Thread: Video games and gun violence. Is there a correlation.

Originally Posted by Ranger10

As someone with a graduate degree in video game development, I've had to study all, if not most of the studies created at the time which tried to link violence and video games.

The studies I've read conclude there is a small correlation between the two. Obviously, game companies wish it didn't exist at all. On the other hand, the correlation is so minuscule, that you could argue other mediums such as television, a violent novel, or even a strongly worded speech from either clergy or a secular activist engender far more violence than a video game.

Obviously, many proponents of gun violence and their link to games cite the idea that video games are used to teach as well. It's hard to make the argument that guns don't teach violence, yet they teach children about the wild west, or other genre based learning games. But I think they are overlooking one key element; video games inspire what is already there. If there is violence, abuse and anger in someone's past, then video games could theoretically give an outlet for those thoughts, or they could inspire action. Children learn though games because they have an innate, natural desire to learn and explore the world around them.

That's why video games can be used to teach children learn, but not necessarily cause someone to act violently in the world around them. The only way someone commits and act of violence is if it was already on their mind to begin with. Which points to a far deeper problem, one that video games didn't cause in the first place.

This is fundamentally why I think banning guns is a foolish idea. Because by the time someone comes to the conclusion that violence is the answer, they will carry out that violence if guns are present or not.

Now the real question will be, since we aren't banning graphic and violent movies, its stands to reason that even if some new study finds that games DO correlate to violent acts, are we going to make people get mental check ups to play games?

Daphne Bavelier: Your brain on video games | Video on TED.com

TED is (almost) always awesome. I will watch as soon as possible tonight.

Originally Posted by Fovezer

I didn't say one was "better" than the other, but if someone gets that far lost that they are going to commit a violent act, I'd much prefer they only have easy access to, say, a knife over any gun. Like I said, it isn't really debatable that guns are far more efficient at doing their jobs than any other weapon. That's just a fact.

When you say it like this it sounds sooooo much more reasonable. Not being sarcastic here Fov, i agree with you. Gun owners are going to be inconvenienced, but still maintain their right. It is admittedly a hard balance to strike between rights and security. I would like to see access limited as well. I dont want to see the the guy who lives on a daily dose of 24 Budweisers, 3 joints and a good ole smack down of the wife owning so much as a pea shooter. But he can even if he has had several run ins with the law (no felonies though) and displays poor judgement at every turn. But on the flip side, i have no issue with my ex army, successful, family oriented neighbor owning an AR15 with 30 rnd mags and all the trimmings, in fact i WANT him to have it.

Originally Posted by deathgodusmc

Knives are just as effective at the job you just have to get closer. Which in many cases is probably the main reason they use guns. So its less about what weapon is the most effective at doing its job and more about the disturbed individual that wants to kill while being out of arms reach.

I would say guns are more effective at killing than knives are.

Originally Posted by Ranger10

As someone with a graduate degree in video game development, I've had to study all, if not most of the studies created at the time which tried to link violence and video games.

The studies I've read conclude there is a small correlation between the two. Obviously, game companies wish it didn't exist at all. On the other hand, the correlation is so minuscule, that you could argue other mediums such as television, a violent novel, or even a strongly worded speech from either clergy or a secular activist engender far more violence than a video game.

Obviously, many proponents of gun violence and their link to games cite the idea that video games are used to teach as well. It's hard to make the argument that guns don't teach violence, yet they teach children about the wild west, or other genre based learning games. But I think they are overlooking one key element; video games inspire what is already there. If there is violence, abuse and anger in someone's past, then video games could theoretically give an outlet for those thoughts, or they could inspire action. Children learn though games because they have an innate, natural desire to learn and explore the world around them.

That's why video games can be used to teach children learn, but not necessarily cause someone to act violently in the world around them. The only way someone commits and act of violence is if it was already on their mind to begin with. Which points to a far deeper problem, one that video games didn't cause in the first place.

This is fundamentally why I think banning guns is a foolish idea. Because by the time someone comes to the conclusion that violence is the answer, they will carry out that violence if guns are present or not.

Now the real question will be, since we aren't banning graphic and violent movies, its stands to reason that even if some new study finds that games DO correlate to violent acts, are we going to make people get mental check ups to play games?

As someone with a background in psychology, I will say I current studies DO correlate the two. In fact, aggressive behavior in general is correlated with playing aggressive video games. It is about the same level as a response to watching your favorite football team, or going to a competitive event, etc. It appears exposure to competition and aggression makes people competitive and aggressive in the short term following; huh, go figure right?

So... are football games causing shootings? Video games appear (so far) to be on par with many things everyone considers fine and normal.

I am agreeing with Ranger and adding some well researched tidbits.

Originally Posted by i8pptuakamonstercam

I would say guns are more effective at killing than knives are.

This is in fact supported by a mass stabbing at a school that happened about the same time as the latest events here in the states, and there were no deaths. And another string of mass stabbings in schools that resulted in 20 total deaths.

In the states guns kill way, way more people than knives do... and usually by suicide.

Originally Posted by Ranger10

*sigh*... how many people were killed in Newtown? Now how many were killed in the Oklahoma City Federal building bombing?

Would you like to ban cows and horses from shitting because it's a key component to building certain bombs?

we have checks in place for this, already.
Denied!