Video Games are Toys! Let's Give them ALL to Children!

[rknapp]

I'd have more or less agreed with that statement if it had simply been "The game has little to do with the boy's actions". However, I think it's very clear that while the father is indeed the root of the problem, and should indeed be the target for a solution, the game is still involved.

 

That's like the argument that people give regarding firearms, "guns don't kill people, people kill people." I certainly agree that the people are culpable, but again the fact remains that without the guns those people wouldn't have been shot.

 

Drunk driving accidents do have to do with cars. Yes, they have to do with irresponsible, reckless idiots, but cars are still involved.

 

The key here is "potentially dangerous item" + "stupid/careless/mean/crazy/psycho" = bad results

 

Yes, we've still definitely got a big problem with just the 2nd part of the equation, but I'm all for keeping the first part of the equation out of their hands.

So you're saying that we should build a large rocket ship, stuff it with the world's supply of cars, trucks, vans, sporting equipment, kitchen utensils, tools, medical equipment, alcohol, video games, TVs, movies, *rambles on*. Sorry, the first part of that equation is simply not true. If the first part were removed I guarantee you that this equation would continue to be true, hence the overcrowding problem in many US prisons. You could bubble wrap the entire world and these idiots would continue to wreak havoc with their stupidity and carelessness.

 

If anything, the video games in question are the victim of stupidity. They did nothing to bring this upon themselves, it's the idiots putting them in the hands of children who are to blame.

 

I personally find GTA IV very entertaining. As the author of the article that was posted earlier pointed out it's a lot more involved plot-wise than the previous installments. I haven't gotten very far yet but the plot really is enthralling -- and I've yet to meet a hooker or kill blindly (except for the idiots who jump in front my car). I went to a strip club today and that was a very entertaining experience, particularly when another girl joined in the lap dance Nico was getting to the music of "Shake that ass, show me whatchu got!" hahaha. If there are parents out there who are allowing their children to play it, then I fear that our work to cleanse the gene pool is far from finished.

[Drewbie]

Yup, again the clerks who sell them, should not sell them at all, if parents that do buy, really know what there kids are playing first, and if you kid could handle it fine, and give them a speech, I hate it when groups try to ban an item or restrict way to much. cause some "children". (to many things we try to protect kids, george carlin has a great saying to that )

 

 

 

I saw some rated r movies when I was around 10 and up, but they watched them first, one of them I had to turn around, you don't see me destroying things.

[AFriendlyFace]

That is true, but what would they use instead of guns? I've heard that there have been a few cases where people rob stores with needles. People who intend to commit crimes will do so whether or not they have guns or not. I think I'd rather be shot than stabbed repeatedly or bludgeoned to death with a baseball bat.

People always use the "you can kill with other weapons" argument, and it's true, but the fact is guns are designed to kill and kill quickly. How many people can you kill with a baseball bat in 30 seconds? How many with a gun? How close do you have to get with the baseball bat? How close with the gun?

 

It's perfectly true that if "Tom" is determined to kill "Billy" he'll find a way and a weapon to suit his purpose. If on the other hand "Tom" is determined to go a rampage at his high school, well a hunting rifle isn't going to do as much damage as a semi-automatic, a knife isn't going to do as much damage as a hunting rifle, a stick isn't going to do as much damage as a knife, and a Winnie the Poo doll isn't going to do as much damage as a stick. That's all I'm saying about the 'different weapon' argument.

 

Also, for the record, I may prefer to be killed with a gun than a baseball bat, but that's assuming I'm going to die. I'd much rather be attacked with the baseball bat, because I would have the opportunity to fight back, run away, or get beaten long enough for someone to come and help me. If I'm summarily shot execution style I don't have any of those options.

 

So you're saying that we should build a large rocket ship, stuff it with the world's supply of cars, trucks, vans, sporting equipment, kitchen utensils, tools, medical equipment, alcohol, video games, TVs, movies, *rambles on*.

No, I didn't say that at all

 

The only thing I said is that the games were a part of the equation. I made no argument at all about completely banning or removing them. I also said that they were the smaller part of the equation behind good parenting, and also behind personal responsibility in my opinion.

 

Sorry, the first part of that equation is simply not true. If the first part were removed I guarantee you that this equation would continue to be true, hence the overcrowding problem in many US prisons.

Of course we'd still have crimes and violence, I never tried to argue that we wouldn't. My only point is that some kids are affected by violence in video games. I didn't say most, many, or even 'a significant number', but some are. It's irrelevant that in most of these cases the major problem is still with the parents or the individual themselves, neither am I arguing that these kids would otherwise have grown up perfectly well-adjusted had they not played the video games. The only thing I said is that to some extent some kids are affected.

 

If I'm 15 and always playing games that enhance my aim and reflexes, and I later use this skillful aim and quick reflexes (rather for 'good' or 'evil') it's an indisputable fact the video game played a role in my proficiency. It's irrelevant that I could have developed these skills in any number of other ways, or that perhaps I just did something terrific with my skills. I in no way meant to imply a value judgment or pretend that effects were paramount or exclusive on behaviour. I simply said they have some effect, and I really don't see why it's necessary to even debate that statement.

 

Virtually nothing to me is in 'black and white' it all comes in 'shades of gray'. You would never hear me saying that video games cause violence. Nor would you hear me saying that any other one thing causes violence. In my opinion human behaviour is far to complicated to be attributed to one cause or motivation in most instances.

 

I'm not saying in the greater scheme of things video games are bad for society or kids in general. Who knows, maybe overall they're good for society and kids. I dunno. All I'm saying is they have an effect and sometimes that effect is bad. Will big deal, everything is like that. In most cases it's a good idea for people to take their blood pressure medication, but sometimes it kills them. Seatbelts and airbags usually save lives, but occasionally they kill instead. I'm certainly not arguing that people should quit taking their meds or avoid safety precautions when driving. Neither am I arguing that video games should be launched into outer space.

 

 

Take care all (I hope this statement makes people feel cared about and as such conduct life in a sensible, safe manner. However, I also concede that a statistically small portion of the population may under some circumstances instead feel a rebellious streak which leads them to risky behaviour just to spite me. In any case my signature probably won't have a significant impact on very many people, but I will say that I think it might have a marginal effect - either good or bad - on some.)

-Kevin

[rknapp]

People always use the "you can kill with other weapons" argument, and it's true, but the fact is guns are designed to kill and kill quickly. How many people can you kill with a baseball bat in 30 seconds? How many with a gun? How close do you have to get with the baseball bat? How close with the gun?

 

It's perfectly true that if "Tom" is determined to kill "Billy" he'll find a way and a weapon to suit his purpose. If on the other hand "Tom" is determined to go a rampage at his high school, well a hunting rifle isn't going to do as much damage as a semi-automatic, a knife isn't going to do as much damage as a hunting rifle, a stick isn't going to do as much damage as a knife, and a Winnie the Poo doll isn't going to do as much damage as a stick. That's all I'm saying about the 'different weapon' argument.

 

Also, for the record, I may prefer to be killed with a gun than a baseball bat, but that's assuming I'm going to die. I'd much rather be attacked with the baseball bat, because I would have the opportunity to fight back, run away, or get beaten long enough for someone to come and help me. If I'm summarily shot execution style I don't have any of those options.

 

 

No, I didn't say that at all

 

The only thing I said is that the games were a part of the equation. I made no argument at all about completely banning or removing them. I also said that they were the smaller part of the equation behind good parenting, and also behind personal responsibility in my opinion.

 

 

Of course we'd still have crimes and violence, I never tried to argue that we wouldn't. My only point is that some kids are affected by violence in video games. I didn't say most, many, or even 'a significant number', but some are. It's irrelevant that in most of these cases the major problem is still with the parents or the individual themselves, neither am I arguing that these kids would otherwise have grown up perfectly well-adjusted had they not played the video games. The only thing I said is that to some extent some kids are affected.

 

If I'm 15 and always playing games that enhance my aim and reflexes, and I later use this skillful aim and quick reflexes (rather for 'good' or 'evil') it's an indisputable fact the video game played a role in my proficiency. It's irrelevant that I could have developed these skills in any number of other ways, or that perhaps I just did something terrific with my skills. I in no way meant to imply a value judgment or pretend that effects were paramount or exclusive on behaviour. I simply said they have some effect, and I really don't see why it's necessary to even debate that statement.

 

Virtually nothing to me is in 'black and white' it all comes in 'shades of gray'. You would never hear me saying that video games cause violence. Nor would you hear me saying that any other one thing causes violence. In my opinion human behaviour is far to complicated to be attributed to one cause or motivation in most instances.

 

I'm not saying in the greater scheme of things video games are bad for society or kids in general. Who knows, maybe overall they're good for society and kids. I dunno. All I'm saying is they have an effect and sometimes that effect is bad. Will big deal, everything is like that. In most cases it's a good idea for people to take their blood pressure medication, but sometimes it kills them. Seatbelts and airbags usually save lives, but occasionally they kill instead. I'm certainly not arguing that people should quit taking their meds or avoid safety precautions when driving. Neither am I arguing that video games should be launched into outer space.

 

 

Take care all (I hope this statement makes people feel cared about and as such conduct life in a sensible, safe manner. However, I also concede that a statistically small portion of the population may under some circumstances instead feel a rebellious streak which leads them to risky behaviour just to spite me. In any case my signature probably won't have a significant impact on very many people, but I will say that I think it might have a marginal effect - either good or bad - on some.)

-Kevin

Be that as it may, the video game remains the victim. It's cover is telling parents that it may not be suitable for their children, yet some idiots will still buy it for their kid. The game tried to warn them, but they wouldn't listen and now we have groups of parents lobbying to have the games removed from shelves or nerfed (GTA III was nerfed after the initial uproar over the hooker thing). These morons are using the game as a scape goat to take the blame for their own stupidity and for that they deserve to have their children acting this way.

 

At any rate, I stick by my opinion that the video games themselves have no affect on children. It's parents who are giving the game to the kids who are having this affect because they're essentially telling the kid that whatever happens in the game is ok. Very rarely do you see bullies coming from good upbringings, or jocks from non-sport oriented backgrounds, etc. We all have tried to emulate our parents or siblings at one time or another and therein lies the core reason for all of the events that have unfolded.

 

It's a good thing I didn't apply for that video game store job because I would probably be smacking people every now and then.

[AFriendlyFace]

Very rarely do you see bullies coming from good upbringings, or jocks from non-sport oriented backgrounds, etc. We all have tried to emulate our parents or siblings at one time or another and therein lies the core reason for all of the events that have unfolded.

Well that does bear promise for my dream of raising gay kids then

 

...on the other hand I'm not sure who my daughter will be emulating if she turns out to be a lesbian

 

 

Anyway, we're definitely in agreement that parenting is the key aspect of a child's development.

[PatrickOBrien]

Be that as it may, the video game remains the victim. It's cover is telling parents that it may not be suitable for their children, yet some idiots will still buy it for their kid. The game tried to warn them, but they wouldn't listen and now we have groups of parents lobbying to have the games removed from shelves or nerfed (GTA III was nerfed after the initial uproar over the hooker thing). These morons are using the game as a scape goat to take the blame for their own stupidity and for that they deserve to have their children acting this way.

 

That was exactly the point I was trying to make, but you said it SO much more eloquently.