neoseeker is graet i always find what im looking for so thats it short and sweet

Oh jeeeee! Video games did NOT have anything to do with him going balistic, wow, what a surprise!

The thing that is so *bleep*ed about that is that schools want people to think video games can effect peoples mental health, they CANNOT! Not unless you are mentally unstable in the first godamn place...it sickens me everytime I hear about schools with their panzy video game shit talking...ugh.....

Someone should shoot up the ESRB board and have some mental health expert state that it wasn't video games that caused it, but the rating on those brought that violence about.

Or perhaps society should stop using video games as the scape goat for violence. Kids in the Middle East who have never played a video game go around carrying guns to defend their homes from an army that comes from half way around the world to preach freedom with a bullet.

Who's really to blame?

Preahc freedom wit ha bullet? Dude...have you even considered the fact that the kids who caryr the guns are trained to hate anything aside from violance? get your facts straight, dude.

Duh. I propose a toast to the victory of reason.

So some kid from an indigent family living on welfare in some suburban city scrawl over in any place USA must have joined that street gang and started packin' a 9mm because of Halo 2 and Call of Duty?

There have been creditable studies that have proven that video games do not incite violent behavior in psychologically stable individuals. Video games can exacerbate and bring forth anti-social and violent tendencies in unstable individuals, but it is rare and has more to do with that individuals social and home life than anything.

But when some political suit gets up behind a podium and blindly blames video games for all of the violence ion the world, when an arm chair psychologist with some poorly written book and a degree earned from a college that advertises in the back of match book covers claims that video games are the root of all violence and evil in the world, where are those few people in the world with the common sense to ask them how the majority of shooting deaths are committed by individuals who have never even seen a video game.

Honestly, I feel that only police and the military should have guns. No hunting rifles (I buy my steaks at the butcher shop and not from the forest), no sport shooting (buy an old NES with a light gun and play 'Duck Hunt') and no home protection with fire arms (call the cops, get a big dog, don't sleep with an AK under your pillow at night for fear of terrorists coming to steal your new $69 dollar DVD player and walk on your pristine lawn).

Hmmm, I kinda feel like shooting some bad guys in Quake Wars or something.

Micah, you're an idiot. You are right on with the video games business, but people not owning guns would be disasterous.

Hunting for one, would cause animals like deer, turkeys and other hunting game, to overpopulate areas and cause a huge amount ofdeath dew to starvation. this would cause disease because of the huge amount of rotting corpes. So we HAVE to hunt, in order to keep things in balance. Second, you don;t hunt cows, you fool.

Then, what happens if your home is broken into? Will you allow that person to steel your things and then, possably, kill you? This is especially true if they ahve a gun, most roberies like that end in the death of the home owner. So that is two strikes against your liberalistic theorys.

Strike three is that what you are talking about with all this gun control, is Socialism. Not freedom. The constitution CLEARLY states you, as a private citizen, have the right to Bare arms. Or in other words, own guns. To say that people do not have that right is a vile and very disturbing thing to say. it just reeks of Democratic nonsense and, quiet frankly, is why this country is so messed up in the first place.

I understand your points when it came to the Game issue, but the other part of your post is, simply put, Idiotic and rather Narrow minded.

Hmmm, I have the right to 'bare arms'. I guess having a Gatling gun in my front yard would be fine, right?

Home robberies are most often committed by individuals looking for something they can sell to buy illicit narcotics or kids just looking for a thrill and a few extra bucks. It's not some cloak and dagger dudes dressed in black toting Glock's with silencers and laser scopes.

Besides, there's types of window glass (more expensive than the regular) that is unbreakable. Dead bolts and locks on doors work well. Extra long/large screws in the doors strike plate and hinges would have someone break their shoulder or foot if they tried to kick and pound it open.

I still like the idea of a big dog though. German Sheppard's are nice and they'll die defending their pack.

As for hunting; nature has existed for millions of years without humans going out and controlling the populations of the species. There wouldn't be rotting carcases everywhere nor would there be mass starvation.

But to the subject; video games don't cause violent behavior. It's people with unstable personalities that are responsible for violent acts. Guns only serve to feed their violent tendencies by giving them a simple and undeniable method of control over those other they feel are holding them back.

Guns don't kill people, people kill people, guns unfortunatlly make it easier to do so.

lol...good points. But do not insult me by telling me that robbers are not claok and dager kind of people. I KNOW that. Also, Buying a gattleling gun is illegal. So your first state, again, is rather stupid. Also, humans have been around for millions of years too, and we have hunted for millions of years.

We do not "Control" the population deliberatly, you know. It is just that is a effect of taking an animal for food (I do not think sport hunting is really good, as it tends to waste most of the meat). And yes their would be a large amount of rotting corpes, and yes their would be mass starvation. In case you havent noticed, food supplies to tend to dwindle as a species becomes more and more numerous. Couple that with the fact that Nature depends on a certain balance, one maintained by a equal existance of animals, would be destroyed if hunting stopped. Their are no predetors that have significant enough numbers to control a raging Deer population.

Now I agree with you house control idea, fine what ever, get the glass, and the dog.

Now, your Gattlegun theory, is again, a bit disturbing. I also find it very anoyying that you feel the need to patronize me for puting forth LOGIC instead of a few ideas and some thin Data. You gotta look at the hole picture, dude, not tjust the hippie version.

lol...good points. But do not insult me by telling me that robbers are not claok and dager kind of people. I KNOW that. Also, Buying a gattleling gun is illegal. So your first state, again, is rather stupid. Also, humans have been around for millions of years too, and we have hunted for millions of years.

We do not "Control" the population deliberatly, you know. It is just that is a effect of taking an animal for food (I do not think sport hunting is really good, as it tends to waste most of the meat). And yes their would be a large amount of rotting corpes, and yes their would be mass starvation. In case you havent noticed, food supplies to tend to dwindle as a species becomes more and more numerous. Couple that with the fact that Nature depends on a certain balance, one maintained by a equal existance of animals, would be destroyed if hunting stopped. Their are no predetors that have significant enough numbers to control a raging Deer population.

Now I agree with you house control idea, fine what ever, get the glass, and the dog.

Now, your Gattlegun theory, is again, a bit disturbing. I also find it very anoyying that you feel the need to patronize me for puting forth LOGIC instead of a few ideas and some thin Data. You gotta look at the hole picture, dude, not tjust the hippie version.

Sorry for the double post..

Hey! I played Sonic the Hedgehog a few years ago. Now I am a crazed psychopath bent on mass murder! WOOT!

Sonic mad you crazy?

Do you now run around collecting spinning golden rings?

Mario made me crazy.

I can't keep myself from jumping on turtles and kicking them to knock people over. I constantly eat red flowers believing that they'll invoke me with some pryo-kenetic ability. I now wander the sewers looking for spare change and a way out.

But on the plus side, I've rescued over 40 princesses that were once held captive by malevolent/obese dinosaurs with really bad hair and a rigid case of Psoriasis upon their back. I've married all of them, but still can't stand the green mushrooms they insist upon feeding me.

Hmmm, I'm seeing stars!

Micah, grow up. Now you're patronizing people, and honestly, not well. You either have to go back to school, or grow back your brain.

Ummm, a decade plus of really expensive education in the realms or writing and psychology was enough for me. Plus the IQ test in grade ten that had teachers trying to place me in advanced classes and teach me University level calculus indicates some measure of cerebral significance beyond the norm. Or enough at least to have some merit with my words

But it is in no way patronizing to expose the extreme absurdities of a subject to people. It is in fact a proven sign of higher intelligence to have the capabillity of conveying a point or subject to someone in different and or unusual contexts. It's called a constructive imagination if I am to recall. No one has ever conclusively demonstrated a link between video games and real world violence. Nor as anybody found any correlation between one kid jumping off a bridge because all of their friends did, but we'll leave bungie jumping and base jumping out oof the equation for now. Sonic the Hedgehog doesn't make you crazy, nor does Mario , or Contra, or Halo, or Call or Duty ot any other game for that matter.

Conversely, there have been studies (I've read them and many others) that do find relation between real world violence and the violence in television and movies (though quite low), the violence displayed in the media and news (serves to desensitize individuals to the scenery and effects of violence) and unstable parent/children (poor parenting that fails to instill certain moral values and traits in their children) relationships.

It's these factors that cause violence in North American society and some other parts of the world, as does the capitalist dream that divides us into the 'Haves' and 'Have Nots' . We'll leave the Middle East out of it because they're suffering from the ills of an invading force bent saving their hopefully to become Christian souls under the guise of freedom and democracy whilst being promised a better life if they are to sacrifice their own for some warlord or despot who's chauffeured around in an armored car with a dozen body guards to protect their own ass.

Virginia Tech was a sad case of one young man who had been made to feel alienated and inferior his supposed piers, taking those easily accessible weapons in hand to try and gain some social strength over those others who he felt were keeping him down. Columbine was the result of some kids who likely had a fractured home life whilst being shunned by fellow students because they didn't wear the right clothes or drive a nice car or comb their hair a certain way or weren't line backers on the football team.

Video games are the scape goat for violence simply because no creditable arm chair therapist with a poorly written book wants to alienate his readers/patients by saying that those individuals who commit these acts may have some form or another or mental health problem. Furthermore, no parent wants to hear that it's their poor parenting or lack or parenting skills that are to blame for the violence in youth of today.

Though my Mario reference may seem and absurd and patronizing, only an individual who can actual see the real root of the problem would ever make such a comment. Those who are oblivious to the origin of the problem will blame video games and vote for Hilliary Clinton.

I was refering to your mario referance, but also...you actualyl seem to understand most of what is going on. lol. Though your views on guns suggest under development of your brain. Other than that. you are right, as for hilary, she can rot in hell. As for your comment on the military, goddamnit man. First off, their is no intention of conversion to christianity, second. What the hell is with you? Theo nly reason that our military is over is because THEY HIJACKED OUR plane and CRASHEd them into the world trade center and pentagon. So tell me, why is it wrong to go and get rid of these people who used our planes, to kill our people. Why?

I do not plan to ever talk politics in any of these comment sections...but I just have to here: The dudes who hijacked the 9-11 planes had NO LINK to anyone in Iraq. All the suspected hijackers were from Saudi Arabia, United Arab Emirates, Lebanon or Egypt. If you are referring to a bunch of people as 'them' based on choice of religion, that also doesn't make sense. Every culture, race and religion has it's own nutballs. Just because 2 people share the same religion doesn't make them the same. This isn't quantum entanglement we are talking about here.

Saying what you just said is like saying if five crazy guys flew over from Iceland and knifed a bunch of people, our entire country should attack Iceland. That just doesn't make sense.

I'm not going to bother responding to any political comments... there really isn't much point to arguing stuff like this.

"Naturally, the common people don't want war ... but after all it is the leaders of a country who determine the policy, and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy, or a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in every country."
--Nazi war-criminal HERMANN GOERING

Again, Ummm, the hijackers of Sept 11th were mostly from Afghanistan and Saudi Arabia and other middle eastern notions, only 1 was born in Iraq, but later immigrated to Afiginistan. There are a lot of Christian groups over in Iraq trying to save the souls of those supposed Muslim heathens. Isn't a Christian Bible standard Army issue for the US Military? Doesn't 'In God we Trust' grace American currency? Saddam Hussein used to be one of Americas greatest allies in that region, and was in fact placed into power by previous administrations, one of which had a politician by the name of Donald Rumsfeld who help Saddam come to power to provide some measure of regional stability in that region by scaring others into order with guns and bombs supplied by the United States.

Osama was a buddy of the American administration for the longest time, receiving funding and weapons from the US to prevent the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan. It was only when Osama wasn't receiving enough money from his US allies that were setting up capitalist shop in his own country did this supposed falling out between allies occur.

It's all there in the history books. Unfortunately, the US tends to rewrite history. Like the high school text books that said Sputnik was a missile, and how Napoleon won the battle of Waterloo and how America apparently won he War of 1812 when they tried to invade Canada.

Hilliary Clinton is just doing what a politician does best, taking a small issue, leaping on the constituency bandwagon and grasping the reigns in some attempt to appear that they are at the fore front of this issue and that votes have nothing to do with their rantings.

"Though your views on guns suggest under development of your brain."

Since when does ones personal point of view on any given subject denote a lacking or abundance of intelligence? Could I not say that people who like the color blue are abnormally, undeniably and unquestionably stupid? That is ones personal preference. If it is their view that blue is the greatest color in the world, then they are entitled to that view.

It is my personal view that guns cause far more harm than hey do good. It is up to society as a whole to say it is a fact that guns are bad or guns or good. Society has yet to do so and likely never will because of differing points of view.

It is a fact that game animals that are hunted for sport or food never reach their habitat capacity due almost exclusively to harsh weather conditions thinning the heard allowing only the strongest to survive. It is a fact that hunting does not prevent overpopulation of wild species nor prevents rotting carcases from spreading disease. The amount of game species killed each year represents less than 2% of any given species (bear, elk, moose, deer, duck). Resorce species such as salmon are different, plus no one goes fishing for Pink Eye with a .22 rifle. Could be interesting to try though. That's an insignificant portion that will not have a profound affect upon the greater populace or the environment in which it lives. Every species (except humans) is self regulating in its population. Humans don't have to thin the herds at all.

It is my personal view (and apparently yours as well) that video games do not cause violent behavior in individuals. Furthermore, there is not enough creditable evidence to even begin to suggest that it would be a fact that video games do cause violence. There will come a day soon when it is determined once and for all that video games DO NOT cause violence is everybody who plays them, but can motivate a select few unstable individuals to commit violent acts.

It is a fact that I do have a brain that holds a great deal of factual information acrued from extensive education in a viriety of sciences, arts and engineering that would allow me to form my own personal view and or opinion as I have been doing by expressing my opinions and stating facts.

It it a fact that you have a brain as well that allows you to form a great many of opinions which you express as or perhaps believe as fact. Not to insult you at all, I rather enjoy the mental ally simulating discussions such as these, but what facts have you presented thus far. They all seem to be you opinions which you are entitled to, but no opinion in the world will hold credit in a scientific study upon the physiological linking between violence and video games.

Yeah, I don't like guns, the war in Iraq is stupid and I don't believe video games cause violent behavior.

Am I wrong or an idiot or needing to grow a brain for conveying my own personal views and opinions on the subjects when you don't agree with my views and or opinions?

Psychological fact: people who place labels upon other such as racist or homosexual or stupid are more often than not doing so in attempt to deny those traits that they see in themselves. Racists call other people racist to excuse the fact that they are racist themselves. Men who call other men gay do so because of their own latent homosexual tendencies. And only someone who has admitted to themselves that they are not as smart as they would like to be would ever call someone else stupid.

Lol. Has it occured to anyone that Sadam FUNDED those people? and that iraq was part of the whole terror network? you want the job done right, or not?

Do you have FACTUAL proof that Saddam funded Al Qaeda? All evidence points to no connection between the two.

There is FACTUAL proof that the US government and CIA had funded Saddam and Al Qaeda in the past.

Read some modern history (the past 30-40 years should do it).

Oh, and wasn't the subject of this thread violence in video games and not modern global conflicts, or are you (no denigration intended) going to continue to try and voice your opinion as fact until someone or something somewhere somehow concedes some form or another a defeat in your persistent opinion which has yet to see one valid fact placed forth? Your uber-patriotic responses are getting a little tiresome. You're certainly entitled to your opinion and I don't questions your opinion, just your denial of facts.

Facts...well what about those aluminum tubes? LOL...sorry,sorry, last post ever on the subject...

Of course video games had nothing to do with. They should look into the quack who was shoving pills down the kids throat for that. How about solid evidence that antidepressants worsen disorders as opposed to the evidence that video games don't. Geez, what a bunch of mouth-breathers.

Um, Micah, do not insult me. I never once really insulted you. Besides Have you even looked at the real picture. goddamnit person. If you don't wanan give in fine, I am not trying to make you give in. I am just stating fact. And as for Modern history,guess what! it is not TRUE history, as key elements have been removed.

Also, have you noticed how Saddam harbored Al Quieda.

Anyways. I will end my posting on this note. I feel gratified you feel like you lost, your flaming little posts about me not believing fact and not giving any facts, coupled with your obviously hurt ego, make me happy.

Micah, A side note, your post just above Kspiess has only 2 sentances in it, when in fact, it should really have 3 or 4. Didn't they teach you grammer in those schools?

Didn't they teach you math in yours; there's three sentences if you'd take time to look for those two periods and one question mark which indicate the end of a sentence.

And grammar has to do with the construction of a sentence, not with its length. Providing that the verbs and nouns and conjunctive portions of a sentence are used properly there there is no fault whatsoever in how I have chosen to articulate myself. I will admit though that I can quite often pour a collections of well crafted words upon the page to illustrate a point that is both logical and understandable despite the abnormally long length.

Oh, and did they not teach you spelling in your schools? Grammar is spelled 'grammar', and not 'grammer' Grammer is a city in Indiana.

Wow, Micah. Couldn't stand it could you? Couldn't be a real man and walk away. Maybe it is time we both did. I tried, yet you seemed determined to pick at me.

Wouldn't that mean you are not very mature? Don't they say that mature men walk away when they have to? I had no intension of furthering this conversation (if you can call it that) and simply let it drop, happy to move on. But no, you just had to get the last word in.

I am sorry that you feel the need to make yourself feel bigger than me by not letting it drop. I am also sorry to see you cannot rectafy your own intelligence, so you must pick on mine. I am, again, sorry that I even started talking on this thread. If I had known it would have turned into a "one-up" fest. I would have never started to begin with.

I was hoping, Micah, that you would have shown your Intelligence, and simply let it go. So, you have shown you do not know when to end it. What else can I do but simply insult you now?

I could walk away, something you are not familiar with, evidently. Further, it is considered bad manners to exhault your intelligence.

As my final, parting word I say this. I hope you learn something from this, not that you can type well, or that you can spell well, or that you are smart, but that sometimes keeping your voice silent is the best course of action. If you want to Flaunt your Debating skills, then do not break one of the cardinal rules of debate. Let me refrase, do not go into a blind rage and simply degrade yourself into reapeted attacks on a persons' intelligence. That, to me, signifies defeat, the unwillingness to conceade, even when it may be best to do so. And finally, it shows me that, indeed, I won. I have never been insulted quite as greatly as just now, Micah, honestly I hope it never happens again. I hope you feel good now, though, as you have finally "won". I am not coming back to this discussion, enjoy your "victory".

Joe--

Micah, Joe, et alius,

I have read through the comments here and have resisted responding until now but I feel that I should make some comments at this point in rebuttal.

The first one that comes to mind is the comment about hunting affecting only about two percent of the wildlife population. With the stringent controls placed on hunting, that may be accurate. After all, one needs to obtain a hunting license each year for the season in which he wishes to hunt (other than certain types of game such as foxes, quail, pheasant, dove, rabbit, and so forth). Any larger game (such as bears, deer, elk, etc.) needs a license and also has an associated limit as well as a restriction on the methods that may be employed by the hunter (bow and arrow, crossbow, rifle, and so forth). Fishing also requires a license and has a limit on the amount of fish that can be caught as well as a minimum size restriction. All these stipulations are put in place to control the animal population. If they were not there, the various species could very easily be hunted to extinction.

Also, the reason that hunting is permitted for certain animals without restriction is that they are so prevalent in the wild that to do otherwise would allow them to propagate to over-abundance and cause problems such as starvation due to the food supply available in the wild not being able to support the overpopulation of the animals, the spread of disease from the rotting corpses, and other problems. When the population drops to the level at which the species may be threatened if the unlimited hunting is continued, restrictions are put in place. If the population continues to dwindle, they are made a protected species.

Another point that stuck in my craw is when one said there is a "low correlation" between violence on TV and in movies and violence in the real world. A "low correlation" is no correlation at all. For there to be a correlation, the coincidence of the two events must be above the law of averages. That has not yet been proven in any scientific study with which I am familiar. Instead, it has been shown that only on occasion do the two events (one who commits acts of violence also being one who has watched many violent sources of audio-visual media) appear together in the investigation of a heinous act. As an example of an erroneous "low correlation," just because it is cloudy one day or another does not mean that it will rain each of those days based only on the fact that there are always clouds in the sky when it rains. It is all too common for people nowadays to find "correlations" where there are none.

The third issue that I noticed is speaking of home defense: unbreakable glass, large guard dog, deadbolt locks, long screws holding the strike plates, etc. That is all well and good but the only thing is that there is no such thing as "unbreakable" glass. All glass is breakable in one way or another. If one wants "bulletproof" glass, then the windows will be especially thick (such as commercial jet wind screens that are up to four inches thick) and that is not economically feasible nor would it be realistic due to weight and the fact that the windows would have to be specially made and would require special installation. Besides, even if the windows are built that solid, one could easily circumvent the security by driving a car through the house either at the site of the window or elsewhere, in which case the extra-thick glass will do nothing. (Unrealistic security measures can easily be defeated by unrealistic acts. After all, a criminal who wants to rob a house is not going to make enough noise to wake the dead by ramming a car through an external house wall, just like no one is going to have bulletproof windows.)

Plastic windows, while lighter, would still not provide any better protection. Further, the thicker the plastic is, the harder it is to see through, diminishing the primary purpose for a home window. Add to this the same problems above (special manufacturing, special installation, additional engineering of the house wall to support the excessive weight, and the list continues), the plastic windows are just as unrealistic as their glass counterparts discussed above.

Guard dogs are very little protection as they can be subdued very easily and, if they are trained to attack as a true guard dog would be, it has to be able to reach its target (the intruder). If the intruder keeps a partially opened door or other obstacle in the way, the intruder can still subdue the dog with a tranquilizer gun, regular gun, mace/pepper spray, or even a tazer gun.

continued...

As for the deadbolt, that is good for keeping honest people out but if it is mounted in the typical wooden door frame that is most commonly found in houses and apartments here in the US, it actually will be of greater benefit than a deterrent. The reason being that the bolt is a solid bar that will help the criminal break the door jamb as he uses whatever device (such as his shoulder as has been suggested) to provide brute force to breach the doorway. Long screws will do nothing to assist this. If the criminal has a battering ram or other solid device to help multiply his effort, the entry will be breached that much more quickly and easily, especially with a deadbolt lock.

Deadbolts are good security against those who attempt to pick locks, especially those said to "double lock," assuming that the occupant actually uses the lock in the first place. The reason is that they are a mechanical device that must be turned to be disengaged, not just have some tumblers manipulated to disengage the lockout mechanism so the handle can be turned. It is very difficult (though not impossibly so) to turn a deadbolt with a lock pick, even more so for those that "double lock." (Double-locking, for those who are not familiar with this, as it is not as common here in the US as it is over in Europe, means that the deadbolt handle can be turned not just once but twice to lock it. The bolt does not move any further during the second turn but, instead, adds greater security because one who picks the lock has to do so again when he finds that it is still locked after being rotated the first time. This nearly doubles the amount of time and effort that is needed to unlock that deadbolt.)

While I do not advocate the idea of shooting first and asking questions later, considering the fact that the commonality of home invasions being committed by those who have guns and the large number of home invasions that end in serious injury or death due to shots being fired by the intruders, it makes me feel safer knowing that I have something with which to defend myself at range against attack by someone else who can assault me at range. Picking up a knife or a pair of scissors will be of little threat to someone who can stand on the other side of the room and shoot me dead. Besides this, if laws were put in place so that "no one" could have guns, that would make the criminals feel more at ease to do what they wanted. They would still have their guns (all too often they did not get them legally anyway, so what is to stop them from continuing to do so if more silly gun control laws are put in place?) and those they attack--the law-abiding citizens--would be sheep just waiting to be slaughtered. This would allow criminals to do more with less fear of paying the ultimate price to those whom they attempt to victimize.

Thus, in my opinion, all gun control laws should be repealed save for the laws restricting age of purchase. This will make the criminals feel more wary about breaking into a home because it could be their last act. Further, I feel that if someone does enter the home without being announced and does so in such a way to make a person feel threatened for his safety, that person should be protected by the law for any actions that he takes rather than potentially become a defendant in any civil or criminal action.

Oh, as for calling the police, I laugh at this. I have seen first-hand all too often how "quickly" the police respond to life-threatening 911 calls. The most recent example I witnessed was a call that I made and with which I stayed on the line while we waited for the cops to arrive. A girl was screaming for help while she had an ex-boyfriend trying to break in her door. I called 911 to get the cops on the way and the 911 operator could hear the screams in the background. Finally, the boyfriend did break in the door and attacked her. However, others who were nearby (a group of four guys) took it upon themselves to go help this girl and held the ex-boyfriend down until the cops arrived. It took them 30 minutes to show up though their office was only about one mile away from the location of this incident and the patrol radius for that office is about three miles. They did come with lights on but not at anything more than a normal patrol speed. By the time they got there, the girl could have been dead or the assailant could have been gone. Fortunately for the cops (and the girl, of course), the four guys stayed there and literally sat on top of the attacker until the cops arrived en masse (three cars containing six cops showed up all at once) and took the guy into custody.

If this is the state of law enforcement in the US, which it all too often is as I have seen in various parts of the US while working contracts for major corporations and federal agencies, I will take the chances with defending myself.

concluded...

Now most of this is more political and unrelated to the original issue, which was the fact that yet another investigation bore out the fact that violence committed by an individual cannot be tied to violence in video games. Thus, I will wrap this up and not comment further. I wished only to put forth actual facts since it seemed to me that they were in little supply in the discussion up to this point.

Best Wishes to all!

Very valid points Cillchaoi.

And you did in fact touch upon the root of the discussion; violence in video games.

Yes, there has been no substantial correleation brought forth by any mental health expert to bolster nor diminish the affects of violent video games and media upon individuals. Though some have hinted towards a link, none have yet to expose it.

Humans can be violent creatures without argument. But that violence in individuals is more often than not a issue of the society in which they live. If we're all human, then why do people in one country commit the crimes that people in another country would never commit?

Society.

It's the morals and ethics of the land that dictate the morals and ethics of its citizens. If one country is peaceful and tolerant, then their citizens will be so. As would be the case for a society that is arrogant and proud, or bigoted and racist or violent and oppressive.

It's society that causes crime and violence and pain, not video games.

Thanks for your extensive comments Cillchaoi. You make many strong, valid points, and it is a credit to your views that your are able to outline them so well.

One thing that I would like to point out, (not in relation to gun control) is that many people do not realize that if you look at stastics, violence in youth is actually much lower today than it was even 10 years ago.

And 10 years ago many of the games that some people say promote violent behaviour, such as 3d games like Grand Theft Auto, and Counterstrike, etc.. were not released.

The time-limited media outlets, such as almost anything on television, and some talk radio, and many magazines, are always looking for easy, tangible things to blame violence on. They are just not able to really go into a subject beyond the basics. So we have all the 'video games causing violence' headlines. It does not make good Tv to have Oprah or Doctor Phil talk about the origin's of violence in human civilization, or the socio-economic factors in the prevalance of violence, or anything else that can not be summed up in less than 50 mins. I don't think many people actually believe that video games cause violence -- it is just something that gets people worked up, which in turn, creates a larger audience for that tv program / radio show / lawsuit plan etc.

Excellent point.

If Dr. Phil says it's bad parenting that causes violence in kids then he's going to loose a whole lot of readers who model their lives after his advice. Same with Oprah who heeds the advice of not alienating your base by blaming them for something they hate.

The real roots of violence are complex and can be explained with a single sentence. Unfortunately, there are complex anwsers which the vast majority of people don't want to hear as they want instant gratification for whatever it is they urn for.

Instant weight loss doesn't exist, no does an overnight cure for baldness. Get rich quick schemes are just that, schemes. People want this though; win the lottery and have millions, take one pill and solve all your problems or drop a single bomb to bring everlasting peace.

We have to work hard for those things we want, and if we want to understand the true roots of violence tendencies in people then we're going to have to work really hard to find the answer.

Blaming it on video games is just a quick excuse for simple people to preach as the more intelligent people take ample time to find the real answer.

Micah,

You are correct that it is through society morals and values that one can determine what is appropriate or inappropriate in regard to actions taken by a person in that society. For example, slaughtering a dog is something that is considered vile here in the US but elsewhere in the world (such as the Philippines), doing so is not anything more repulsive than us slaughtering a pig, as they eat dog meat.

However, that is still off the point. Society morals have nothing to do with the actions such as the topic of the article above: the killings at Virginia Tech. The morals of any society with which I am familiar dictate that mass murder such as what this kid did is wrong, so societal morals are a non-issue. Video games or other media that contain gratuitous violence is not an issue either since there is no credible evidence that links violence in the real world with the aforementioned gratuitous violence in games or on TV/in the movies nor is there any evidence that he was a frequent viewer of violent media. (A lack of evidence to support the hypothesis after a number of studies have been conducted to try to prove the hypothesis correct is evidence that the hypothesis is incorrect and, therefore, proves the opposite. Thus, your statement of "no substantial correleation [sic] brought forth by any mental health expert to bolster nor diminish the affects [sic]..." is erroneous.)

As for society causing crime, violence, and pain as opposed to video games, I would say that if the choices were between society and video games, I would side with society. However, rather than society, it is more accurately the actions taken by the members of society that cause crime, violence, and pain. If members of society abide by the morals and standards of proper conduct within that society, then there will be less of the vices previously mentioned. The largest problem that we have today is that people in this society have assumed an attitude of "entitlement" and as such have moved away from the traditional morals and values upon which this society was founded. It disgusts me to no end. To those who say, "if you hate it so much, why don't you leave," I shall say that it is my intention to do so once I have my affairs in order. That is part of the reason that I lived in Russia previously. I was in the process of preparing for permanent relocation to Russia.

Yes, Russia does have its own problems but the society, generally speaking, is much more successful and honorable than what I have seen here in the US over the past 20 years and I see no signs that things are going to get any better.

For those who might say, "but look at how poor they are," all I can say is that the propaganda shown to most Americans is inaccurate. Most Russians own their homes, a vast majority of them can drive and own cars to drive, live very comfortably, have nice clothes, stay in perfect health, and are happy in their lives. The sizes of their homes are smaller, which is common of most parts of the world. (In fact, it is said by many from other countries that Americans buy air, not homes. Their point being that American spend too much for having so much room in their homes. They see it as being inappropriate and ridiculously wasteful.)

Well, this is more than enough for now.

Best Wishes again!

Kspiess,

Thank you for the compliments and positive feedback. It is appreciated. :-)

As for what you said about the "games cause violence" TV talk show topic getting people worked up, all too often that is true. When I hear something like that, though, I roll my eyes and flip the channel to something more meaningful and educational: something like Home Improvement on TV Land (or whichever network it's on nowadays)! :-) If more people would do that and quit watching these ridiculous talk shows (and, while we're at it un-"reality" shows), there would be more quality programming on TV. Bye-bye, Dr. Phil. Hello Highlander! :-)

Lol. Home Improvement made me kill my parents. Heh, anyways, I believe that the root of all the problems with a persons mental stability lie with there society. Specifically there upbringing. (ex. parents, friends, where you grew up.
I also change the channel whenever I see some quack talking about the quick cure/blame games. Btw. I have several Russian friends and they all said they would rather live there than here. They said that most Americans are to paranoid for there own good. I agree *pulls out gatling gun*.