Tragedy at VT: At least 20 dead

[Chrisy Moltisanti]

I was very objective when he started to his rampage but now I see that he has no point but to ruin video games. There is more information in books on how to kill people than in Video Games. Jack Thompson was a blundering idiot on cnn when he tried to explain how this guys video game play BACK IN HIGH SCHOOL (4 years ago) prepared him for VT. FBI (or whoever) raided the kids room and found ZERO Video Games. How does Jack Thompsons point look now?

I hate it when people try to make excuses for pyschopaths like this. He's completely insane and deserved to lose his life. I have no problem saying that. This guy did not kill 32 people because of video games. It's because he's completely disturbed.

And I have no problem defending this statement.

I have a little more empathy for the mentally unstable. I'd rather try to help them than allow them greater potential to kill so many, including themselves. Unfortunately it seems in this case he was either denied help or those attempting to get him help were denied. I'm not fully read up on that part though.

[Coppermine]

Also, I don't really believe in threadjacking anyway, conversations on here, like in real life--possibly moreso--are going to take unexpected turns...that's to be expected.

I couldn't agree more.

To respond to whoever is blaming CounterStrike, do they know how many college and high school students have played counterstrike without killing someone? Oh, but one psycho does it, and it's the game's fault? Give me a break.

[Chrisy Moltisanti]

I was very objective when he started to his rampage but now I see that he has no point but to ruin video games. There is more information in books on how to kill people than in Video Games. Jack Thompson was a blundering idiot on cnn when he tried to explain how this guys video game play BACK IN HIGH SCHOOL (4 years ago) prepared him for VT. FBI (or whoever) raided the kids room and found ZERO Video Games. How does Jack Thompsons point look now?

I hate it when people try to make excuses for pyschopaths like this. He's completely insane and deserved to lose his life. I have no problem saying that. This guy did not kill 32 people because of video games. It's because he's completely disturbed.

Exactly. There were plenty of homicidal maniacs before video games were ever invented, yet no one ever seems to bring that up.

I want the anti-censorship effort to have a strong as argument as possible, but this just doesn't seem to cut it.

Just because video games didn't exist when there where homicidal maniacs before them doesn't mean video games existence and potential affects on homicidal maniacs and/or normal people are mutually exclusive.

When someone is conditioned to a particular environment repeatedly over time it becomes part of them. What value system determines that being repeatedly exposed to glorified violence is a right or valid privilege to those who are so easily impressed upon as the youth of America?

Essentially the good ol' supreme court axiom applies, we are free to swing our arms around as fast as we want, so long as we don't hit other people.

What is the balance between the harmful effects of repeated exposure to glorified violence in interactive video form, the want of American's to be entertained and the right to earn a living by meeting market demands, i.e. producing and selling vids?

[PlayingWithFire]

I was very objective when he started to his rampage but now I see that he has no point but to ruin video games. There is more information in books on how to kill people than in Video Games. Jack Thompson was a blundering idiot on cnn when he tried to explain how this guys video game play BACK IN HIGH SCHOOL (4 years ago) prepared him for VT. FBI (or whoever) raided the kids room and found ZERO Video Games. How does Jack Thompsons point look now?

I hate it when people try to make excuses for pyschopaths like this. He's completely insane and deserved to lose his life. I have no problem saying that. This guy did not kill 32 people because of video games. It's because he's completely disturbed.

Exactly. There were plenty of homicidal maniacs before video games were ever invented, yet no one ever seems to bring that up.

I want the anti-censorship effort to have a strong as argument as possible, but this just doesn't seem to cut it.

Just because video games didn't exist when there where homicidal maniacs before them doesn't mean video games existence and potential affects on homicidal maniacs and/or normal people are mutually exclusive.

When someone is conditioned to a particular environment repeatedly over time it becomes part of them. What value system determines that being repeatedly exposed to glorified violence is a right or valid privilege to those who are so easily impressed upon as the youth of America?

Essentially the good ol' supreme court axiom applies, we are free to swing our arms around as fast as we want, so long as we don't hit other people.

What is the balance between the harmful effects of repeated exposure to glorified violence in interactive video form, the want of American's to be entertained and the right to earn a living by meeting market demands, i.e. producing and selling vids?

Counter Strike isn't even realistic violence. I was just playing it. The graphic blows, the physics is questionable, it doesn't feel "real" at all.

[eftda]

My point about video games still stands. This dude did not have a video game in his room before his insane attack.

[Chrisy Moltisanti]

Counter Strike isn't even realistic violence. I was just playing it. The graphic blows, the physics is questionable, it doesn't feel "real" at all.

I totally agree. The concept of trying to kill someone and do it in such a strategic, methodical and accurate manner is what censorists will focus on though.

My point about video games still stands. This dude did not have a video game in his room before his insane attack.

That's not very important though. I'm sure I don't have to make a comparison showing that X doesn't have to be present in someone's home to effect Y action. Again, I want the anti-censorship argument to be as strong as possible, but this line of thinking won't cut it if you want to win a political/legal battle.

[Art Vandelay]

As vehemently as I will argue that it's ridiculous to say that video games should be blamed for any actions of their users, to say that they have zero affect is foolish. The Army uses first-person shooter games to desensitize soldiers to killing, and there have been plenty of studies that show that kids who play a lot of violent games and watch a lot of violent TV are more likely to be violent themselves. However, there have also been studies to show that for many people violent TV, movies, and especially video games are cathartic and make certain people less-likely to commit acts of violence.

Also, we're in the middle of a paradigm shift. Fifteen, ten--maybe even five--years ago it would be easier to pin-point video games as a determinant, but is it still accurate? Is there a 23 year old male on a college campus anywhere in America that hasn't played violent video games at some point? It sounds like this guy has played them less than most of his peers. If you went back 50 years ago and looked at all of the people under 25 who committed murders or other acts of extreme violence and figured out how many of them pitched pennies, or flew kites, or did whateverthehell kids did in the 40s and 50s, I would guess the percentage of them who committed murders would be about the same as the percentage of people who committ murders now that played violent video games.

Anyway...I'm a little drunk right now, and obviously rambling, so hopefully this makes a little sense.

[Chrisy Moltisanti]

As vehemently as I will argue that it's ridiculous to say that video games should be blamed for any actions of their users, to say that they have zero affect is foolish. The Army uses first-person shooter games to desensitize soldiers to killing, and there have been plenty of studies that show that kids who play a lot of violent games and watch a lot of violent TV are more likely to be violent themselves. However, there have also been studies to show that for many people violent TV, movies, and especially video games are cathartic and make certain people less-likely to commit acts of violence.

Also, we're in the middle of a paradigm shift. Fifteen, ten--maybe even five--years ago it would be easier to pin-point video games as a determinant, but is it still accurate? Is there a 23 year old male on a college campus anywhere in America that hasn't played violent video games at some point? It sounds like this guy has played them less than most of his peers. If you went back 50 years ago and looked at all of the people under 25 who committed murders or other acts of extreme violence and figured out how many of them pitched pennies, or flew kites, or did whateverthehell kids did in the 40s and 50s, I would guess the percentage of them who committed murders would be about the same as the percentage of people who committ murders now that played violent video games.

Anyway...I'm a little drunk right now, and obviously rambling, so hopefully this makes a little sense.

Hey drink more often

It might be a little overzealous to say kids who pitched pennies or flew kites would have the same violent crime rates as those who are repeatedly exposed to gloried violence via first person shooter, but your point that the extra violence seen on screens has desensitized to population is prudent.

However, desensitization also can make it easier to commit atrocity, as if it's a normal every day activity.

[Omaha Red Sox]

I was very objective when he started to his rampage but now I see that he has no point but to ruin video games. There is more information in books on how to kill people than in Video Games. Jack Thompson was a blundering idiot on cnn when he tried to explain how this guys video game play BACK IN HIGH SCHOOL (4 years ago) prepared him for VT. FBI (or whoever) raided the kids room and found ZERO Video Games. How does Jack Thompsons point look now?

I hate it when people try to make excuses for pyschopaths like this. He's completely insane and deserved to lose his life. I have no problem saying that. This guy did not kill 32 people because of video games. It's because he's completely disturbed.

And I have no problem defending this statement.

I have a little more empathy for the mentally unstable. I'd rather try to help them than allow them greater potential to kill so many, including themselves. Unfortunately it seems in this case he was either denied help or those attempting to get him help were denied. I'm not fully read up on that part though.

From what I understand he did receive some counselling and it was probably more the responsibility of the 2 women who were stalked by him to charge him with these crimes to possibly get him even further help. I will not sympathize with someone who was capable of such a thing however. If he hadn't killed himself, I would be ready and willing to flip the switch myself.

[PlayingWithFire]

Counter Strike isn't even realistic violence. I was just playing it. The graphic blows, the physics is questionable, it doesn't feel "real" at all.

I totally agree. The concept of trying to kill someone and do it in such a strategic, methodical and accurate manner is what censorists will focus on though.

Counter strikes isn't even about doing the maximum damage with the best strategy, it's about achieving a goal for the team. Even if your role is the first guy to charge and face certain death.