US Senator says games are a bigger problem than guns

It's interesting that "violent games" and "violent music" often get blamed (often by the same people), but "violent films" or "violent novels" less often. I would guess demographics are a big part of it: lots of people who don't think of themselves as potential killers like horror films, but they think of video games, or black metal, as something only weird obsessives are into, because people in their circles aren't into them.<p>I'm personally rather more disturbed that people actually enjoy watching the Saw series of films, than I am by people playing Call of Duty or buying Dimmu Borgir albums, but ymmv.<p>edit: That isn't to say that I think violent films should be banned, either. But I'm more weirded out by the fact that some really gory stuff is really popular, than I am by anything that comes out of the game or music industries.

The problem with this type of issue is that the topic is complex, it is hard to get anything like clean evidence, people start with strong opinions, and attempts at careful analysis immediately get derailed. We could try to reduce it to its component parts. But that fails, as Calvin points out at <a href="http://www.myconfinedspace.com/wp-content/uploads/2007/04/image_ed7vv0.gif?9d7bd4" rel="nofollow">http://www.myconfinedspace.com/wp-content/uploads/2007/04/im...</a>.<p>But that said, here are my personal beliefs:<p>- Exposure to violence in mass media (including games) is probably correlated with overall violence in life across all of society.<p>- The individual correlation is very, very small.<p>- There are widespread confusions about cause and correlation that come up over and over again.<p>- Long term comparisons have trouble dealing with the confounding influence of a long-term decrease in violence in our society, with possible causes from changing mores to reduced lead to parents not resorting to corporal violence to who knows what.<p>- No simple correlation exists between levels of gun ownership and violence in a society.<p>- The "assault weapons" (yeah, that term is not well defined) that get used in high profile mass shootings are, on the whole, less often used in crime or to kill people than handguns. Even if a ban was effective, it would be unlikely to produce any noticeable effect.<p>- There is no way that, given how polarized our politics are, that anything resembling an assault weapon ban is getting through this Congress.<p>- The Supreme Court in <i>Heller</i> made it clear that governments have limited power to regulate the kinds of arms that are available, but has not ruled on what those limits are. There is a real possibility that assault weapons bans, like the one that just passed in New York, are going to be struck down on constitutional grounds.<p>I now return you to your regularly scheduled argument...

I've been reading about bayesian stats and likelihood ratios lately.<p>So, a likelihood ratio is P(X|A) / P(X|~A) .<p>If you define X as "likely to commit gun violence", then A would be the way to identify X.<p>Here, he's saying that A="plays violent video games". The problem is that not only is there a poorly correlated relationship between gun violence and video games, there's also plenty of gun violence by people who don't play violent video games. So the likelihood ratio isn't great.<p>It's the same with "is mentally ill". Even if you screen for mental illness, you're going to get a lot of false positives <i>and</i> false negatives.<p>The problem is that people keep trying to identify "A", and I suspect there isn't even a root cause. To me it seems like it's more a matter of multiple contributory causes that reach tipping points. System dynamics, if you will. For instance, if you reduce the allure of "preparing for the end of the world", that could have a system-level impact. Or, if guns looked feminine, that would probably do it too.

I actually wrote a paper in university about whether violence in games and tv causes violent behavior in real life. It turns out that the US has spent tens of millions of dollars since the 1950s on studies trying to prove that violent media does in fact cause real-world violence. After the decades of studies, and the gobs of money that's been spent, still not one shred of conclusive evidence has supported the notion that games cause violent behavior.<p>Here's a link to a draft of the paper if anyone's interested: <a href="http://goo.gl/TJQaU" rel="nofollow">http://goo.gl/TJQaU</a>

Didn't James Holmes dress up like the riddler/joker, record an insane voicemail greeting in joker character, cover his apartment in batman posters, and shoot up a theatre playing batman? Clearly it was call of duty and gaia that made him do it<p>At least this senator could've found some sort of phony empirical evidence before scapegoating. Guess the violent movies are the root of all evil card is played out

Parenting is the real issue here. If you can't teach your kids the difference between reality and fantasy, you have failed.<p>I had caring parents who love video games. I have been playing violent games since my dad got Doom for our N64. I am a well-adjusted individual with a good job, a happy relationship, a stable living condition, and plenty of friends.<p>Why didn't video games turn me violent? It's probably because while my parents love games, they didn't let me sit in front of them 24/7. They made sure I did my work, had an after-school job, was involved in clubs, etc. The same applies for any other medium, like TV. Everything in moderation.It's not the job of the video game industry to make sure kids are only playing x-hours per day, it is the parents'.

This is Lamar Alexander, one of the top senate recipients of NRA contributions (<a href="http://sunlightfoundation.com/blog/2012/12/18/nra-and-congress/" rel="nofollow">http://sunlightfoundation.com/blog/2012/12/18/nra-and-congre...</a>), so this sort of misdirection is rather unsurprising.

Let's see.<p>USA - strict laws against violence in games (PEGI ratings etc), liberal gun control, 4.8 intentional homicides per 100 000 citizens<p>Poland - liberal law regarding violence in games, strict gun control, 1.1 intentional homicides per 100 000 citizens<p>Source: <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intentional_homicide_rate" rel="nofollow">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intentiona...</a>

<i>I think video games is a bigger problem than guns, because video games affect people. But the First Amendment limits what we can do about video games and the Second Amendment to the Constitution limits what we can do about guns.</i><p>Wow. He's managed to combine "they say the darndedst things" with "that pesky constitution, always in the way of the best ideas".<p>I'm sympathetic to the cause of limiting the power of weapons available to average citizens, but with this guy on my side, I'm not sure the opposition has much work to do. By dragging <i>another</i> amendment that people are passionate about into it, he effectively makes his case impossible to argue.

US: Huge number of guns, access to violent games Rest of world: access to violent games<p>US: lots of gun deaths Rest of world: not lots of gun deaths<p>So either 1- lots of guns = more gun deaths, or 2- lots of guns combined with violent games = more gun deaths<p>No way to tease out the two variables, unless there are places with lots of guns and no violent games that we can look at.

I have heard speculation that violent video games are <i>inversely</i> correlated with actual violence, in light of the fact that violent crime is way <i>down</i> over the past thirty years or so.<p>The reasoning is, people who are predisposed to violence can get their kicks from violent video games, in their own homes, rather than going out and shooting people.<p>It is just a theory, but it is no less plausible than the opposite theory.

US Senators are a bigger problem than guns <i>and</i> video games.

Statists are always looking to point to people's freedoms as being the problem. The vast majority of gun violence is actually State-driven: <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g9bRDNgd6E4" rel="nofollow">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g9bRDNgd6E4</a>

There is a famous saying here, for such people: " If someone tells you to jump in a well, would you? "<p>Voilent games can also be seen as a punching bag to vent out your anger, without hurting somebody in actual. It is not always the case that kids turn voilent in real life because of them. Parental guidance is needed at every step of life, blame poor parenting if you have to :?

Well I think the senator should be more worried about those amalgamated automatons roaming around our steppes, breaking our penny-farthing bikes and soiling our women's petticoats.<p>These godless contraptions are invulnerable even to the senator's modern blunderbuss, and are fueled by the pills he needs to live.

It is only through the responsible use of freedom that people can continue to remain free. Freedom used for selfish ends leads to bondage. History has proven over and over again that in cases when self-serving attitudes spread throughout the culture that they are ripe for picking by their enemies with freedom soon lost. Freedom used responsibly always is to the benefit and welfare of others.<p>George Washington: "Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, religion and morality are indespensable supports. In vain would that man claim the tribute of patriotism, who should labor to subvert these great pillars."<p>To those of you who out there who are consumers of this type of material... buyer beware.

How about an experiment. Subject a group of people to violent video games and knives. Give another group of people automatic assault weapons. Create tension in the group over the course of a year, and see how many people get killed.

The article ignores the real issue-- the impact of violent video games and movie content on children. There's no First Amendment right for kids to access violent content.

In my research I came across what I think is the best explanation for the cause for violence in our society. I believe video games are just another symptom but not the cause and effect.<p>"Of all crimes, those involving violence are most closely related to high levels of inequality." - <a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/books/2009/mar/13/the-spirit-level" rel="nofollow">http://www.guardian.co.uk/books/2009/mar/13/the-spirit-level</a>

On the other hand, violent games may actually reduce violence, because people with violent tendencies may be using the games to get their "fix" in a way that doesn't actually hurt anyone.

Good luck, Senator: <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brown_v._Entertainment_Merchants_Association" rel="nofollow">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brown_v._Entertainment_Merchant...</a>

Yet another excuse to not get tough on gun control, all thanks to a badly worded Second Amendment.<p>The reality is without serious gun control the massacres in the US will continue.

If games are a bigger problem than guns, war is a bigger problem than games.

Don't forget to blame the comic books!