131 replies to this topic

[spartan max2]

You both have good points. Seeker the problems you have mentioned about the youth is true but we differ on the cause.

Does media cause violence of are voilent people attraacted to violent media?
The national crime rate is at the lowest it has been in decades. Shootings are RARE. But yet the media has gotten more violent?

Do video games cause addiction and apathy or is it that apathetic people play alot of video games because they feel nonething else is worth doing?
If games were took away or limited it would not make people any less or more apathetic. They would just turn to some other way to waste their life.

I do believe there is a growning apathy problem but blameing games as a cause is the wrong way to look at it. We should look at game addiction as a symptom of the problem not as part of the cause.

People try and claim that we are "desensitized" by all of the media violence but yet when there is a real life shooting everyone is still horrified.
If we are that desensitized then why would we be so sad by this shooting?

The problem is how far are we going to go down the road of control?
If we start down this road at what point do we stop? The end of the road leads to total control of a persons choices.
When we give the goverment the power to tell people "what is best for them" then we take the power away from the indivual to have the free will to decide what is best for him/her

The logic that gets applied to video games will get applied to the rest of life. It would not be long before you get told what you can and cant eat what you can and cant watch what you can and cant DO.

Me and my freinds use to have a cliff jumping spot we would jump from during summer. That spot was open for decades peoples fathers have jumped there from when they were young. Then one day one person gets hurt jumping. So what do they do? they close it off so no one else will get hurt. ONE person. If one person makes a bad choice then why should all get punished?

It is not just about video games it is the logic behind it. If we use this logic then people will in the end no longer be allowed to make choices for themselfs because someone else" knows what is best for them".

This is the world i see us turning in to. One choice taken at a time. Until all that is left is one "acceptable" lifestyle and way of thinking.

Is that the world you both want to live in? This all sounds like doom and gloom but is it? The world radicaly changes in short amounts of time.

[AsteroidX]

Back in the day they called it vegging in front of the TV.

[Seeker79]

WoIverine, on 18 December 2012 - 07:14 PM, said:

Wrong idea...restricting them completely from something will make it more appealing and they'll over indulge when they're free of you, or at a friend's house. Age limits for games are appropriately set. Play by the rules, watch them play, interact with them while they're doing it. Draw a fine line between what is accepted, what is not accepted behavior, what is real, and what is not real, they'll be fine. Games are not babysitters, that's the mistake people make. Mentally deficient kids who already have psychological issues (autism, etc.), should not play violent games, period, no matter how old they are, it's just common sense.

I am aware of this wolverine thanks it's true. I struggle with the knowledge that when they get away from me being older they will over indulge and my actions will have the opposite affect.

At the moment, I counter it by makeing trips to these large arcades. It's a family event and I spare no expense when we are there. But you are right as the get older, I may have to intelligently reevaluate my stratagy. I think it is important to have other "quests" available.

[Sweetpumper]

There's no solution for psychopathy.  I am aiming to arm my wife after Christmas because of a co-worker's son, who we know quite well.  The only thing her office can do is protect itself.  There's nothing else to do, and trust me, his parents have tried.

[WoIverine]

Seeker79, on 18 December 2012 - 07:35 PM, said:

I am aware of this wolverine thanks it's true. I struggle with the knowledge that when they get away from me being older they will over indulge and my actions will have the opposite affect.

At the moment, I counter it by makeing trips to these large arcades. It's a family event and I spare no expense when we are there. But you are right as the get older, I may have to intelligently reevaluate my stratagy. I think it is important to have other "quests" available.

Microsoft is also aware...the Xbox has time limits and age limits that can be set via parental controls.  

The most fun I ever had while playing games...didn't come from violent titles, it came from playing Mario Kart with my dad and friends at home. Good times...was so much fun.

Edited by WoIverine, 18 December 2012 - 07:40 PM.

[Seeker79]

spartan max2, on 18 December 2012 - 07:18 PM, said:

You both have good points. Seeker the problems you have mentioned about the youth is true but we differ on the cause.

Does media cause violence of are voilent people attraacted to violent media?
The national crime rate is at the lowest it has been in decades. Shootings are RARE. But yet the media has gotten more violent?

Do video games cause addiction and apathy or is it that apathetic people play alot of video games because they feel nonething else is worth doing?
If games were took away or limited it would not make people any less or more apathetic. They would just turn to some other way to waste their life.

I do believe there is a growning apathy problem but blameing games as a cause is the wrong way to look at it. We should look at game addiction as a symptom of the problem not as part of the cause.

People try and claim that we are "desensitized" by all of the media violence but yet when there is a real life shooting everyone is still horrified.
If we are that desensitized then why would we be so sad by this shooting?

The problem is how far are we going to go down the road of control?
If we start down this road at what point do we stop? The end of the road leads to total control of a persons choices.
When we give the goverment the power to tell people "what is best for them" then we take the power away from the indivual to have the free will to decide what is best for him/her

The logic that gets applied to video games will get applied to the rest of life. It would not be long before you get told what you can and cant eat what you can and cant watch what you can and cant DO.

Me and my freinds use to have a cliff jumping spot we would jump from during summer. That spot was open for decades peoples fathers have jumped there from when they were young. Then one day one person gets hurt jumping. So what do they do? they close it off so no one else will get hurt. ONE person. If one person makes a bad choice then why should all get punished?

It is not just about video games it is the logic behind it. If we use this logic then people will in the end no longer be allowed to make choices for themselfs because someone else" knows what is best for them".

This is the world i see us turning in to. One choice taken at a time. Until all that is left is one "acceptable" lifestyle and way of thinking.

Is that the world you both want to live in? This all sounds like doom and gloom but is it? The world radicaly changes in short amounts of time.

I agree with every word of this actually. I think Im just frustrated is all. I think we have to look at the games differently. Its an artificial stimulation that can have negative side effects, much like smoking, or drinking.

By the way the cliff jumping thing has happened to our places aswell.

I also serve an affluent suburban town. My experiences may be tainted by kids over access to games, and busy professional parents.

Edited by Seeker79, 18 December 2012 - 07:53 PM.

[WoIverine]

My son plays Minecraft and the Lego games, which are actually great games for kids (they're also multiplayer so up to 4 kids can play together), and he's cool with that.

Edited by WoIverine, 18 December 2012 - 08:36 PM.

[QuiteContrary]

There has to be better understanding of these individuals by those who would treat them. We are not there yet. And I do not mean just the mass shooters. A massacre is indeed heart-wrenching but no more than are the day-to-day abuse and killing of 1 or 2 children at a time, by someone who may have shown warning signs and yet no one could help them either. Imo, the mental health community does not have the answers in every situation, and the few options tossed around in public that may cut down on this behavior won’t put an end to it.

I honestly do not think the judicial and child and mental health communities know what to do or what the answers are often times.

Some parents luck out in finding help- they have the money and access to the best resources.
Some kids are able to be helped.
Some are identified earlier making helpful intervention more probable.

A parent does not have the resources, money or help in so many instances to “fix” what they know is terribly wrong. Help is not around the corner as so many believe. This may seem incomprehensible for our western advanced nation but until you have had a child or relative that the schools, the state, and the private sector can’t or won’t or don’t help you do not realize the helpless situations many parents find themselves in.

Parents must be heard! Until parents are taken seriously when problems may be in the preventative time-frame, we will continue to lose this battle.

Parents are not taken seriously—“We cannot handle our child, he is a danger to us and others, we need help!” And even if the child ends up committing a non-lethal crime most just end up back home!

Do we really know how many parents live in fear of their own children, and fear for the other children in their homes? Do we care when it is behind closed doors?

Plus, if a 14-year-old does not want to see a therapist or take his medication, legally he doesn’t have to, though that age may differ in different states.

It isn’t until an act is committed that incarcerates or kills the troubled perpetrator that something happens. But it is retroactive not proactive. And then it is too late. Not to mentions those who are let out of prison to commit again.

[R4z3rsPar4d0x]

Imaginarynumber1, on 16 December 2012 - 05:17 AM, said:

I agree with most of your points, but in my opinion, the one about games is ridiculous. Ban violent tv shows and movies while you're at it. Go ahead an ban books with violence as well. Should get rid of those nature documents where one animal kills another, too. Don't want anyone exposed to that kind of violence.

Why should I be punished for somebody else's inability to separate fantasy and reality?
How about make metal health services more available to those that need them? Identify those most at risk and put programs and such in place to prevent such acts of violence.

I highly agree with you Im so sick and tired of video games being attacked just because some nutball decides to bring a gun to school and shoot people, My question is where was that kids parents, If anything  people need to watch there children better.  The media does sensationalize these situations everytime they happen that when I first heard about it I said OH It happened again, and moved on with my life.

[R4z3rsPar4d0x]

WoIverine, on 18 December 2012 - 07:37 PM, said:

Microsoft is also aware...the Xbox has time limits and age limits that can be set via parental controls.  

The most fun I ever had while playing games...didn't come from violent titles, it came from playing Mario Kart with my dad and friends at home. Good times...was so much fun.

I use to play video games with my uncles so if anything I think video games can bring families together

[sutemi]

Seeker , I am not trying to get at you. I am lost for words about the shootings I was touched by your comment about dropping your child off at school I have the most darling little granddaughter so I understand.  

I live in in Europe my point of view is very different from yours. What would I, living in rural England want a gun for? It’s a shame you never experienced living gun free. I don't know anyone who has been shot, or shot at, or owns a gun. I doubt that anyone I know knows anyone who has been shot, or owns a gun. I have never witnessed gun crime. In the city near to where I live, we've had maybe a couple of shootings in the last decade. In the whole country we have about 60 gun murders a year. Why? Could it be because almost no-one has got a gun.

Here is what Australia did in a similar situation –

On April 28, 1996, a gunman opened fire on tourists in a seaside resort in Port Arthur, Tasmania. By the time he was finished, he had killed 35 people and wounded 23 more. It was the worst mass murder in Australia’s history.

Twelve days later, Australia’s government did something remarkable. Led by newly elected conservative Prime Minister John Howard, it announced a bipartisan deal with state and local governments to enact sweeping gun-control measures. A decade and a half hence, the results of these policy changes are clear: They worked really, really well.

At the heart of the push was a massive buyback of more than 600,000 semi-automatic shotguns and rifles, or about one-fifth of all firearms in circulation in Australia. The country’s new gun laws prohibited private sales, required that all weapons be individually registered to their owners, and required that gun buyers present a “genuine reason” for needing each weapon at the time of the purchase. (Self-defense did not count.) In the wake of the tragedy, polls showed public support for these measures at upwards of 90 percent.

What happened next has been the subject of several academic studies. Violent crime and gun-related deaths did not come to an end in Australia, of course. But as the Washington Post’s Wonkblog pointed out in August, homicides by firearm plunged 59 percent between 1995 and 2006, with no corresponding increase in non-firearm-related homicides. The drop in suicides by gun was even steeper: 65 percent. Studies found a close correlation between the sharp declines and the gun buybacks. Robberies involving a firearm also dropped significantly. Meanwhile, home invasions did not increase, contrary to fears that firearm ownership is needed to deter such crimes. But here’s the most stunning statistic. In the decade before the Port Arthur massacre, there had been 11 mass shootings in the country. There hasn’t been a single one in Australia since.  The Guardian news paper 18/12/2012

Edited by sutemi, 19 December 2012 - 09:38 AM.

[Seeker79]

sutemi, on 19 December 2012 - 09:37 AM, said:

Seeker , I am not trying to get at you. I am lost for words about the shootings I was touched by your comment about dropping your child off at school I have the most darling little granddaughter so I understand.  

I live in in Europe my point of view is very different from yours. What would I, living in rural England want a gun for? It’s a shame you never experienced living gun free. I don't know anyone who has been shot, or shot at, or owns a gun. I doubt that anyone I know knows anyone who has been shot, or owns a gun. I have never witnessed gun crime. In the city near to where I live, we've had maybe a couple of shootings in the last decade. In the whole country we have about 60 gun murders a year. Why? Could it be because almost no-one has got a gun.

Here is what Australia did in a similar situation –

On April 28, 1996, a gunman opened fire on tourists in a seaside resort in Port Arthur, Tasmania. By the time he was finished, he had killed 35 people and wounded 23 more. It was the worst mass murder in Australia’s history.

Twelve days later, Australia’s government did something remarkable. Led by newly elected conservative Prime Minister John Howard, it announced a bipartisan deal with state and local governments to enact sweeping gun-control measures. A decade and a half hence, the results of these policy changes are clear: They worked really, really well.

At the heart of the push was a massive buyback of more than 600,000 semi-automatic shotguns and rifles, or about one-fifth of all firearms in circulation in Australia. The country’s new gun laws prohibited private sales, required that all weapons be individually registered to their owners, and required that gun buyers present a “genuine reason” for needing each weapon at the time of the purchase. (Self-defense did not count.) In the wake of the tragedy, polls showed public support for these measures at upwards of 90 percent.

What happened next has been the subject of several academic studies. Violent crime and gun-related deaths did not come to an end in Australia, of course. But as the Washington Post’s Wonkblog pointed out in August, homicides by firearm plunged 59 percent between 1995 and 2006, with no corresponding increase in non-firearm-related homicides. The drop in suicides by gun was even steeper: 65 percent. Studies found a close correlation between the sharp declines and the gun buybacks. Robberies involving a firearm also dropped significantly. Meanwhile, home invasions did not increase, contrary to fears that firearm ownership is needed to deter such crimes. But here’s the most stunning statistic. In the decade before the Port Arthur massacre, there had been 11 mass shootings in the country. There hasn’t been a single one in Australia since.  The Guardian news paper 18/12/2012

I understand sutemi, if we were at square one I might say fine no guns, but the socio economics and history is different here. We have a huge gun owning population as such we have cities and towns that are basically owned by gangs and drug cartels. We are right next door to Mexico with constant spill over of gang and drug activity. America is a constant destination for immigrants and target for terrorists. Immigrants from all over the world. Immigrants are not dangerouse by themselves, but they also bring their maphias and gang activities.

I don't live that far from a town called Stockton which has constant murders, home invasions, and in Texas and Arizona there are constant drug cartel related kidnappings and killings.

Even nice neighborhoods are just a short drive to not so nice. This country is so diverse and it's full of weapons. There is a feeling, a tradition even that an armed populace keeps its government from Turing tyranical. It was part of the founding of our constitution. This is outdated of course because governments have tanks and bombs now, but the sentiment still runs deep.

We have large natural areas with traditions of hunting going back through generations. For half the country mimicking Europe is unthinkable.

It's not going to change. Disarming the public is not going to take away the incredible amount of guns available to our criminal element. Even if they were not available here, mexico is just down the street. law enforcement try to do their jobs, but in reality they only clean up messes, they are really powerless to intervene.

In a perfect world, I would say there is no reason for weapons, but it's not. We don't live on a nice big island.  When there are guns everywhere it's prudent to make sure you are armed aswell. I own fire arms. Some passed down to me some purchased. To be honest they make me nervouse. I get sweaty just approaching a shooting range. But I make sure that I'm well trained.

It's just a sad fact. It's still very much the wild west, and as spiritual as I like to think I am, I'm no pacifist. I will defend my loved ones and neighbors if need be. When it comes to my family and my children I don't care about slippery slopes, or political agendas, only right here right now and cold hard reality. The recent shootings show how cold and hard it can be, but that's life.

In the US, many of us loath turning over our security to a government that we don't trust. Guns are a fact of life here, and no one wants to be the one holding the empty chamber.

[AsteroidX]

I love you man. Can I give you a hug.

[me-wonders]

Purplos, on 16 December 2012 - 10:04 PM, said:

Perhaps parents should start being prosecuted for being bad parents.

I hate the comment that the world is much different than how it was a decade ago, whatever. I think it's a cop-out. More stress? So teach your kids and yourself how to deal with and reduce stress. More violence? Don't let your kids play GTA or whatever for 4 hours per day or watch gore *spam filter*s. More sex? Teach your kids how to respect themselves and others from the time they're a baby.

There will always be mental illness and guns or other weapons and just bad, bad people. But people have to stop blaming the government laws or school security or the media or whoever and start taking some responsibility for the world.

You don't need to worry about the one or two children you can teach, it is the child across town who you should worry about.  The original purpose of government mandated free public education, was to teach good citizenship.  This was a response to an increase in social unrest and violence resulting from immigration and the beginning of over population problems, around 1840.   Vocational training was added in 1917 when we mobilized for the first world war.  That is not what education was about before this.   We added vocational training but continued teaching for good citizenship until the 1958 National Defense Education Act.  Now the kid across town knows how to make bombs, or how to take advantage of the banking system, or how to use the media to manipulate  people, and thinks there is no such thing as morals.   This education is not good for civilizations, because it puts in the media, and on the market, things that children should not be exposed to, because we no longer have agreement about what that is, and the only value we share is the value of money.  Good luck trying to raise your couple of children in a safe coon.

It is amoral education that is the problem, and law abiding citizens, including well paid scientist, doing things that should not be done.  What they have done to our economy should be criminal, but hey, knowing right from wrong isn't important, right?  We are smart but we sure are not wise.  Now our young live in a world where they can not even have the innocence of children.  This is an extremely different reality from the one we had.

Edited by me-wonders, 19 December 2012 - 04:25 PM.

[me-wonders]

Seeker79, on 18 December 2012 - 09:58 AM, said:

Your kidding right. We are taxed just as much as any socialist nation. Our government is just better at telling us it's not a tax.

There are hundreds of millions of guns in this. Country. They are not going anywhere. It goes all the back to the the very founding of the union. the trick is to make to make it very difficult but not banned. Trust me that is a huge concession on my part.

Besides why will not anyone address the fact that there are other countries with libral access to guns, but it dosnt happen like it does here. There is another part of the puzzle.

Read this
http://www.telegraph...ll-Of-Duty.html

Doctors who were interviewed because of their experience in a trauma unit in a city hospital, are recommending we change the ammunition.  A regular bullet that just pierces its target does not do the damage of bullets built to explode within the target.  So they suggested we can go with the gun laws we have, but get the exploding bullets off the market.   I think this is easily do able.