We've just added links from the video pages into the forumz. I received a number a really interesting and heartfelt emails on this subject, a few of which I've posted below (I apologize in advance for the formatting).
-Ben Meyer
1.
> Hey guys, great response. It is good to see people stand up for this
> issue to oppose all of those ignorant bigots that draw their own
> conclusions. The debate can go on and on but it really comes down to
> people trying to find most publicly accepting target to point a finger
> at for the source of someone's madness. I find it funny how poorly
> people blame games and how absurd they sound making false conclusions without any data what so ever linking the two. It sickens me however that people in the audience literally get brainwashed and buy into their ignorant rants. Sure these insane gunmen play violent video games; any young male that you randomly pick from a crowd will have played a violent video game these days. The fact that is overlooked is that it is not a rare statistic that someone plays a violent game. If you survey all
> players of violent games, I would put money down that the majority
> would not have criminal records and be pretty well grounded people.
> Getting to my point, blaming video games as being the cause of
> violence has equal validity as something completely asinine such as
> blaming internet pornography for higher teen pregnancies. “Sure
> your 13 year old daughter got pregnant; with all of that internet
> pornography corrupting our children these days, what did you expect?
> “ I can see that coming out of Dr. Phil’s ignorant mouth as well.
2.
> Let's assume here for a minute that the VT shooter did in fact play
video games...maybe some CS, maybe some FEAR, or whatever. He probably also watches porn, action movies, and the news about Iraq. Using the same logic as someone like Dr. Phil, this guy probably should have raped someone, killed a cop, and stabbed an Arabian if he were so easilyswayed by semi-realistic graphics or game immersion. People in other countries come up with reasons to shoot each other every bloody day, and THEY don't play video games. They do it for religious beliefs, arguments over land/politics and some just because they can. Are
> we as Americans above this sort of behavior? Afterall, we're all
human.
> It begs the question:
> Why do some Americans think that our lives are so perfect that some
sort of catalyst has to be in place in order for someone to go haywire?
Why can't the guy just have a screwed up life and not be able to handle
it?
>
> If people think that kids are getting into video games too much, then
what about movies? Once again, using the same logic from before, anyone
that's delusional enough to act out something they saw in a video game that is made up of rendered graphics is just as likely to act out something
they saw in a movie. I mean, why not!? How many movies are out there that portray the "bad guys" killing the good guys, or killing innocent
bystanders for some sort of thrill? Sure you're not actually moving
the actor around so he can kill things, but there's nothing like
strategically infiltrating someone's hideout so you can kill all people who've done you wrong, and getting away with it.
>
Take the movie Crank for example. Someone tries to screw him over, so what's he do? He hops in his car and goes out to find the guy who did
it.Lots of blood, lots of gore, lots of sex. He even ends up dying in
the end by jumping out of a helicopter to kill the guy he's wanted to kill
all along. Doesn't that parallel what happened at VT? Maybe we should
sue the producers of Crank? Yeah...right.
>
All in all, even if video games did cause violence or make certain
kids act out differently than they would otherwise, it ends up being an
acceptable loss. How many people have died in the past 5 years now
due to school shootings? 40 maybe? No one can seem to prove that these were due solely to video game playing, yet people are more than willing to jump onthe "ban video games" bandwagon. What happens if video games of that calibur DID get banned? How many people would lose their jobs? How would international commerce be effected? How would the US unemployment rate be effected, and how many people would die or have their lives ruined because of it?
>
> The odds of being attacked by a shark in the US are 1 in 8 million.
> Roughly 40 people die from shark attacks every year in the US, so over
the last 5 years that's 200 people. Sure it sucks to lose those 200
people, but does that outweigh what would happen if we went around eradicating all the dangerous sharks out there? Of course not. Sure there's not much comparison between a shark and a video game, but your chances of getting killed by a shark are higher than you dying from a school shooting,let alone one driven by a crazed video game player.
>
I think a lot of people need to just get things in perspective, just
like what Rush said. People don't want to blame those that are dead b/c
they feel sorry for them, when in reality they could possibly have
contributed to his actions just as much as a video game. Kids get picked on every day, get put down, and are made to feel left out. Most people handle this in a more mature fashion, but for those kids who can't see any other way out, they turn to violence (animal instinct anyone?).
>
> So, who's to blame? The people who pushed him to that point, the
parents for not raising their son in a different manner that was more
conducive to him not killing people... or the medium through which he probably didn't get the 'VT Massacre' idea from? Welcome to the blame game!
3.
why do you guys even give people like jack thompson the dignity of a
> response? And you're talking about cable news. The same two channels
who use dramatic pictures and close-ups with captions like "campus
massacre" or "campus rampage" in bold red letters. They're all about
> sensationalism! you can't take anything they do seriously, they treat
> themselves with way too much self-importance. Cnn still has Larry
King on there, the guy who fails to ask probing questions and likes to buddy up to his guests no matter who they are.
>
> anyway, fewer people these days care for stricter gun control laws
(49% in 2005 vs 55% in 2000). one could guess that the sentiment is more one of personal responsibility and parenting these days. In short, you're being a bit paranoid
> Excellent video regarding gaming and violence. My respects also to
the two gentlemen for not attempting to redirect the unfair criticism onto > guns or gun owners. Neither guns nor games create disturbed
individuals.
>
> Good show.
-Ben Meyer
1.
> Hey guys, great response. It is good to see people stand up for this
> issue to oppose all of those ignorant bigots that draw their own
> conclusions. The debate can go on and on but it really comes down to
> people trying to find most publicly accepting target to point a finger
> at for the source of someone's madness. I find it funny how poorly
> people blame games and how absurd they sound making false conclusions without any data what so ever linking the two. It sickens me however that people in the audience literally get brainwashed and buy into their ignorant rants. Sure these insane gunmen play violent video games; any young male that you randomly pick from a crowd will have played a violent video game these days. The fact that is overlooked is that it is not a rare statistic that someone plays a violent game. If you survey all
> players of violent games, I would put money down that the majority
> would not have criminal records and be pretty well grounded people.
> Getting to my point, blaming video games as being the cause of
> violence has equal validity as something completely asinine such as
> blaming internet pornography for higher teen pregnancies. “Sure
> your 13 year old daughter got pregnant; with all of that internet
> pornography corrupting our children these days, what did you expect?
> “ I can see that coming out of Dr. Phil’s ignorant mouth as well.
2.
> Let's assume here for a minute that the VT shooter did in fact play
video games...maybe some CS, maybe some FEAR, or whatever. He probably also watches porn, action movies, and the news about Iraq. Using the same logic as someone like Dr. Phil, this guy probably should have raped someone, killed a cop, and stabbed an Arabian if he were so easilyswayed by semi-realistic graphics or game immersion. People in other countries come up with reasons to shoot each other every bloody day, and THEY don't play video games. They do it for religious beliefs, arguments over land/politics and some just because they can. Are
> we as Americans above this sort of behavior? Afterall, we're all
human.
> It begs the question:
> Why do some Americans think that our lives are so perfect that some
sort of catalyst has to be in place in order for someone to go haywire?
Why can't the guy just have a screwed up life and not be able to handle
it?
>
> If people think that kids are getting into video games too much, then
what about movies? Once again, using the same logic from before, anyone
that's delusional enough to act out something they saw in a video game that is made up of rendered graphics is just as likely to act out something
they saw in a movie. I mean, why not!? How many movies are out there that portray the "bad guys" killing the good guys, or killing innocent
bystanders for some sort of thrill? Sure you're not actually moving
the actor around so he can kill things, but there's nothing like
strategically infiltrating someone's hideout so you can kill all people who've done you wrong, and getting away with it.
>
Take the movie Crank for example. Someone tries to screw him over, so what's he do? He hops in his car and goes out to find the guy who did
it.Lots of blood, lots of gore, lots of sex. He even ends up dying in
the end by jumping out of a helicopter to kill the guy he's wanted to kill
all along. Doesn't that parallel what happened at VT? Maybe we should
sue the producers of Crank? Yeah...right.
>
All in all, even if video games did cause violence or make certain
kids act out differently than they would otherwise, it ends up being an
acceptable loss. How many people have died in the past 5 years now
due to school shootings? 40 maybe? No one can seem to prove that these were due solely to video game playing, yet people are more than willing to jump onthe "ban video games" bandwagon. What happens if video games of that calibur DID get banned? How many people would lose their jobs? How would international commerce be effected? How would the US unemployment rate be effected, and how many people would die or have their lives ruined because of it?
>
> The odds of being attacked by a shark in the US are 1 in 8 million.
> Roughly 40 people die from shark attacks every year in the US, so over
the last 5 years that's 200 people. Sure it sucks to lose those 200
people, but does that outweigh what would happen if we went around eradicating all the dangerous sharks out there? Of course not. Sure there's not much comparison between a shark and a video game, but your chances of getting killed by a shark are higher than you dying from a school shooting,let alone one driven by a crazed video game player.
>
I think a lot of people need to just get things in perspective, just
like what Rush said. People don't want to blame those that are dead b/c
they feel sorry for them, when in reality they could possibly have
contributed to his actions just as much as a video game. Kids get picked on every day, get put down, and are made to feel left out. Most people handle this in a more mature fashion, but for those kids who can't see any other way out, they turn to violence (animal instinct anyone?).
>
> So, who's to blame? The people who pushed him to that point, the
parents for not raising their son in a different manner that was more
conducive to him not killing people... or the medium through which he probably didn't get the 'VT Massacre' idea from? Welcome to the blame game!
3.
why do you guys even give people like jack thompson the dignity of a
> response? And you're talking about cable news. The same two channels
who use dramatic pictures and close-ups with captions like "campus
massacre" or "campus rampage" in bold red letters. They're all about
> sensationalism! you can't take anything they do seriously, they treat
> themselves with way too much self-importance. Cnn still has Larry
King on there, the guy who fails to ask probing questions and likes to buddy up to his guests no matter who they are.
>
> anyway, fewer people these days care for stricter gun control laws
(49% in 2005 vs 55% in 2000). one could guess that the sentiment is more one of personal responsibility and parenting these days. In short, you're being a bit paranoid

> Excellent video regarding gaming and violence. My respects also to
the two gentlemen for not attempting to redirect the unfair criticism onto > guns or gun owners. Neither guns nor games create disturbed
individuals.
>
> Good show.