Status
Not open for further replies.

wanderer11

Honorable
Jun 11, 2012
2,908
0
13,460
247
Violent video games are M rated meaning you have to be 17+ years old to buy it. This is equivalent to children watching R rated movies. All they are doing is testing the effects of a product on an age group it isn't intended for in the first place.
 

fnh

Honorable
Oct 10, 2012
70
0
10,630
0
Seems like a waste of a cool $10 million.

Like Chris Rock's character in the movie 'Head of State': "How do we limit violent material? Turn it off."
 

Antimatter79

Distinguished
Jul 24, 2009
293
0
18,810
8
[citation][nom]wanderer11[/nom]Violent video games are M rated meaning you have to be 17+ years old to buy it. This is equivalent to children watching R rated movies. All they are doing is testing the effects of a product on an age group it isn't intended for in the first place.[/citation]

+1. I wish I could give you 19 more thumbs up. Also, I'm curious what they'd even use as a control group b/c the shooters are usually not of sound mind to begin with.
 
G

Guest

Guest
Here's how to prevent what happened at Sandy Hook: mothers of medically-documented, emotionally challenged individuals should not let their sons have access to guns. You'd think that this is obvious.

Doctor: "Ma'am, your son cannot comprehend the feelings of other people."
Mother: "I know how to deal with this, I'LL TEACH MY SON HOW TO SHOOT GUNS!"
And then later, mother and son and dozens of others are dead. Great job, mom!

The primary culprit in this is the shooter, followed closely by the mother who made the crazy choice above. Video games, the gun industry, "violent culture" or whatever are at best third- or fourth-degree culprits.
 

house70

Splendid
[citation][nom]wanderer11[/nom]Violent video games are M rated meaning you have to be 17+ years old to buy it. This is equivalent to children watching R rated movies. All they are doing is testing the effects of a product on an age group it isn't intended for in the first place.[/citation]
Spot on. The results of this study will be useless. Furthermore, it can not be used against videogames manufacturers, because it will be invalidated.
Just another waste of taxpayer money.
 

sa1nt

Distinguished
Jul 8, 2010
72
0
18,630
0
[citation][nom]santiagoanders[/nom]A waste of 10 million in tax dollars doesn't make me sigh in relief.[/citation]
Compared to other projects wasting 10 million per project is bloody genius.
 

happyballz

Distinguished
Mar 15, 2011
269
0
18,780
0
I really disliked Romney for being an obvious crook... but this guy lately is just acting beyond dumb. Major waste of money to make himself look good and say the typical" Look I did something for the children".
 

merikafyeah

Honorable
Jun 20, 2012
264
0
10,790
2
This is a good thing. Now they can finally put to rest any notion of a correlation between violent video games and violent behavior. Spoiler alert: It's been done before.
 

matt_b

Distinguished
Jan 8, 2009
653
0
19,010
11
Here's some first-hand research that's free, won't cost taxpayers 10 million dollars, and where it should stop:
It doesn't matter if I play COD, Halo, Far Cry, AC, Battlefield, GTA, or watch movies that have a body count in the hundreds, because even though I can act like an absolute baddass in these games or watch those that act like it in films - it's not the reality we live in. I, as a sane individual, can distinguish easily reality from the "fairy-tales" created within this violent media that I/we play or watch. The people that clearly are disturbed, on the edge, present themselves as very extreme in one form or another, or however you wish to title them, these are the people that have very high tendencies to snap or act out within due time whether it's out of frustration or attention.
I don't really blame any of the "violent media" because those that don't have a hard time understanding what's legal and what isn't, what's reality and what's not, and what is morally right or wrong - these are the people that's will not act out and the rest of society will have a problem with. There are those that cannot distinguish these differences, do not care, or long for the immortality that a massive event may bring to their name. This is your target group for these incidents, and restrictions can be as numerous as legislators wish to impose on all of the public, but it doesn't offer the solutions to the real problems that these select individuals face within themselves.
 

bustapr

Distinguished
Jan 23, 2009
1,613
0
19,780
0
this may seem like a dumb thing to you guys, but indeed its a very necessary thing to do. this will likely confirm that violent videogames arent to blame for shootings. and all this would also serve as another weapon against those asshats that blame games for everything.

when people are blaming these massacres on games everywhere, what do we do? we try to prove them wrong. so, I dont really see this as a waste of money.
 

DjEaZy

Distinguished
Apr 3, 2008
1,161
0
19,280
0
... spent one weekend to play Modern Warfare 1;2;3 back to back... and after the game i DON'T WANNA TO GO TO WAR...
...so... let's ban romantic movies... why?... let's say, that a boy haz seen a romantic movie about a boy and a girl, and a romantic candlelight evening... in a school, in that the boy goes, there is a beautiful girl... but the thing is... the girl do not wanna any romantic things with the boy, who haz seen the romantic movie... so... the boy in the sick mind thinks: 'the girl will be mine and i will have the romantic evening!!!'... so the boy kidnaps the girl, ties to a something in a basement and, let's say, rapes her... so... do we ban or censor romantic movies because of some sick mind?
 

d_kuhn

Distinguished
Mar 26, 2002
704
0
18,990
2
If they're going to do this they should also be researching violent TV programming and Movies... if children can be negatively influenced by games then they're also likely impacted by media.

Of course the power of 'media' in the US will insure that politicians don't do that ... instead they'll scapegoat an industry that doesn't have the clout to fight back.
 

davemaster84

Distinguished
Jun 15, 2011
464
0
18,810
9
I don't think the problem is in the video games at all, or otherwise they would have to take a look into the whole movie industry as well, with all my respect to my American fellas I think the problem is on how easy you can get whatever gun is available in the market (although I'd love to have the same policy here) , so maybe if they keep the permits only to small firearms it should be difficult to see those Rambos around.
 

JAYDEEJOHN

Champion
Moderator
[citation][nom]wanderer11[/nom]Violent video games are M rated meaning you have to be 17+ years old to buy it. This is equivalent to children watching R rated movies. All they are doing is testing the effects of a product on an age group it isn't intended for in the first place.[/citation]
Maybe law abiding people should just be left alone?
Gun toting or not, game playing or not.

It used to be, the good huy always won, and there was reward for being good.
This focus has changed considerably as well in media, games etc.
Weve always had violence in the past, but for good reason before, not so much today
 

Soda-88

Distinguished
Jun 8, 2011
1,086
0
19,460
76
It's sad how money is being thrown away on some pseudo-research that will, not in a million years, yield consistent results.
It's pretty much the same as doing a research on what effect drinking water and eating bread has on crime rates.
We have a saying here in Croatia, '100 ljudi, 100 ćudi' which is basically saying that every human being has a unique personality/temper.
 

torque79

Distinguished
Jun 14, 2006
440
0
18,780
0
Should'nt this study be conducted on high ranking politicians? There is NO "epidemic of violence" going on. Our culture is FAR less violent than it has been in the past. Even 50 years ago, boys and men would often settle a dispute with a few punches, then perhaps a beer after. Now you'd get sued for behaving that way. Go back further and you have world wars, THAT was an epidemic of violence, which resulted from the actions and decisions of politicians.

Where is the majority of violence now in the world? It is conducted by politicians. More violence is generated from insane dictators, and elected democratic politicians who send their troops out for the "war on terror" (aka money, keeping the weapons/war dependent economy and jobs alive). MILLIONS of people die from the decisions of a few powerful politicians. Where is the study to figure out what's wrong with them?
 

clownbaby

Distinguished
May 6, 2008
264
0
18,780
0
Why not fund a house of studies to directly examine and research the cause of mass violence in middle class white American society. Guns and video games are just the first scapegoats in a witch hunt that doesn't care or understand enough to genuinely try and fix a problem.

Even if this study shows nothing, there will be no reprieve for video games. Statics show that in every instance of gun control/prohibition in American and English history that the measures have had, at best, no effect on crime, and generally coincided with a substantial rise in violent crime (source www.justfacts.com).

After the knee-jerk reacting, me-first politicians have taken away guns and video games from law abiding Americans and turned them into criminals, the problems at hand will continue to persist. Then what? Will the government continue to take away rights and property? At what point, if any will this stop?

Despite the recent mass shooting events, the murder rate in America is down drastically over the last 30 years. In that time, video games have grown from pong to Crysis, and gun ownsership has gone up an order of magnitude. There is plenty of data available at this time to eliminate these things as suspects to what is clearly a societal problem.
 

soccerplayer88

Distinguished
Feb 1, 2010
227
0
18,680
0
I'm all for the gun control aspects of Obama's plan; background checks (why this hasn't been in effect for a long time now is beyond me, it's a no brainer) and the assault weapons ban.

What I don't get is the 10-round magazine limit. Doesn't that pretty much eliminate all weapons except for revolvers or high-caliber pistols? Wouldn't something like a 20-round magazine limit make more sense?

As for video game violence, that should ultimately rest on the parents shoulders. Maybe take some initiative on educating parents, rather then just blanket the entire entertainment industry.
 

lamorpa

Distinguished
Apr 30, 2008
1,195
0
19,280
0
[citation][nom]matt_b[/nom]Here's some first-hand research that's free, won't cost taxpayers 10 million dollars, and where it should stop: It doesn't matter if I...[/citation]
You could have stopped right at 'I'. That's the end of useful input. There is no such thing as a study of 1. A study means a large sample, controls, etc. Ever heard of the Scientific Method? (or too busy shooting zombies?)
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

ASK THE COMMUNITY

TRENDING THREADS