CrunchGear

The issue of violence in video games isn’t something to simply brush aside. Those who have said Mr. Kent “sold out” at his criticism of Grand Theft Auto San Andreas clearly have no concept of the depth of the problem. Video games such as GTA not only imply that immoral, unethical behavior is “normal” but also puts the player on a path to desensitization. Unlike movies or television where the exposure to violence is brief, the graphic violence in videos games is played over and over and over. The book “On Killing” by Lt Col Dave Grossman is packed with clearly articulated arguments and examples of people who have taken the lessons of playing these “murder trainers” to the next level. Michael Carneal is a textbook example. How does a 14 year old boy who has never fired a handgun before attack a school, fire eight rounds and have eight hits? Because as Grossman so eloquently puts it, Carneal probably “killed” thousands of people in the comfort of his home while playing video games. Let me make it clear that I don’t believe that the creators of games like Grand Theft Auto intended for their users to become mass murderers. However, there is an element of operant conditioning, and desensitization when one scores big points by killing over and over again. In 2004, a 25 year old man named Nathan Gale stormed the stage at the Alrosa Villa nightclub in Columbus Ohio and killed four people. Diagnosed with paranoid schizophrenia, according to his mother, Gale was an avid player of Grand Theft Auto. As “fun” as is must be to play these carnage filled games, the problem is that there are no real consequences for the players behavior. You don’t get caught, you don’t go to jail, you don’t get hurt and you don’t get killed. The worst that happens in the virtual world of the game is the gamer has to start over. Games like this are creating an entire generation devoid of conscience and no true concept of the real life consequences of deviant criminal behavior. They are not for children.

@Chris A

I’d like to point out several points as to why you fail at making a good argument:

1. “Diagnosed with paranoid schizophrenia” In case you do not realize what this is –
“combines the psychotic delusions and behaviour of Paranoia with other symptoms of schizophrenia such as hallucinations, thought disorder, poor social and occupational functioning, and flattened emotions.” –Google

This alone means that he was capable of such behavior without video games or any other influence. “Paranoid schizophrenia” is quite different than the regular mental disease. And will, often, result in acts of violence from the afflicted person. Playing a video game would to little to nothing to promote violent behavior, as such potential already exists. What I would like to know: Why was he not under supervision if he has such a dangerous disease. Why was he allowed to purchase and play these games in the first place?

2. Kids see guns way more often on the news. How come the media is so focused on scaring everyone into submission?

In case you have never seen a gun: A semi-automatic firearm can be activated simply via the pull of a trigger located at the top of the handle. Ergonomically convenient. This is why toddlers have also fired guns. Would you like to tell me that a 2 year old girl spent days in front of her TV playing GTA?

3. I noticed that at no point in your post did you mention the responsibility of parents. In case you haven’t noticed, GTA has an adults-only rating. Meaning that it can only be purchased by people over the age of 18. This means, that the 14 year old had to have had his parent(s) buy him said video game for his enjoyment. If the parent does not wish to expose their child to such violent influences, then they should simply not buy them the game.

4. Now let me throw some numbers at you. The United States has more gun deaths per year, than any other country. Over 11,000 a single year. Our friendly neighbor to the north Canada, averages about less than 70 deaths a year. Mind you that Canada is much more highly associated with hunting than the US. Not only that but the number of firearms in Canada greatly outnumbers those in the USA.

Canada, has the same video game titles, systems, number of players, and game sales as the United States. So how come Canada has about 150 times more deaths than the United States.

There are plenty of sane adults who enjoy relieving stress by playing video games.

Have you ever thought that maybe a person would RESORT to video game violence rather than take his anger out on the real world?

In short, having conservative opinions is going to tear this country apart.

Whatever happened to teaching your kids about sex, violence, and drugs. If parents don’t do that the kids are going to get out into the real world and not know the danger.

Why do you think that 80% of teenagers who take vows of celibacy forced on them by conservative Christian parents, end up losing their virginity earlier than those who realize the danger and emotional aspects involved? Did you also know that about half of those kids will not even use birth control or condoms, due to parental refusal to introduce their kids to this? Schools in conservative states even refuse to give out condoms or educate teens on safe sex. That is the real danger. Some states even refuse to have VACCINES for STD’s because they fear that such medicine will inspire their children to engage in premarital sex.

Ask yourself, who is really at fault here? Video game creators? Rating companies? Systems manufacturers? God for allowing the creation of such atrocities?

Or maybe parents for buying the games for their kids? And not treating kids affected with dangerous mental disease.

Maybe we will blame the kids for taking a gun and ending someones life? Why not?

Where is individual responsibility?

Sorry, correction “Canada has about 150 times less gun related deaths than the United States per year”

Ilya, your argument is incredibly weak as you make far too many assumptions. While I’m sure that Google “factoids” are nice informational tools I don’t really view them as a basis for forming a credible argument. As for why Carneal wasn’t under parental supervision, why ask me? I’m not his parent. The fact that his parents may or may not have monitored his activities isn’t relevant to this discussion. Re-read my comments, they are directly related to the impact of video games. I never said nor implied that playing video games alone will turn a person into a killing machine. I find your defense of games like GTA hilarious. I spent 20 years as a cop and am very well versed in the function of firearms and you’ll get no argument from me about individual or parental responsibility. However, this isn’t the thesis of the article nor this discussion. Perhaps since you’re so enamored with our neighbors to the north you should consider relocating. Get off your arogant high-horse and grow up.

Hey Chris; just because it’s a common resourse doesn’t mean google’s definition isn’t wrong. We learned about the same definition in my actual Psych class. Common knowledge doesn’t have to mean “wrong.” The point was that violent people are going to be violent with or without video games. (Charles Manson, Attila the Hun, Stalin…) How do we know the person in your schizo example killed people BECAUSE he played GTA avidly? What if he drove avidly too? You’re drawing conclusions from thin air.

And about GTA–you havben’t played it, have ya, Chisy? It’s violence is almost cartoonish in nature–blood is solid, bright red, characters jerk like looney toons when shot. And you miss the point most people miss when whining about this game–there are concequenses. Shoot a cop, cops shoot back. There’s all this focus on how you can kill in the game, but very seldom can you actually preform some rampage in the game without getting killed. Maybe people playing GTA all want to commit suicide, too.

Not to come off like A Catcher in the Rye’s Holden Coffield but I have two small children and do not let them play vidieo games in the home. It’s not that I fear exposing them to the unavoidable violence. Telivision and the media have a lock on that. I would just much rather have them doing their imaginary killing out in the woods with their fake guns. I’d rather see them running around playing cops and robbers, cowboys and indians, army or man hunt. I’d rather have them climbing trees and building forts. Anything to get their little asses active and moving around. I’ll add another problem to Ilya’s long list of concerns, Fat Franky, Jumbo Johnny and Big Ass Alice.

We can’t police and watch our kids as suggested all of the time but if they’re going to play them it will not be in my house. It will be at their friends or maybe the arcade but at least they’ll have to ride their bikes to get there.

Chris A–
Regarding Grossman’s book, I’ve read it and I didn’t find his argument at all convincing. There is a vast difference between learning how to do something and liking it. I spent many hours learning how to diagram sentences but I’ve never once had the urge to do so. Moreover, his information about the military using videogames to desensitize soldiers is misleading at best and outright wrong at worst. From what I have read from soldiers who actually plaed the simulations they are used to teach teamwork and not how to kill. Moreoever, they are a very small part of the training. Finally, the military also makes soldier make their bed, so if I make mine will I be a better killer? Using Grossman’s logic that would be the case.

Regarding the Paducah, KY shootings, I have spent a lot of time searching and the only people I can find who say that Carneal played videogames are Grossman and Jack Thompson. I haven’t been able to find any evidence that their claims are accurate.

You end by saying that these games aren’t for children. No one is saying that they are. However, you also bring up Nathan Gale who was, as you state, 25. Even if it is made illegal to sell M-rated games to minors that would have still given Gale 7 years to play them.

Finally, I find it highly ironic that you are the author of a book about the death of Dimebag Darrell. It wasn’t all that long ago when it was heavy metal music that was the subject of the kinds of witch hunts and lawsuits of which videogames are currently the subject.

I find it a little disconcerting that no one has yet disputed Chris’ citing of the Carneal shooting as a reason to call videogames ‘murder trainers’. And Chris, can even you, as a former police officer, believe that a 14 year old who had never fired a gun before be that accurate because of videogames? When you were training on firearms, did you go to the firing range, or did all the officers sit down in front of monitors with Xboxes? The act of holding a controller firing a virtual gun bears almost no resemblence to firing an actual gun in real life. As someone who has done both, I can say with great confidence that firing a gun is infinitely more difficult. Though I can snipe a moving target in the head 300m away in Halo, in real life, lying prone, holding my breath and concentrating really, really hard, I missed a target that was about 50 feet away.

So to answer my rhetorical question, there’s a reason the Army and police departments around the world train with real guns rather than videogames. That reason is that there’s absolutely no correlation between one’s skill with a controller and one’s skill with a firearm.

And to be frank, if you believe that I’m wrong so far, you’ve never played a videogame and you have no idea what you are talking about.

Furthermore, and don’t quote me on this, I heard that Carneal actually had fired a gun before. I wouldn’t be surprised.

your a fucking idiot just kiding