-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Trump: 'We Have To Do Something' About Violent Video Games, Movies
- Thread starter llien
- Start date
jonnyp
Member
So how is it we don't have the same problem in Europe where generally there is more sex, swearing and violence on basic network TV and lower age ratings for movies in general than in the US?
It's completely ass-backwards to think that games and movies are the cause of this problem. Every study ever made on video games show there's no correlation between playing violent videogames and a person becoming more violent as a result.
Restrict the amount of guns and type of guns you can buy, introduce mandatory training both theoretical and practical (like you have to in for instance Norway to get a hunter's license in order to own a rifle) and you will see a positive effect. There is a reason why no one can walk into a Walmart type store in Europe and buy guns, let alone semi automatic ones.
It's completely ass-backwards to think that games and movies are the cause of this problem. Every study ever made on video games show there's no correlation between playing violent videogames and a person becoming more violent as a result.
Restrict the amount of guns and type of guns you can buy, introduce mandatory training both theoretical and practical (like you have to in for instance Norway to get a hunter's license in order to own a rifle) and you will see a positive effect. There is a reason why no one can walk into a Walmart type store in Europe and buy guns, let alone semi automatic ones.
Heimdall_Xtreme
Jim Ryan Fanclub's #1 Member
I fix it =P.
VertigoOA
Banned
I'm okay with both gun ownership and violence In media.
However violent imagery is indeed influential and I don't doubt that it can have an effect on youth. Children are educated on weaponry with their shooters, their basic function and types.
The problem is children should not be playing these games. Despite the ratings system, gaming platforms and software are still perceived as toys to older generations. This will change in time as newer generations of gamer parents who are just more familiar with the medium raise their own...
Your kids really shouldn't be playing COD or GTAV. No one is asking for a ban.
However violent imagery is indeed influential and I don't doubt that it can have an effect on youth. Children are educated on weaponry with their shooters, their basic function and types.
The problem is children should not be playing these games. Despite the ratings system, gaming platforms and software are still perceived as toys to older generations. This will change in time as newer generations of gamer parents who are just more familiar with the medium raise their own...
Your kids really shouldn't be playing COD or GTAV. No one is asking for a ban.
WaterAstro
Member
Ehh my point is about what affects people's morals. White supremacy groups affected the Florida shooter, not video games.
Singular7
Member
I would argue that video games (what they represent - experience, topics of society, what is acceptable behavior, etc.), in the possesion of young children, are far more the core problem than "guns".
I have guns, I will not shoot a human being, ever.
Emotions and philosophy are the problem, which come from video games and are used by children; not knives / guns / cars / drugs / etc.
Banning any of the aforementioned are not within the capability of the state to control anyway!
I have guns, I will not shoot a human being, ever.
Emotions and philosophy are the problem, which come from video games and are used by children; not knives / guns / cars / drugs / etc.
Banning any of the aforementioned are not within the capability of the state to control anyway!
Last edited:
Jon Neu
Banned
I thought the Florida shooter was a latino autist dude who suffered bullying.
He said "voices" told him to do it.
VertigoOA
Banned
"White supremacy" groups? What? This kid was a deranged neo Marxist. Politically polarized nutjobs on any side of the spectrum tend to be absolutlely fucking looney. I mean just take a brief retrospective on GAF's amirox.
There should always be a case by case analysis on what happened.
It's more disappointing that we're told if you see something say something. Well people saw this kid saying and doing outrageous things and threatening violence; they said something, it was even looked into and nothing was done about it. Im more concerned about the failure of authorities to do their job.
There should always be a case by case analysis on what happened.
It's more disappointing that we're told if you see something say something. Well people saw this kid saying and doing outrageous things and threatening violence; they said something, it was even looked into and nothing was done about it. Im more concerned about the failure of authorities to do their job.
MayauMiao
Member
Who ignored the reports made against Cruz before the shooting? Who waste their time investigating the so called Russian collisions? Who allowed the guns to be sold to people without proper background checks?
Maybe Trump should do something about the law enforcers and the gun laws. I've been playing pretty violent games before I hit 16, and not once I have any sort of desire to own a gun.
Maybe Trump should do something about the law enforcers and the gun laws. I've been playing pretty violent games before I hit 16, and not once I have any sort of desire to own a gun.
Singular7
Member
I was wondering where he got that from ...
Turns out "fake news" went out briefly from a rumor, which was debunked an hour later; the usual hyper-political sites picked it up briefly though.
autoduelist
Member
This is untenable in the US. Plenty of people live in very rural areas and hunt for their food on a regular basis. Or need to potentially protect themselves from wildlife due to job or hobbies. I mean, you've got everything from NYC through Alaska through Montana... the country is extremely diverse. Not to mention the culture of freedom. Of course some people want guns banned. Of course some people don't want guns banned. It's very regional.
Also, the idea that 'people are always pissed off an angry all the time' is a bit... media nonsense? I mean, when I lived in NYC people could be a bit aggro sometimes, but anywhere else people are pretty darn chill overall. Sure, you might see someone get angry here or there but it's extremely rare I'd say. People around where I live are chill as heck, almost too chill.
batman2million
Member
Hahahaha....oh Trump...
And yes. It's crazy how people are coming to the defense of guns.
And yes. It's crazy how people are coming to the defense of guns.
WaterAstro
Member
There's evidence of his online behavior being anti-black and anti-muslim. A white supremacist group leader claims he attended the group's sessions.
autoduelist
Member
That was fully debunked, I believe. The group leader was thinking of a completely different Nikolas. Media didn't vet him or his story, and it was found to be completely false.
There's a lot of articles on it, vice was the first google result:
https://news.vice.com/en_us/article...made-up-story-about-nikolas-cruz-blames-media
Here's another:
https://www.dailywire.com/news/27211/law-enforcement-has-found-no-connection-between-ryan-saavedra
Last edited:
deadscreensky
Member
Or he would insist he never argued violent video games were a problem, #fakenews etc. etc. Trump is such a compulsive liar he probably doesn't even realize anymore that he's doing it.I'd love to see his reaction when someone tells him he's essentially siding with Hillary and Tipper on this one...
Sike! He'd call that person a hater on Twitter.
I'm sure violent media has an impact on people (we wouldn't be into media period if it didn't affect us), but assuming it's some simple "seeing violence makes you more violent!" is absurd and unsupportable. It's just as likely that it could make you less violent (perhaps witnessing cruelty makes you more empathetic), or more likely inspires all sorts of complex and even contradictory thoughts. This is all assuming that even 5% of video game violence is portrayed realistically enough that it would even trigger the brain to see it as such, of course.
Americans don't need to own 40+% of the world's private guns.
Last edited:
Lionel Richie
Member
Gee I guess that the people who complained about TLOU 2 and especially Detroit finally got what they wanted...
Edit: someone should tell Trump that Cuphead is really hard and anti consumer so maybe he'll slip a comment on that one too and pretty much cover up a lot of the really idiotic nontroversies that the really idiotic gaming journalism tried to push in 2017.
Edit: someone should tell Trump that Cuphead is really hard and anti consumer so maybe he'll slip a comment on that one too and pretty much cover up a lot of the really idiotic nontroversies that the really idiotic gaming journalism tried to push in 2017.
Last edited:
Kamina
Golden Boy
Give guns to more people could help?
After all Trump seems to think that teachers would like to engage in firefights with amok running students. So mabe his conclusion is that guns could also help here?
Serioulsy, something needs to be done about Trump first of all, not videogames.
After all Trump seems to think that teachers would like to engage in firefights with amok running students. So mabe his conclusion is that guns could also help here?
Serioulsy, something needs to be done about Trump first of all, not videogames.
Last edited:
SoulUnison
Banned
Well, that's really just Trump in a nutshell, isn't it?
A desperate, obvious scapegoating move supported by thoroughly disproved premises and reasoning.
We've already studied and proven dozens of times over that violence in media doesn't create any significant predisposition toward real-world violence.
But Trump's "hearing more and more people say the level of violence on video games is shaping more and more people's thoughts."
Guess he's holding court with his imaginary, impossible to hold accountable sources, again.
A desperate, obvious scapegoating move supported by thoroughly disproved premises and reasoning.
We've already studied and proven dozens of times over that violence in media doesn't create any significant predisposition toward real-world violence.
But Trump's "hearing more and more people say the level of violence on video games is shaping more and more people's thoughts."
Guess he's holding court with his imaginary, impossible to hold accountable sources, again.
To be fair automatic assault rifles do not belong in the “defend from wildlife/hunting needs” category. I do believe the violence problem is not solved by a ban in and of itself, but right now the widespread availability of highly efficient assault weapons and an evident social problem are a perfect storm with dangerous consequences. A ban may be needed for that... also background checks are there for a reason and so were the additional ones for people with a history of mental issues that this administration took down.
A properly trained and armed populace is possibly linked to an original desire to allow resistance to government in case the federation fell apart and the constitution became an irrelevant walked over relic, but it is also becoming more and more impractical as the divide between Army and civilians grows... also, let the mental thought of a possible revolution sink in and the devastation and destabilisation that would ensue (while what we consider the Constitution overall kind of calls for an always possible last resort it also warns that the outcome may be even worse...).
Also, back in the older times the threat of a possible invasion and need to have distributed, organised, and trained militia with great knowledge of the land (part of the reason why they were able to win the revilolutionary war in the first place) felt more real and it is quite ridiculous now. Also when I say trained, I do not just mean physically, but also mentally (going berserk and losing your cool for the littlest reason != trained).
For some countries, there threat of invasion was real several times and I can understand why they would want to be armed to the teeth (do not look at what the Swiss have actively hidden in the mountains
), but it is an incredibly dangerous proposition when society also has other major problems (not sure how the murder rate can be so low in Switzerland... and how it would have anything to do about the U.S. and how a country super proud and convinced of their unique historic Exceptionalism could import from it at a far bigger and more diverse scale).
Last edited:
FBI has different units investigating intelligence threats on the national soil and “regular” criminal activity at a federal level... resources spent in one investigation by the Special Counsel (Russian meddling with American elections) do not affect/take resources away from investigations that another unit should have had on the reports on Cruz. Also, there is no Deep State.
Well, this administration weakened rules further, they did not tighten them up.
GreatnessRD
Member
Man, I hate stupid people. Stupid people make life hard. Glad he's finessing the narrative though!
Danjin44
The nicest person on this forum
Honestly how much background checks will helps exactly!!? What happens when a person has no history of mental health suddenly goes insane because he/she fired from their job or their lover left them or even worst that person is super racist? Normal civilian cannot ever be trust with fire arms, thats all there is to it. You all free to disagree with me but I personally will never ever trust civilian who owns guns, to me they are as dangerous as highly armed criminal, no matter how many background check they went through.
SatansReverence
Hipster Princess
Disagree almost entirely.
There would be a case for better control on game ratings vs the age of players/buyers however.
Worth noting that censorship of games is tantamount to censoring free speech.
There would be a case for better control on game ratings vs the age of players/buyers however.
Worth noting that censorship of games is tantamount to censoring free speech.
Last edited:
autoduelist
Member
'To be fair', automatic assault rifles are already long banned. Clip size is also limited by law. The ones the media call 'assault rifles' in US are not automatic, they just 'look scary' like movie automatic guns because they sell better that way. It seems like most people don't realize this, though. That is, the AR-15 [AR are the initials of the company name, not 'assault rifle'] is not a military grade weapon, it just intentionally looks like one.
In the US, almost all of these shootings are not using automatic weapons. They are already banned, and while someone could probably get their hands on one if they tried and had connections, it's already highly illegal. You can also do some illegal modifications to make it shoot relatively fast, but from what I can tell this is not being done by school shooters [most are stock weapons stolen from parents, etc]. Virginia Tech, for example, was semi-auto handguns. The Vegas shooter [not a school shooting] supposedly modified his gun to be something closer to automatic, but again, that is actually rare for US shootings [from what I can tell] and already illegal.
Interestingly, in France, which has stricter gun laws than the US, the Bataclan and Hebdo assaults used multiple automatic weapons.
This should give anyone pause. There is not an easy answer.
Personally, I don't think banning guns in the US would stop any shootings. There's are more guns than people here - we're talking hundreds of millions. There is -no- chance they are going away... guns will always be pretty easy to get in the US, even if you could ban them [which again, I think is a non-starter to begin with]. What we do need to do is focus on mental health, etc. There were dozens of warning signs with this particular case, and yet nothing significant was done. He was mentally disturbed, and people knew it. It could have been prevented.
I don't own a gun and probably wouldn't own a gun. Maybe if i moved to bear country, but I'm not planning on that. I don't think preventing civilians from owning guns is the proper path, though. Unfortunately, I don't think there is an easy answer. I think we've reached this point due to a number of issues - an over-medicated society that sometimes goes off its meds, a media that puts violence on a pedestal, and much more. It's a giant beast of an issue.
Last edited:
SatansReverence
Hipster Princess
Heavily restricted*
TannerDemoz
Member
HA. Trump talking about fictional hobbies as an external force shaping people's thoughts. If he wants to talk about things shaping people's thoughts, he needs to take a long hard look at the shit he vomits on a daily basis and how that's literally costing people their lives. Waste of oxygen. Deserves to be shoved in a room with nothing but a copy of Clayfighter 64 and a broken N64 controller.
They outlawed drugs and i will bet 90 % of every1 on this site is a drug head. so outlawing guns won't do anything. Then only criminal and dope heads will have guns
Fbh
Member
Yes we know. Literally everything is responsible for gun violence except for guns.
Imagine if that logic was applied in other places :
"Sir the breaks in our new cars are failing, what should be do"
"damn, it's probably the color.... Let's paint all cars red and see if that fixes the issue"
But doesn't the AR 15 still have higher ranger, more accuracy and a much bigger magazine than a regular handgun? Does anyone need such a weapon to protect their home ?
Also comparing the Paris attack with school shootings doesn't make sense. One was organised and perpetrated by a terrorist organisation, the other by a disgruntled teen. Stricter gun control might not keep weapons away from Terrorists, but it would be more effective in keeping them away from regular angry civilians .
Imagine if that logic was applied in other places :
"Sir the breaks in our new cars are failing, what should be do"
"damn, it's probably the color.... Let's paint all cars red and see if that fixes the issue"
But doesn't the AR 15 still have higher ranger, more accuracy and a much bigger magazine than a regular handgun? Does anyone need such a weapon to protect their home ?
Also comparing the Paris attack with school shootings doesn't make sense. One was organised and perpetrated by a terrorist organisation, the other by a disgruntled teen. Stricter gun control might not keep weapons away from Terrorists, but it would be more effective in keeping them away from regular angry civilians .
royox
Member
You can't even imagine how weird you sound for anybody living in a country were civilians CAN'T own guns.
Where I live we haven't seen a school shooting in...I don't know...decades? Maybe "preventing civilians from owning guns" it's the proper path. I know it wouldn't be easy to do it from one day to another in the USA but you could make it more restricted from time to time till the moment civilians don't have guns.
INC
Member
SatansReverence
Hipster Princess
autoduelist
Member
You can do mass damage with a handgun, as Virginia Tech shows. Range and accuracy aren't particularly important for a school shooting, but sure, a rifle is more accurate than a pistol at range. But that's a given? Gun accuracy isn't a bad thing in and of itself, and I'm not sure that should be any sort of barometer for are banned. The AR-15 is fairly common in competition, from what I understand, but I'm not a gun enthusiast.
I don't know what anyone needs to protect their home but myself. I have a bat. I'm glad at least one of my neighbors has a gun [they are fairly common in my state], because I know that means any burglar in this general area knows they're taking a huge risk going into a home. That is, while I don't need or want a gun to protect my home, I'm actually quite glad the -possibility- of me being armed protects my home as a deterrent. I know a couple people with concealed permits, they're all stand up people.
I disagree that comparing US and France doesn't make sense. It goes to show that guns are widely available, period. It also shows that we basically don't need to fear 'automatic assault rifles' in the US [which is what the person I was responded to was talking about]... if people could easily get them, we'd see shooters with them... but we don't. I find that interesting, personally. And finally, it shows that determined people can get weapons despite bans. And school shooters tend to be determined - there are many examples of them having detailed notes, plans, even blueprints. I have a hard time believing people with that level of determination are going to be foiled by not being able to acquire weaponry in the US. That is, I'm sure banning guns would reduce some amount of 'crimes of passion'... but in any sort of situation where planning is involved, I think the planners will sort out a way regardless.
I mean, I personally have no reason to own a gun. I have kids in my house, I wouldn't want one. But I'm happy with my right to own one, if I so choose. I'd much prefer other methods that might reduce gun violence, such as tech that ensures only the owner can fire. But again, even there, we've got hundreds of millions of guns in the US already, so we'll always have a surplus of black market guns.
Venuspower
Member
10 - 15 years ago people in Germany who said "games (so called "killer games") are the reason for shootings" had a lot of support by other people, media and politics. Even when there was not a shooting. But since then these people lost a lot of supports because gaming became mainstream and because they know it is bullshit.
When something like a mass shooting happens today (which does not happen really often in Germany) these voices become much more silent than a few years ago. But if something like that happens I can guarantee you that there are still a few people in the German media and politics who will associate gaming with mass shootings. After the kid in Munich did his shooting a few years ago people found his Steam profile. And guess what...he had a few thousand hours in Counter Strike and GTA. As soon as people noticed that you were able to find articles about that in the media. But as I said. Most people here know that this is bullshit. Thats why these discussions do not become that big anymore. Also in that case I mentioned a few sentences ago.
Long story short. Best thing you can do is laughing about that. Do not try to argue with these peoples. They do not want to understand your point. Ignore them or publish some articles why gaming is not the reason for mass shootings.
When something like a mass shooting happens today (which does not happen really often in Germany) these voices become much more silent than a few years ago. But if something like that happens I can guarantee you that there are still a few people in the German media and politics who will associate gaming with mass shootings. After the kid in Munich did his shooting a few years ago people found his Steam profile. And guess what...he had a few thousand hours in Counter Strike and GTA. As soon as people noticed that you were able to find articles about that in the media. But as I said. Most people here know that this is bullshit. Thats why these discussions do not become that big anymore. Also in that case I mentioned a few sentences ago.
Long story short. Best thing you can do is laughing about that. Do not try to argue with these peoples. They do not want to understand your point. Ignore them or publish some articles why gaming is not the reason for mass shootings.
Last edited:
INC
Member
autoduelist
Member
That's exactly why gun owners fight tooth and nail against every single law, even reasonable ones. Because they know it's give an inch, take a mile. It's the same on both sides of abortion, etc.
And honestly? I really don't want to live in a country where civilians don't have guns. I realize liberty is an outdated concept for many in this day and age, but I still cherish it. This is coming from someone who has never even touched one.
Don't get me wrong, I absolutely agree we [the entire world, really] has a massive problem with mass killings right now. I just think there's a lot going on, like the sheer amount of meds we've got most kids on nowadays. Our culture is broken, and these killings are massive warning signs. I just think the issue runs far deeper, and don't think, say, banning AR15s is going to slow the killings.
going to bed. It's past 3 here, I'm struggling to complete sentences so don't feel capable of putting forth my views properly.
Last edited:
SatansReverence
Hipster Princess
Entertaining no doubt.
We are having a discussion on the effects of the change of gun laws in Australia over in offtopic actually.
And some of the base claims are, misleading, at best.
*Side note*
The constant insinuation that guns are banned in Australia is getting tiring to be honest.
DESTROYA
Member
I agree with most of this post, it’s not the games themselves it’s the parents letting kids play these games when they really shouldn’t be.
Try being a parent first and a best friend second, use the parental controls on consoles people, they are there for a reason.
Don’t get me started on John Oliver he’s just such a raging idiot and has no clue about absolutely anything, what a waste of space his show is and equally vile as a human being.
Last edited:
KevinKeene
Banned
While i'm absolutely against gun ownership, I agree that the way violent video games are treated by society is gravely wrong.
When violence and sexual content are being discussed, sex negative peoplelike to argue that sexual content has direct influence on one's real behavior, while violence in games has no relevence for real life.
I'd like to point these people towards THE WORLD, where no minute goes by without a human being dying an unnatural death (number pooma, but I'm likely not far off). Our world is so filled with violence that these prudes are blind towards any possible influence of virtual violence.
It's not just on ratings and parents, though: Even video games in the year 2018/2017 rely predominantly on killing other living mostly humanoid in shape, often full on humans. The worst part, however, is the way these game enemies are presented: they're cannon fodder. Nameless minions. Nobody gives a fuck about killing enemies in Call of Duty. Cannon fodder enemies need to go away, if we want to change the value for life and its place in the face of violence. Fighting Sniper Wolf shouldn't be the exception - these long, drawn out, intense battles should be the norm in gaming. Multiplayer shooter should give up on the concept of respawning and fully adapt the Counterstrike model: one life for the entirety of the match. On top of that, we need more realism when it comes to wounds. Not because gore is 'cool'. But because games need to stop presenting this clean cookiecutter violence where enemies just fall to the ground and vanish after a couple moments. Mel Gibson made a great comment about how he dislikes the violence in Marvel movies, because millions of kids watch these movies, how violently the heroes punch each other - but never showing the consequences of such punches.
I like shooters and violence shouldn't be taboo. But it should treated and appliedin a sensible manner that reflects its consequences. Any game that had a hero who rapes women and is depectited in a positive light would be criticized to no end. But super violent heroes are a-ok. That's wrong.
Chairman Tickles
Banned
I find this quite predictable:
MrHeisenbird
Member
In this day and age with the studies that have been done and how big the gaming industry is, nothing aggressive will happen to video games.
Trump probably knows this too and is just deflecting attention away from gun control.
Trump probably knows this too and is just deflecting attention away from gun control.
Similar threads
- Locked