coverage of war my entire 38 years of life.


Oh I know that it is quoted in my previous post. Think about it, FOX News is a news source from the right point of view (and MSNBC is from the left point of view), which is also the more religious point of view, and more towards 2nd amendment rights statistically speaking. I am in total agreement with you that religion is the cause of the most loss of life in wars or conflicts. And it may not be a true statement but it may as well be that if you are from the Bible Belt, when you are born you are given a Bible and a gun. Sure its a stereotype, but its a true one since most of the religious gun totters in this country are from that area of the nation.


Actually Communism under Mao and Stahlin, which is atheistic, is responsible for the single biggest genocide event and loss of life from a numbers standpoint, but go ahead and believe what your anti-religous teen agnst mind tells you to believe if it makes you feel better.
#112JonicitePosted 12/17/2012 12:10:49 PM
I'm a bloody atheist and would love to know what the hell that has to do with anything?
---
PSN Alias: EmailFail CoD Clan: D3TH
---
#113poppen695Posted 12/17/2012 12:11:44 PM
Jonicite posted...
poppen695 posted...
Lodiss posted...
poppen695 posted...
I would never put myself in that situation. I'm not a criminal. Again, stupid argument on your part. However, send a government employee to my house and have him tell me "we are here to take all your guns because there is a new law saying you can't have them" and yes...someone will get shot that day.


So in other words, you're above the law. If the law is a bad law, you elect to ignore it. Yeah, guys like you NEVER have run-ins with cops.

Do you hear yourself? Nobody "puts themselves" in the situation of a police confrontation. Sometimes things just happen.

You get rear ended and someone smashes your tail light. The next day, on your way to have it replaced, a cop pulls you over because of the busted tail light. You fancy yourself a "real man", so you felt the need to take a pistol to the garage.

The cop notices you are carrying, and asks you to step out of the car with your hands up, as he has been trained to do.

What now? Do you argue with the cop about the second amendment, or do you put the gun on the ground and back away like you're told? Or do you go out in a hail of bullets screaming about tyranny?

Personally, I would hope you choose the third option.


I'm not above the law. You are not above the constitution. My second amendment right, which is inaliable (that means you can't take it away, for those dense lefty types that like to try and twist the constitution to their liking) means you will not make a law that takes away my right to be a responsible adult gun owner, and if you try to, you will get shot. Your hypothetical is again, rubbish stupidity (as expected). I live in Louisiana, a state that understands the fundamentals of gun ownership and repesects fully the right to carry. I have been stopped by the police for speeding 5 years ago. The officer asked if I had a firearm in the car, I said "of course" and he responded "smart man".


Constitution doesn't say diddly about your right to own high powered assault rifles OR AMMO. It simply says you have the right to bear arms. Nothing more, and nothing less. Additionally, before calling people dense about constitutional analysis, remember that any Amendment can be changed with a new Amendment. Regardless of what you think. If you're willing to murder people to have guns, that's your problem. Don't hide behind the Bill of Rights to justify your obsession with guns.


I'm not willing to murder anyone. I am willing to kill in self defense someone who tries to take away my human rights and subjugate me as a slave to the government. You have a really ugly habit of trying(and failing) to put words in other peoples' mouths. Have you always been like this? How did your parents ever get along with you?
#114_decitronPosted 12/17/2012 12:23:31 PM
EagleEyedTiger posted...
_decitron posted...
EagleEyedTiger posted...
Notice they never blame TV and the fact that they will report all the violent details of a story for 24 hours a day. Maybe the shooters get the idea to do something like this from all the attention that is given to it from television.


studies suggest that violent video games have a stronger effect than violent television, movies, or music. the reasons for this:

video games are interactive and people learn better when they are actively involved in an activity. one of the things you learn playing violent video games is how to behave more aggressively.

it is easier to identify with characters in video games, and sometimes its more or less automatic, particularly for first person shooters. this identification is the result of being in direct control of that character, and research has shown that this identification with violent characters leads to increased aggression.

rewards for aggressive behavior are directly tied in in video games, in terms of points/score, advancement, visual/auditory stimuli. research has shown the powers of this kind of positive reinforcement.


Link please.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LFCUSZ8sDMw&NR=1

relevant information at 6:15
---
http://img9.imageshack.us/img9/439/mw3kids.jpg
#115DarthVashtiPosted 12/17/2012 12:25:44 PM
Blaming anybody or anything other than the person who pulled the trigger is a very cowardly thing to do. Violent movies/video games didn't make the murderer kill 26 people. He chose to kill 26 people on his own. Violence and movies/video games is a correlation not a causation.
#116_decitronPosted 12/17/2012 12:29:46 PM
DarthVashti posted...
Blaming anybody or anything other than the person who pulled the trigger is a very cowardly thing to do. Violent movies/video games didn't make the murderer kill 26 people. He chose to kill 26 people on his own. Violence and movies/video games is a correlation not a causation.


or it isn't the single cause because there is no single cause, but it could very well be a relevant contributing factor. also, merely saying "Violent movies/video games didn't make the murderer kill 26 people" and offering no substance for it does nothing for your argument.
---
http://img9.imageshack.us/img9/439/mw3kids.jpg
#117badbutttuesdayPosted 12/17/2012 12:29:55 PM
Poppen wrote:

Actually Communism under Mao and Stahlin, which is atheistic, is responsible for the single biggest genocide event and loss of life from a numbers standpoint, but go ahead and believe what your anti-religous teen agnst mind tells you to believe if it makes you feel better.

I didn't say in any single event or even a small group of events. you are talking about millions here. open your eyes and read things through before you reply.

First of all i'm 38 which I posted earlier. there's not a whole lot of teen angst.

Mao and stalin clearly killed a lot of people... approx 90 million. look a little deeper into history and you will find hundreds of millions more who died for or because of their religion.
#118LodissPosted 12/17/2012 12:30:51 PM
poppen695 posted...
I'm not above the law. You are not above the constitution. My second amendment right, which is inaliable (that means you can't take it away, for those dense lefty types that like to try and twist the constitution to their liking) means you will not make a law that takes away my right to be a responsible adult gun owner, and if you try to, you will get shot. Your hypothetical is again, rubbish stupidity (as expected). I live in Louisiana, a state that understands the fundamentals of gun ownership and repesects fully the right to carry. I have been stopped by the police for speeding 5 years ago. The officer asked if I had a firearm in the car, I said "of course" and he responded "smart man".


So you don't have anything to argue here except that I'm an idiot and you're right about everything because you say so. Got it.

You didn't need to tell anyone that you live in a hick state like Louisiana. We all pretty much already knew.

I just have one question. Is there a major household appliance (washing machine, water heater, or perhaps a refrigerator) sitting on your front lawn right now?
---
You were indicted.
#119vashtrichamPosted 12/17/2012 12:33:36 PM
Quote:


The founding fathers also wanted us to have guns to protect us from our own government and from outside invaders. This country would not be safer with no guns, there are hundreds of thousands of people with guns who do not kill. Just because a psychopath kills people with a gun does not mean that everyone who owns a gun should have to get rid of theirs. We should be figuring out how to make our school/public security better and our mental health institutes better.


Ack, that wall of text was getting to be a bit much. I don't think the Founding Fathers' entire line of the thought for firearms was protection from just our government, but I'm going to move on and we'll just disagree on this point.

Let's go through a little story time and take the CT shooting into a world where the teachers were armed. Scum comes in and starts shooting. Teacher 1 starts shooting at Scum. Teacher 2 sees two people shooting and takes a 50% chance and starts firing away. Teacher 3 sees the battle and hops in. Police arrive and start shooting at everyone. That's what a fully armed populous would look like.

We, as a people, are pretty stupid. I saw some data recently that suggested most kids today can't read outside of an 8th grade level. So yes, I don't think stupid people should have guns; no more than I want stupid people to drive cars. However, drivers at least have to go through a license process which, surprisingly, does weed out the garden gnomes. Gun folk have a stupid low bar.

Ack, before I get lost in my post... if one psychopath goes on a rampage with an assault rifle, why shouldn't we have a debate about their future in our country. How many more of these do we need to have before it's a national issue? Two a month? 100 kids? You tell me where the line is so I can prepare myself for the body count. You want to hunt? Fine. You don't need an assault rifle for that. That's my entire point. There is no reason for them in this country, and we're just going to see more kids dying if we choose to do nothing. I hate seeing people die in vain. (vane?)

@Jonicite
It was a major reason for putting the 2nd amendment in. They saw during and before the rev war how Britain would enter people's houses armed and either kill or force the occupancy to fight for their side. They wanted to protect their people from our own or any government forcing there way into our homes.
---
Sent from my iPhone via PowerFAQs 1.10
#120_decitronPosted 12/17/2012 12:35:00 PM
the Declaration of Independence talks about inalienable rights (Life, Liberty, Persuit of Happiness). The Constitution, an entirely different document, does not mention inalienable rights whatsoever.
---
http://img9.imageshack.us/img9/439/mw3kids.jpg