Viewing Thread:
"The REAL Issue on violent video games"

Here's the actual low down on the video game issue. Since the occurence of many school and children gun accidents lately, many politicans have quickly concluded the base of these violent tendencies come from violent video games. Of course, there has been no real proof that these video games inhibit violent nature. I for one, do not play games purely cause they are violent, but only for the fun factor and how it interests me. I believe everyone basically agrees with me on this. Some would say violent video games are more interesting and create a sense of realism. I do agree, but this does feed into the politicians who believe that violent video games should be banned. Lets take a look at majority of crime, did these criminals commit these crimes because of "bad" video games that tampered with their mind. Anyone who commits a harmful deed plainly because they saw it in a video game is a person who needs to be checked. Most of the teens who commit violent crimes with guns were not watched or taken cared off early. They probably were rejected much in school, home, and society, and took their anger out in a foolish way. Parents nowadays do not take time to see what their children are doing or what activities they are doing. Parents are often to busy to actually sit down and have a talk with child on peer pressure and teen issues. How many of you remember your father or mother sitting down with you to have that "talk"..its often embarrassing and mutually ignored. While these students don't get proper attention they crave, they lash out in a violent nature. Now, to say that video games introduced these children to violence is inaccurate...anyone here knows about violence and from early. Students see violence in real life, TV, newspaper. Violence and hatred is a part of society that will always exist. To believe that banning violent video games will prevent future violence isn't touching the surface. Violence is a behavior issue and problem starts in stress and pressure. Of course, no parent wants to be held accountable for a deed their child commits. instead of parenting the way they should, they make an agreement with the government. Yes, an agreement...to ban all sorts of media that contains violence. The entertainment industry is being attacked, all from the fact parents don't know how to discipline their children. Music, movies, TV, all forms of entertainment show the positive and negative sides of reality. They only reflect what occurs in society. The TV news is probably more violent than any video game. Has one actually seen a dead person ar abused individual in real life and seen one on a video game. TWO DIFFERENT THINGS! Now, if a parent believes that a specific music album, tv show, movie, or video game show explicit material not suitable for their child, they have every right to prevent child from watching it. Rating games, I agree is good to show parents what material a game may contain. We don't want 6 year olds renting Resident Evil or Mortal Kombat. But that is purely one's business, preventing a person from buying it or banning is practically preventing one's freedom to make their own choice. The students who commit these crimes must obey to their own responsibility and accept that they made these mistakes, not the video games or music. The teens enjoy these games because they inflict exciting and adventurous ideas in a fictional world. Censorship is ok, but a parent must still know how to parent, and not allow the government to make all decisions and decide what a teen may or may not watch or play. The government "rating games" instead of the industry doing itself is not a good idea.

However, there are many things that affect such tradgedies.

Certainly the avalability of guns affects it in America makes a significant contribution, and violence has always been present, long before video games.

But games do have to accept some responsibility.
Seening the violence of some games makes impressionable individuals desensitised to it, and come to think of it as acceptable. Some thinking it to be acceptable in the real world as well as that of their games.
Young and impressionable people look for role models, people they admire and respect. In the past, most of these would be sporting heroes, but as people turn to computers, films and all the other areas, instead of a kick around in the park, they are given new violent role models, who they want to be like, and copy. This occours in films, music, tv and other things as well as video games, but vidoe games were the only factors that didn't have enough controls untill recently, and have become closely associated with children and antisocial behaviour. Because of this, they have been percieved as te biggest problem relating to violence, and have been delt with accordingly.

A little over the top? Perhaps. Used as a scapegoat by politicians hopping between bandwagons? Absolutely. But if having film-like ratings applied to video games, even if only as a cheap political vote winner, saves just one life in the future, it'll all be worth it.

One of the reasons for this debate is that there have been several school shootings in America. I remember that we had one such shooting a few years back, and the government reacted by banning guns. Over in America though, the gun federation is too strong to close down, and the government would lose votes. In addations, the American constitution says that ANYONE ADULT HAS THE RIGHT TO OWN A GUN. It is possible to go into a shop and get a gun then and there.

So, who do the politicians blame? The games market- that's who. They are an easy target. Maybe the Americans should stop thinking about the easy wasy out, and find out why some people take the violence in games into real life. After all, how many people drive like they do in Crazy Taxi, or kill their friends in a Quake 3 match? The people who do this have got problems that would still exist without games, music or films! So give games a break all you politicians- they're there for fun!

Rav

Here's the actual low down on the video game issue. Since the occurence of many school and children gun accidents lately, many politicans have quickly concluded the base of these violent tendencies come from violent video games. Of course, there has been no real proof that these video games inhibit violent nature. I for one, do not play games purely cause they are violent, but only for the fun factor and how it interests me. I believe everyone basically agrees with me on this. Some would say violent video games are more interesting and create a sense of realism. I do agree, but this does feed into the politicians who believe that violent video games should be banned. Lets take a look at majority of crime, did these criminals commit these crimes because of "bad" video games that tampered with their mind. Anyone who commits a harmful deed plainly because they saw it in a video game is a person who needs to be checked. Most of the teens who commit violent crimes with guns were not watched or taken cared off early. They probably were rejected much in school, home, and society, and took their anger out in a foolish way. Parents nowadays do not take time to see what their children are doing or what activities they are doing. Parents are often to busy to actually sit down and have a talk with child on peer pressure and teen issues. How many of you remember your father or mother sitting down with you to have that "talk"..its often embarrassing and mutually ignored. While these students don't get proper attention they crave, they lash out in a violent nature. Now, to say that video games introduced these children to violence is inaccurate...anyone here knows about violence and from early. Students see violence in real life, TV, newspaper. Violence and hatred is a part of society that will always exist. To believe that banning violent video games will prevent future violence isn't touching the surface. Violence is a behavior issue and problem starts in stress and pressure. Of course, no parent wants to be held accountable for a deed their child commits. instead of parenting the way they should, they make an agreement with the government. Yes, an agreement...to ban all sorts of media that contains violence. The entertainment industry is being attacked, all from the fact parents don't know how to discipline their children. Music, movies, TV, all forms of entertainment show the positive and negative sides of reality. They only reflect what occurs in society. The TV news is probably more violent than any video game. Has one actually seen a dead person ar abused individual in real life and seen one on a video game. TWO DIFFERENT THINGS! Now, if a parent believes that a specific music album, tv show, movie, or video game show explicit material not suitable for their child, they have every right to prevent child from watching it. Rating games, I agree is good to show parents what material a game may contain. We don't want 6 year olds renting Resident Evil or Mortal Kombat. But that is purely one's business, preventing a person from buying it or banning is practically preventing one's freedom to make their own choice. The students who commit these crimes must obey to their own responsibility and accept that they made these mistakes, not the video games or music. The teens enjoy these games because they inflict exciting and adventurous ideas in a fictional world. Censorship is ok, but a parent must still know how to parent, and not allow the government to make all decisions and decide what a teen may or may not watch or play. The government "rating games" instead of the industry doing itself is not a good idea.