gaming Southington, Connecticut wants to destroy violent video games

[Hakureimiko 96]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TrGiFEM3QYE

http://www.ign.com/articles/2013/01/03/connecticut-town-will-collect-destroy-violent-games

 

Why can't parents just blame themselves instead of blaming something like video games instead?

 

This is basically like a modern day book burning.

 

This event deserves a.....

 

[Standard User 2,127]

This is basically like a modern day book burning.

 

I actually think that is a very eloquent way of putting it.

 

You've hit the nail right on the head: it all comes down to parenting. Sure, violent movies and games may put violent thoughts in children's heads. Okay then, parents, try this: TAKE THE GAME AWAY FROM YOUR KID. It's a no-brainer.

[Champion RD92 8,658]

Getting rid of violent video games isn't gonna solve the problem of crazy people going out and shooting people. Video games don't cause these incidents, it's people being fucked up in the head that causes them.

Edited January 4, 2013 by Champion RD92

[Steve 290]

i agree with all of you, violent video games dont make kids violent, and if they did, why am i not a pokemon trainer? why cant i jump 5 feet? why am i not faster than the speed of sound? why cant i build my world? why am i not an assassin? why am i not a racecar driver? why am i not good at the guitar or the drums?

 

i just dont understand why they blame material items? why not just blame the people and their sick minds, were human beings, we can all think for ourselves (with the exception of some special people) we always know what were doing, besides those derp moments where we throw away the spoon and put the plastic cup in the sink

 

you know what i mean

Edited January 4, 2013 by STVB

[Scootalove 10,692]

Ok, is the media just downright retarded? The removal of violent video games, isn't going to solve what happened in Newtown.

People having mental problems is the problem, or just the interaction of real guns like what the mom of the shooter had.

[PoisonClaw 8,174]

Why can't parents just blame themselves instead of blaming something like video games instead?

 

 

That is the purpose of a scapegoat, to impart the blame onto something else in order to take the blame off them. I'm not condoning this or saying this is any kind of good idea (far from it actually) but to these people they don't want to even mention the idea that their kids participating in violent acts is due to their poor parenting or something else . After all, that would make them failures and that can't be right now could it? [/sarcasm]

 

So yeah, they basically just need something else to blame and for some reason video games are always seen as a the pathway to violence, shooting, etc despite multiple studies actually proving the complete opposite. In short, stupid people are stupid.   

Edited January 4, 2013 by PoisonClaw

[#1 Flutterfan 174]

Oh, totally I see Violent video games TOTALLY causing people shooting. I mean, we should ban violent video games, as well as television, comics, we should ban violent anything! That helps! Let's get rid of guns, video games, movies, shows, bb guns. ANYTHING that resembles violence. Knives, too. Forks, too. Spoons, too. CHOP STICKS, I saw that in a movie once.

 

 

But in all seriousness, I think that it's a stupid idea--personally--we should be keep them because a nation full of Jersey Shore, full of Teen Mom. Yeah--that would cause me to go more crazy than video games. Oh, also--as for the ESRB, even when I was 13, my mom got me Devil May Cry 2, she saw it, and even said "Oh well I trust you." No crap--because I'm not a psychopathic person who thinks the same thing "I'M GONNA KILL PEOPLE"

 

but, look, even if you're Christian--read the bible. Didn't death happen before video games? I think so. IT's not new.

 

On an RELATED note: ever get angry? Ever get so angry you wanted to hurt someone? And then you go, play a violent video game, and then feel better? EXACTLY. Streets of Rage, when I was a kid, made my angry days MUCH better. Someone upset me, go and beat guys up in a game, and feel much better! But now? I'd have to play cooking mama. CUT UP THOSE ONIONS. Or is that violent, too?

 

(my video reply to it, TL;DL? It's stupid

 

PS: Those dolls aren't mine.

PPS: I still hate Superman.

PPPS: Those REALLY aren't my dolls.)

Edited January 4, 2013 by #1 Flutterfan

[Betez 1,735]

I couldn't agree with you all more. While I don't think children should be playing Modern Warfare 3, I do feel like violent video games are used as an excuse too often.

[Shanks 10,817]

Middle Ages: books are bad, they are of the devil burn them.

 

1950's: Comic books are turning children into delinquents, ban them.

 

Today: Violent video games are turning kids into psycho's, ban them.

 

I really think alot more can be accomplished if these people took a deep breath, calm down and admit that we as humans no matter what will always have aggressive impulses and discuss how we can more effectively channel those aggressive impulses in a more constructive way so we have fewer incidents like mass shootings. And admit that it is not just random psychos that are violent, history has shown that governments are more violent that any other force in history yet anyone that wants to put reasonable limits on the size and scope of government is always shouted down as some kind of lunatic.

[ping111 124]

What's with people and trying to remove things they don't like at the source?  How about, I don't know, taking a personal stand?  Everyone thinks they're some sort of moral crusader nowadays, always fighting for one thing or another.  Take Derpy.  You can either:

 

A. Realize that the show is displaying a klutzy character, that may or may not be autistic, and if so, recognizing and tolerating them;

B. Don't let your kids watch the show, simple as that.  Bad choice, but whats' offensive to you's offensive to you;

C. TOTAL FREAKOUT AND DEMAND THE SHOW BE TAKEN OFF THE AIR FOR CLEARLY SAYING THAT AUTISTICS ARE SCUM OF THE EARTH

 

Now, what does this have to do with violent video games?  Well, you can either take the games out of your kids' hands, which is totally fine, or you can remove access to objects of violence, which is fine by literally everyone's standards!  Complain that gun games caused your kid to shoot the dog, or take the actual gun away and relax!  Only one of them actually kept your dog alive, huh?  This kind of activism is really passive, really.  Blame the game on the gun, or blame the gun.  Remember, guns don't kill people of their own accord.  Take the gun away, and the "people kill people" part becomes a whole lot harder.  

 

I'm not afraid to admit that playing Call of Duty will make someone feel that killing someone is fun, easy, or even okay, but you'd have to be pretty messed in the head to think that.  But that comes back to my point - take away the gun, and crazed gunmen just become crazed men, which can be suited up and put in an asylum quickly.  

 

To be honest, playing Hitman has actually made me a less physically violent person - instead of going for the animalistic thrashing punch, I attempt to do some sort of stealthy subduing technique when I want to hit someone (namely my brother), but thankfully totally fail due to my physical form.  This cements the fact that I am not capable of harming someone, and furthermore should not attempt to do so in the first place.  Ergo, not violent.

 

We claim ourselves to be an advanced species from what we were in the Dark Ages, but why are we still burning advanced books? 

Edited January 7, 2013 by ping111

[CloudFyre 848]

Hahaha, as for an explanation, I heard it put this way once:


Huey: "I don’t get this whole thing with video games."

Riley: "What, you mean why you keep losing?"

Huey: "No. Everyone is worried about kids and violence, right? And kids using guns … So why don’t they go after the gun manufacturers and gun dealers instead of people who make video games. It doesn’t make sense.

Riley: "Sure it does. Pretend you’re some stupid parent activist person … Who would YOU rather start beef with – some nerd who makes video games or some dude with a warehouse full of AK-47s?"

(Taken from a comic strip of The Boondocks.)

[TailsIsNotAlone 3,696]

What can I add? It's all been said. This initiative / pipe dream / witch hunt, whatever you want to call it, is pointless. They're saying media is the problem. It's corrupting society. Wrong. The media reflects society. That's what it's here for.

 

These people don't really think that smashing up all the M-rated games in the city is going to save one human life. But that's how we are. It's easier to destroy something than it is to build a better society.

Edited January 8, 2013 by TailsAlone

[Modphase 1,273]

Oh come on did you really need to post that guys video? Not only does he seem like he's high while he's talking, he could at least talk in a calmer way, and not get so off-topic all the time.

 

Anyways, that joker aside, I completely agree that the anti-violent video game propaganda needs to be severed. It's gone so far that what they're doing is now resembling a Nazi book burning. Is it really that necessary to go so far with something that should be up to the parents control? And if they really wanted to do something, can't they just do it in a civil manner, like contacting the company itself?

 

I'm just thankful that video game companies have top notch lawyers, or else they would be in deep water.

[EldarSteve 119]

Blaming video games for violent youth is on par with blaming smelters for gun violence. Yes smelters produce refined metals which may or may not be made into a gun which in turn may fall into the hands of a mass murderer HOWEVER this isn't addressing the actual problem which is legislation and peoples attitude. Video games do not make people violent, if someone is violent most likely this predisposition for rage would have manifested itself long before said individual could get anywhere near a console. In the end this just boils down to a modern day witch hunt, people don't know how to deal with their problems so they need a scape goat on which to offload their crippling self doubt and fears.

[Middnight Snack 24]

I believe video games are blamed so much because people want to blame others instead of themselves. Picture this, two abusive parents have a kid, that kid becomes a bully because he takes after his parents. Another kid gets bullied, but his parents believe to not fight back. The kid's feelings and anger are suppressed and over time he just blows up in anger and hurts himself or others, or cries from so much anger built inside. That's what happened to me. The parents are to blame. Oh and some of you really need to read the article. The guy who's hosting that thing does not blame games about the shooting at that school. Also in the middle ages, correct me if i'm wrong here, but books were not looked at like that.

[Hakureimiko 96]

Good news this thing just got shut down. Thank Jesus that some people have some common sense to stop crap like this.

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JLhycJn7xkI

 

http://www.gametrailers.com/side-mission/44703/connecticut-town-cancels-planned-game-burning

 

My reaction to the cancellation:

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jpgy21r_dRE

Edited January 11, 2013 by Hakureimiko

[Zygen 6,066]

Hm.. Well I've played violent video games before, and I certainly haven't killed anyone, I actually don't know if I'd even hurt a fly unless I was really provoked.

 

Seriously its the parents job to not let their kids do stuff they think will harm them. And besides it doesn't really effect most sane people.

People kill people because people want to kill people, not because they played a video game and want to replicate it.

 

On a side note.. I actually did a persuasive writing(Or something along those lines, forget the exact term.) On this. Describing how it was wrong, my teacher actually liked it alot .

 

Anyways, this is dumb, hopefully like all the other dumb ignorant people who try to annihilate something without even knowing about  it this will be stopped before to much havoc is caused.

[Pr3datorTaco 169]

What's with people and trying to remove things they don't like at the source?  How about, I don't know, taking a personal stand?  Everyone thinks they're some sort of moral crusader nowadays, always fighting for one thing or another.  Take Derpy.  You can either:

 

A. Realize that the show is displaying a klutzy character, that may or may not be autistic, and if so, recognizing and tolerating them;

B. Don't let your kids watch the show, simple as that.  Bad choice, but whats' offensive to you's offensive to you;

C. TOTAL FREAKOUT AND DEMAND THE SHOW BE TAKEN OFF THE AIR FOR CLEARLY SAYING THAT AUTISTICS ARE SCUM OF THE EARTH

 

Now, what does this have to do with violent video games?  Well, you can either take the games out of your kids' hands, which is totally fine, or you can remove access to objects of violence, which is fine by literally everyone's standards!  Complain that gun games caused your kid to shoot the dog, or take the actual gun away and relax!  Only one of them actually kept your dog alive, huh?  This kind of activism is really passive, really.  Blame the game on the gun, or blame the gun.  Remember, guns don't kill people of their own accord.  Take the gun away, and the "people kill people" part becomes a whole lot harder.  

 

I'm not afraid to admit that playing Call of Duty will make someone feel that killing someone is fun, easy, or even okay, but you'd have to be pretty messed in the head to think that.  But that comes back to my point - take away the gun, and crazed gunmen just become crazed men, which can be suited up and put in an asylum quickly.  

 

To be honest, playing Hitman has actually made me a less physically violent person - instead of going for the animalistic thrashing punch, I attempt to do some sort of stealthy subduing technique when I want to hit someone (namely my brother), but thankfully totally fail due to my physical form.  This cements the fact that I am not capable of harming someone, and furthermore should not attempt to do so in the first place.  Ergo, not violent.

 

We claim ourselves to be an advanced species from what we were in the Dark Ages, but why are we still burning advanced books? 

If you're talking about taking the gun away from the general public and everybody in general then it won't matter. What you're doing there is taking away a form of self defense away from the "normal" people. And if you did there is still the black market and criminal organizations that will find a way to obtain a gun. Then where are we? We couldn't protect our selves. I (for some reason) always fear that someone may try and break into my house armed. BUT I have a gun(like 5) and when I bring that  to the face of the intruder they just might think twice. Imagine breaking into someones house and hearing the sound of a 12 gauge being loaded, pretty terrifying. But I guess that's just my two cents on the topic. Oh and when I say you I don't litteraly mean YOU I mean anybody who wants to pass the gun control bill... So yeah...

[ping111 124]

If you're talking about taking the gun away from the general public and everybody in general then it won't matter. What you're doing there is taking away a form of self defense away from the "normal" people. And if you did there is still the black market and criminal organizations that will find a way to obtain a gun. Then where are we? We couldn't protect our selves. I (for some reason) always fear that someone may try and break into my house armed. BUT I have a gun(like 5) and when I bring that  to the face of the intruder they just might think twice. Imagine breaking into someones house and hearing the sound of a 12 gauge being loaded, pretty terrifying. But I guess that's just my two cents on the topic. Oh and when I say you I don't litteraly mean YOU I mean anybody who wants to pass the gun control bill... So yeah...

HEEEEYYYY BUUUUUDDDDYYY!  The crook wouldn't have a gun either, buuuuuddddyyyy!  No bad guys with guns, no good guys with guns!  NOOOO GUUUUUUNNNNS!

[Pr3datorTaco 169]

HEEEEYYYY BUUUUUDDDDYYY!  The crook wouldn't have a gun either, buuuuuddddyyyy!  No bad guys with guns, no good guys with guns!  NOOOO GUUUUUUNNNNS!

"Oh? What if they some how got their hands on a gun? Or perhaps another weapon? There are other dangerous weapons besides guns...Look I didn't want to start any kind of fight, your post was just a good example of what i would be talking about...Oh and you can't take the guns from those who already have one(Second amendment everyone has the right to keep and bear arms).

[ping111 124]

"Oh? What if they some how got their hands on a gun? Or perhaps another weapon? There are other dangerous weapons besides guns...Look I didn't want to start any kind of fight, your post was just a good example of what i would be talking about...Oh and you can't take the guns from those who already have one(Second amendment everyone has the right to keep and bear arms).

That Second Amendment was made in the times when the French, Dutch, and English were in danger of attacking New England, also known as the United States of America.  That was around the 1740's, when the most devastating handheld firearm in the world was a musket.  Which fires once a minute.  So go ahead!  Give crooks muskets!  Give them scopes for their muskets!  Paint it black and call it an assault musket for all I care!  Then, and only then, will you be following the Second Amendment!

 

The point is not to make owning a gun impossible, because I agree that is nationalist, but to make mass shootings impossible, either by less firepower, less capacity of ammo, or, in worse scenarios, LESS GUNS.

Edited January 11, 2013 by ping111

[Silver Boulder 123]

If there's one thing that gets me annoyed about this entire story is this. Considering of how tragic this event was, its sad to see how people aren't blaming for the actions of the killer, but the media of video games entirely

 

This is just offensive if you ask me. These people claim to be helping society help stop these future events, but really they're making themselves look stupid and not doing a damn thing to help in the process. We just had children killed, you think this is helping? You all are delusional, demented, idiotic, stupid, illogical, nutcases!

[Pr3datorTaco 169]

That Second Amendment was made in the times when the French, Dutch, and English were in danger of attacking New England, also known as the United States of America.  That was around the 1740's, when the most devastating handheld firearm in the world was a musket.  Which fires once a minute.  So go ahead!  Give crooks muskets!  Give them scopes for their muskets!  Paint it black and call it an assault musket for all I care!  Then, and only then, will you be following the Second Amendment!

 

The point is not to make owning a gun impossible, because I agree that is nationalist, but to make mass shootings impossible, either by less firepower, less capacity of ammo, or, in worse scenarios, LESS GUNS.

No, wrong. The founding fathers created the bill of rights for them AND future generations. Please read this article from http://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/second_amendment

"In 1939 the U.S. Supreme Court considered the matter in United States v. Miller. 307 U.S. 174. The Court adopted a collective rights approach in this case, determining that Congress could regulate a sawed-off shotgun that had moved in interstate commerce under the National Firearms Act of 1934 because the evidence did not suggest that the shotgun "has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated milita . . . ." The Court then explained that the Framers included the Second Amendment to ensure the effectiveness of the military.

This precedent stood for nearly 70 years when in 2008 the U.S. Supreme Court revisited the issue in the case of District of Columbia v. Heller (07-290). The plaintiff in Heller challenged the constitutionality of the Washington D.C. handgun ban, a statute that had stood for 32 years. Many considered the statute the most stringent in the nation. In a 5-4 decision, the Court, meticulously detailing the history and tradition of the Second Amendment at the time of the Constitutional Convention, proclaimed that the Second Amendment established an individual right for U.S. citizens to possess firearms and struck down the D.C. handgun ban as violative of that right. The majority carved out Miller as an exception to the general rule that Americans may possess firearms, claiming that law-abiding citizens cannot use sawed-off shotguns for any law-abiding purchase. Similarly, the Court in its dicta found regulations of similar weaponry that cannot be used for law-abiding purchases as laws that would not implicate the Second Amendment. Further, the Court suggested that the United States Constitution would not disallow regulations prohibiting criminals and the mentally ill from firearm possession."

AANNDD. making guns harder to get won't stop mass killings. Car bombs, highjacking, suicide bombings and more can still happen. But seriously I'm just gonna leave now so nobody has to watch us fight anymore.

[Hakureimiko 96]

Things have gotten more retarded. God damn I'm getting sick and tired of people blaming video game for every fucking thing.

 

Its like saying:

"Hitler came to power because of video games."

"The Titanic sunk because of video games."

"The attack on Peal Harbor happened because of video games."

 

http://www.screwattack.com/news/massachusetts-government-removing-violent-video-games

http://kotaku.com/5975202/massachusetts-orders-light-gun-video-games-pulled-from-state+operated-rest-stops

http://www.ign.com/articles/2013/01/11/massachusetts-city-will-collect-violent-games?abthid=50f05f35540366c31000007f

 

I bet Jack Thompson is clopping to all of this.

Edited January 12, 2013 by Hakureimiko