• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Senator wants study on video game violence

Commerce Committee Chairman Jay Rockefeller (D-WV) proposed a bill directing the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) to study the effects of violent video games on children.
http://arstechnica.com/gaming/2012/...-seeks-further-study-of-violent-game-effects/

"I think we need to do everything possible we can to prevent such tragedies, including addressing the culture of violence that may be spawned by video games," Sen. Richard Blumenthal (D-CT)

With most of the media jumping on the anti-Second Amendment bandwagon, news about anti-video game politicians has mostly been overlooked.
 
Where's the bill to research movie/TV violence? Or violence promoted by music?

I've been playing video games with violence in them for 24 years, since I was 6-7 years old. Not once has the thought of causing physical harm to someone crossed my mind.


edit VVVV: You know what I mean. Violence first as a solution. Of course I've defended myself and had the occasional fantasy. But I've never seriously considered such a thing.
 
Last edited:
Where's the bill to research movie/TV violence? Or violence promoted by music?

I've been playing video games with violence in them for 24 years, since I was 6-7 years old. Not once has the thought of causing physical harm to someone crossed my mind.

Never thought about it? OK, that's just unnatural. 😱
 
My problem is this: Nixon commissioned a report on pornography. When the scientists said it doesnt harm the human brain he banned it anyways.
 
Boy, it was nice and quiet for awhile when the likes of Jack Thompson didn't headline news. I guess it was too much to ask for.

Just like the commissioned study on pornography mentioned, it will be a waste of public funding. When you have a really biased public head figure the results of said study will get twisted to fit their world view anyway.
 
Even if there was a direct link between physical violence and video games, statistically speaking, your average drunk driver is far more likely to kill someone accidentally with a car than a gamer to commit a mass shooting. Should we ban alcohol and cars too?
 
They want to appear as if they are doing something while the heat is still on.

EDIT: I read that this shooter didn't even play violent games so wtf?
 
They want to appear as if they are doing something while the heat is still on.

And don't forget the almighty vote from nuts who will jump on the 'video game = bad' wagon.

Everyone is throwing the blame around. We will spend $10 million or so on a committee that does nothing (for the thousand'th time), and in the end a specific gun model or two will be banned, til the next shooting, where we get to watch the goverment do the same thing again.
 
And don't forget the almighty vote from nuts who will jump on the 'video game = bad' wagon.

Everyone is throwing the blame around. We will spend $10 million or so on a committee that does nothing (for the thousand'th time), and in the end a specific gun model or two will be banned, til the next shooting, where we get to watch the goverment do the same thing again.

Banning future sales of assault rifles won't do a thing since there are so many out there right now. They would have to all be taken away to prevent their use in a shooting, but that won't happen. Even if they were taken away, you would have some psycho BF3 player grab a real M98B out of his dad's closet and start shooting people from 1000m away im sure.
 
The murders are committed for this very reason - the killers want us to talk about them. Be it good or bad, on the news or forums, they just want to end it all with publicity, rather than remaining alone and troubled. The way the media presents the information also comes across as a statistical reference to who has the "highest score" when it comes to these death tolls. :/ Sounds like they're the ones who are making the connection to video games.


Posted from Anandtech.com App for Android
 
Everyone is emotional because it involved small children. The reality is no amount of banning anything is going to prevent things like this. Crazy people will do what crazy people will do. If not with guns, with something else.
 
There is a correlation between violence and video games, but not the one they are thinking. Socially inept crazy people are more likely to play video games because they can't handle real world interactions. Their condition is not caused by video games, but it is a way for them to escape their problems.

Video games do not cause mental health issues in people who are socially capable and not crazy. Again, the issue is crazy people, and not guns or violent media content. The country needs better mental health screening and care for those who need it. Not to take away the rights and priveledges of sane people.

People seem to forget that Timothy McVeigh killed more children with a bomb than probably all of these school shooting combined, and there is no evidence that he played video games.
 
Boy, it was nice and quiet for awhile when the likes of Jack Thompson didn't headline news. I guess it was too much to ask for.

Just like the commissioned study on pornography mentioned, it will be a waste of public funding. When you have a really biased public head figure the results of said study will get twisted to fit their world view anyway.

Don't worry, Jack Thompson is back. http://www.examiner.com/article/vid...necticut-school-shooting-claims-jack-thompson Even if he doesn't get as much attention as he used to.

It was too long ago. I don't even remember what happened with the Meese Report.
 
As long as they can focus on video games and mass shootings, they can distract us from our nation's economic issues and the fact that they aren't doing much to address them.
 
Back
Top