March 5, 2008
Did you notice that no one raised the issue of video games following Monday's tragic shooting spree at a Wendy's in West Palm Beach, Florida?That's likely because the shooter, Alburn Edward Blake, was a 60-year-old man.
I've written in the past (see: How Old is Too Old for Game Blame?) about my theory that if a rampage killer is 30 or younger, video games will be mentioned as a causal factor. If the shooter is older than 30, nothing will be heard about games.
This held up once again in the recent NIU campus shooting where the killer, Stephen Kazmierczak, was 27-years-old. No kid, for sure, but below the 30 threshold. And, as we know, games came under attack from a variety of directions, including the governor of Illinois, a state legislator, Jack Thompson and Lyndon Larouche.
While rampage shooters don't all play video games, they do share two traits: mental illness and access to weapons.
Comments
(Yes, I know this article is about a Wendy's, not a school. I just thought it was interesting).
im not really a fan of his stuff, he is a little too freaky for me, but i respect his intelligence and i think he sums this sort of thing up quite well. while manson isnt addressing video games specifically (from what i can tell he is more-so addressing just pop culture in general) but everything he is talking about can easily be applied to our case here.
Speaking as someone who's actually on medication for depression, I can honestly say, it's hard to know when it's relevant and when it isn't. People have this odd misconception of mental illness and related medications. They think it changes you. Somehow become a different person. I don't know that's true, I don't even feel that different, it just takes the edge off.
I think people have difficulty using the term only when it's relevant because people don't really understand it. I'm not trying to criticize, I don't understand it either. What I'm trying to say is that it's only human nature that people try to understand horrific acts and why they occur. In order to understand, they usually have to put it in some sort of framework they can relate to. Am I making any sense? People have a hard time understanding, "bad things happen to good people for no very good reason"; and it's easier for them to understand "bad things happen to good people because this person was "sick".
Nope but you seem to have no problem bringing it up.
It had to be violent pinball games in the 60's - it just took a while for it to catch up!
lol
I demand that this game be banned as it's obvious that it effects the brains of those who play. Brain scans from Harvard show that the areas of the brain that process violent words in teens are completely different to those of adults. The words are processed in the "Do this now" section, so obviously, when the game gives them the letters "K-I-L-L" that's what they are going to do. You gamer idiots don't understand this, but I'll show you when I bring a lawsuit representing the parents of a mentally unstable 18 year old with access to guns who trained to kill by picking out the letters "A-I-M" and "R-E-L-O-A-D" from this murder dictionary!
Hack Johnson, has to show cause today and you don't!
I wonder, does Pac-Man make people want to go around eating yellow dots?
Shouldn't firearms be banned in America? I know this is an unpopular thing to say in America but it works in the UK.. they tend to use knives instead :oP
BlackPhoenix: And the people in the UK that do stab each other have a per capita rate of twice the US. You're still trying to kill each other. It's not right to punish law abiding gun owners when a vast majority of the murders here (and I'm sure most of the stabbings in the UK) are violent criminals killing other violent criminals. If anything, the war on drugs is to blame for the violence, not access to weapons.
For example:
The Oxnard School Shooting
http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-oxnard15feb15,0,7663055.story
Hate Crime, but no mention of violent video games. Could it be fear that attention would be drawn away from the accusations of violent video games to what or who taught the kid bigotry and hate?
The recent Alabama case mentioned recently on GP.
Single victim. No other potential problems that could overshadow blaming video games, so they were blamed.
The mall shooting where a certain someone claims to have sued the police to obtain information on the shooter's gaming habits and exposures. Nothing else could surface to overshadow the claim as a controversy. So blaming games is "safe". The Truth will over shadow it, but that's a different story.
And the recent church shootings. People were claiming that he "hated Christians", but the backstory indicates that, among other issues, the shooter may have been abused verbally, mentally, and even physically throughout his life by, at the least, his Parents who did so using religion as a justification. So, since the potential for OTHER controversies that were not desired to be brought forth, little, if anything, was spoken about video games being to blame. And of course, plenty of blaming his "hate of Christians" and overshadowing WHY he may have developed such hate was pushed on the public.
So, there is a strategy behind it as well.
After all, Leland Yee, Mr. "I'm a child psychologist and violent video games are bad for kids", had nothing to say about that Oxnard shooting and the effects of teaching bigotry and hate to kids. And good 'ol Governor Arnie, Mr. "we'll defend the video game legislation to the top court", had nothing to say either.
Nightwng2000
NW2K Software
It is all too easy to blame videogames if the shooter or stabber was a person under the age of 30,
However it is more harder to blame Videogames if the shooter or stabber is OVER to age of 40.
Simple truth is that 80 percent of the population want simple answers, so they blame Videogames.
20 percent of people know that there are no such things as simple answers, so they go to the efforts to DO the research and find that Videogames have no direct link to the murder,
Sadly 80 percent of people will believe simple answers because they can't understand the complicated language...
it's the 80/20 model that is working here...and the 80% model is governed by the Mass Media and what they can spew to the general population with little or no evidence at all.
If anyone has any better answers that they can add onto mine, please write and join in.
Shouldn’t firearms be banned in America? I know this is an unpopular thing to say in America but it works in the UK.. they tend to use knives instead
==================
No, they shouldn't. And this is coming from someone that despite owning several guns, I have never kept one loaded in the house and have never carried them with me outside of the house, other than to go hunting or target shooting. Between the both thats like 4 times a year I'll even take out my guns.
When I do take them out, I generally have fun. I used to be a very avid hunter, but that has waned in recent years. In all honesty, I would not feel a very big loss if I was without guns.
But I would still refuse to let government take them away just on principle. I have no problem with them restricting me from carrying them on anyone's property that doesn't want them on their property, but to ban them, no. I don't care if it's a $1 rubber duck my dog has chewed up, the government will not come in and take it. Especially not guns that cost $400 or more.
We don't need more government control of guns, we need less stupid people (a better public education system would be the best start I can think of). If they did outlaw guns, and they became like drugs in this country, no one would have trouble finding them anyway. All the people that you really didn't want to have have guns would still have them, so there is really no point in gutting the constitution to allow such a thing to happen.
The 80/20 model exists because society and modern civilizations in general have reached the point of complexity where it's impossible to know anything about everything. How many people really know how the government works? If it weren't for the moles and rats we would all be ignorant about the politicians as the politicians are ignorant about video games.
Think of it like your own body. Your brain would the er, brains of the whole operation. It doesn't know exactly how your other organs work, it just sends "orders". It's a whole intricate system where each organ just has to "know" their own duty and nothing else. And if there's a serious problem with your body, you just go to the doctor and expect simplified answers without the all the medical mumbo-jumbo.
Same way with our society. The teachers don't have to give a crap about workers in Starbucks that give them their coffee, or the construction workers that help prop up their schools. Modern society is just too much to take in, and it will grow complex to the point where decay and dumbing down is the better option.
Less stupid people won't do much good. The article here claims that the shooter was 'very intelligent'--usually these kinds of killers are. I'd say that intelligence inflates their sense of self-importance and actually help leads to these killings.
The problem is that these people are mentally ill, screwed up in the head to the point that they need to be either locked up or undergo thorough treatment. And certainly not allowed to buy pistols or rifles, which is an issue of our background checks not being nearly thorough enough.
The problem with that is that often everyone is shocked that a person did such a thing. With most people, nobody knew they were batshit insane until they went and did something crazy. So I wouldn't expect that to solve many problems. Although, it would have stopped that VTech shooting, that kid was crazy.
BTW, I have trouble considering anyone who kills people smart. I think that's giving them too much credit.
There are background checks and waiting periods- I had to jump through all kinds of hoops when I bought a gun...and was happy to do so.
The fact that these nutjobs were able to get firearms suggests that either someone did something illegal, or the system itself is useless.
I was talking to my father once. I'm the youngest and I'm in my 30's, so suffice it to say my parents have had the luxury of relaxing by and large for some time. He basically described it as something everyone goes through. There's a phase when kids are physically kids, and when they're teenagers they may not be kids anymore, but their parents still think they are. The point is, most parents eventually realize that their kids getting hurt isn't the end of the world. In fact, occasionally getting hurt is part of growing up. At which point they eventually relax a little bit. If you think about it, that explains 1-20. 20-30 is just statistical evidence people use to make their cases for legislation to protect 1-20.
That, to me, is a big part of why you tend to see a knee-jerk conservative reaction to violence among the young. However, it is irrational. Let's face it, most of us are more statistically likely to die in violent car accidents then we are to get shot by some wierdo who just snapped. There's only been one shooting that I can think of within 100 miles of where I live in the last two years, and that was at the new life church. (I know that means nothing to people who aren't in my area, but anyone who's even remotely familiar with new life shouldn't be the least bit surprised that somebody shot the place up. It's almost symbolic of the worst kind of conservative christian.)
Basically, the second amendment was in part created to allow people to protect their own liberties if the government were to become corrupt enough. It's more than just trying to protect your home. The issue is that the laws aren't being correctly enforced. The majority of these shootings involve guns acquired illegally.
But the issue of this article is how blame is shifted so much. The media seems to be unable to comprehend that young people are just as capable of killing as older people are without video games. People will kill, it's going to happen, it happens all of the time. But people always have a hard time accepting that someone they know is capable of doing something like this. They tend to look for a reason, and there are sadly too many people willing to point at video games when it is someone young.
Don't forget that plenty of liberals are on this same bandwagon. The big-brother/nanny state folks are just as vocal in blaming games...the belief is that people aren't responsible for their actions and must be protected by the government.
This just makes me belive that we need to have stricter gun laws more than anything. Then again, this man had a clean criminal record and as far as we know no reported pyschological symptoms of something...So he could've passed it anyways.
The decision gets handed down today, I think. It'll take time for it to be disseminated.
-P
Also, I haven't heard of any of these guys having illegally obtained the guns. Some took them from their parents, others just purchased them. Some are saying that they COULD have gotten them illegally if they had been blocked, but if you are about to choot up a campus, you can't really ask around where you can buy a lot of guns.
I might be nieve, but I doubt I could find a black market around where I am, and it is considered a pretty violent city (as seens on COPS, fairly often [not that I ever watched COPS]).
There should be a flag somewhere as "Too crazy to buy a gun." I don't see how it could be implemented or kept up, may not even be a good idea. Banning guns won't work. For one, everyone here is paranoid. If you give up your gun, you don't have anything to protect you from someone who hasn't given up their gun.
My point is that people will find a way to get a gun if you want one.
House prohibits open carry on campus
http://media.www.dailyutahchronicle.com/media/storage/paper244/news/2008...
Imagine if there were MORE.
Then:
Preparation gone wrong
http://media.www.dailytarheel.com/media/storage/paper885/news/2008/03/03...
Yeah, having more guns around would have helped a lot.
Had it been real, some would say not enough guns.
Had there been more guns and they shot the fake gunman, there would be too many.
The old line about hindsight is never more true than in these situations. There can never be a real winning argument because there can never be a perfect outcome.
Nightwng2000
NW2K Software
The only thing I can truly think of that would at least help to curb this kind of violence would be to require everyone who wants to purchase a gun to go through a simple psychological evaluation. But that would only cover the crazies who are trying to BUY guns, what about the crazies who already own guns?
Now, in order to own and fire a gun, in general, you'd need a gun license, right? But that's only in each state, correct? If I'm not, then someone please correct me.
Otherwise, there's only one real solution I can think of, though it would be opposed by gun advocates. Have each state have a gun license that would require, among other things, a short psychological evaluation, and renewal every 4 years or so, kinda like a driver's license. Of course, in order to get this done, the politicians would have to realize that it's not the "violent video games ZOMG Doom!" that are behind these shootings, but psychological illness and access to guns, like Dennis said.
The REAL reason politicians refuse to do this is because it would rile up the gun advocates, and videogames are played by the younger generations, which is a group that the politicians, and the narrow group of constituents that they really pay attention to, have fallen out of touch with and don't understand. And of course, if you don't understand it, then it must be evil and must be completely vaporized.
there's degrees of mental illness, and as such there are certain degrees where a person is more likely to slip further into the illness and "snap".
Nobody here is saying that everyone who has any kind of mental illness of any degree should not own a gun, and is liable to go on a rampage.
Look at the history of rampage killers. Most were mentally ill, some severely mentally ill. Most either took medication or went undiagnosed. Of course not all of them would have been labeled a threat, but there is a connection, and one that makes far more sense as at least part of a cause than violent videogames.
But then people say psychology. Well my problem with psychology is that looks at the person mental health rather than looking at the course of events in his life. If you constantly provoke a dog, by hitting it with a stick and then it bites you, Dont tell me that the dog has a mental illness. Similarly with all these types of stories all we know is the part "the dog bit a human" aka "Person X committed Y."
All I am saying is this, use the Mental illness argument when it qualifies but not for every single damn time some horrific event occurs. Maybe in this case he did have a Mental Illness or maybe not. I bet all of you have rationalized or justified a reason to do something horrible to someone, School Hazing, Bullying, Pranks, getting revenge and etc. That doesnt mean all of you have a mental illness although many of you would claim to have one just use it as a scapegoat, "oh I have a mental illness" that is my excuse.
I understand
I am just hoping people will stop throwing around mental illness every time something horrible happens. After all we are not calling every single person that is committing terrorist attacks in Iraq, mentally ill. Although I know some people wouldnt hesitate
Bad boy! No being allowed to be the voice of reason! :)
It's not fashionable to talk of personal responsibility because then you can't blame something you detest for someone's repulsive action. ;)
The difference here is that it happened at a SCHOOL. I think that the REAL age line is around 21, but because this incident happened at a school, very few people were educated about the actual age of the shooter.
They'd say: All this person ever did was knock around that poor little pixle.It tailored him to be violent, and he unleashed his violence all over that school. Don't blame him; blame pong for driving him over the edge of sanity.
@JadedCritic
Thank you, you've basically said what I was planning to. I'm not on medication but I've had extremely severe depression (currently only background) and frankly if it weren't for games, I'd be fucked up in every way rather than just most ways.