Trump shifts blame to violent video games, movies in gun violence discussion

[-Trinity- 513]

12 hours ago, Boiler said:

I would like to remind everyone today is International Women's Day, anybody know when the Mens day is?

 

 

[yuna628 9,682]

1 minute ago, bcking said:

They'd rather bring it up and focus on it during the one other day of the year about recognising the other 50% of the population, rather than actually celebrate the day that already exists.

 

When the day comes, it matters very little. In reality, most days of the year are "Men's days".

 

Seems pretty selfish to me.

Its odd because IWD is actually hand in hand and celebrated like Mother's Day in some countries. Doesn't sound to be terrible to me. IMD has a theme this year of being good role models, something I think men around the world, should try harder at - and it also raises a significant amount of money for men's health issues.

Just now, -Trinity- said:

The parents are responsible in the first place, I don't think anyone is denying that. But when parents are unwilling or not able to provide a safe, and healthy environment to their kids, others factors come into play.

 

Meaning, if the basic needs of kids aren't satisfied for what ever reason, they will look for other places to get that need satisfied.

 

If a kid is neglected, emotionally, mentally and physically it will affect them. Some kids can get through it and end up fine regardless what ever happened in their lives, others end up damaged.

 

People can minimize the effects of stimulants like drugs and videogames, but there is a reason why video game addiction is considered a serious psychological disorder. 

Again I can think of nowhere else on earth where video game addiction is more prevalent than in Japan and South Korea. People can literally live in cubicles and will play until they die. Gaming is a huge industry as well as being exposed to violent media, even more than the US. And yet... we know there are rarely deaths involving guns.

 

2 minutes ago, bcking said:

Absolutely. I'm in the same boat. I loved BF 1942 and the early Call of Duty games. I liked the ones based on historical events. That doesn't mean I grew up wanting to reenact them or something. I don't even own a gun and would never want to.

 

Risk factors aren't about individuals. It's impossible to study for a specific person what has put them at risk or not. In the end you only one outcome, the one that occurred. So you can't study what kind of "chance" you had to end up a violent murderer.

 

Risk factors are about populations. The data is fairly consistent that exposure to violent media (games and other mediums) are a risk factor. That doesn't mean the majority of people exposed will be murderers. But the risk does go up (I already provided a link to a systematic review on the topic from last year).

 

Again it's just like smoking. Most smokers won't get cancer. The numbers are like 10%. For the ones that are cancer free it is easy to think that smoking didn't increase their risk, since in the end they didn't get it. But by looking at a whole population of smokers (compared to those who don't smoke) it's clear the risk goes up substantially.

Every smoker me and my husband has known died due to smoking. They continued smoking right up until they died knowing it was killing them. Smokers overall contribute to our unhealthy population by increasing health costs, secondary and related health problems, and potentially creating effects to others around them with second-hand smoke.

[OriZ 3,157]

8 minutes ago, -Trinity- said:

The parents are responsible in the first place, I don't think anyone is denying that. But when parents are unwilling or not able to provide a safe, and healthy environment to their kids, others factors come into play.

 

Meaning, if the basic needs of kids aren't satisfied for what ever reason, they will look for other places to get that need satisfied.

 

If a kid is neglected, emotionally, mentally and physically it will affect them. Some kids can get through it and end up fine regardless what ever happened in their lives, others end up damaged.

 

People can minimize the effects of stimulants like drugs and videogames, but there is a reason why video game addiction is considered a serious psychological disorder. 

It's a slippery slope. You can then blame movies, the news, other people's offensive language, their driving(road rage) and it goes on and on, all can serve as triggers. And you can also make a counter argument - that for some, games could be a good way to "channel" whatever they are feeling towards something else so that they don't do it in rl. In my opinion games should be left completely out of this. If someone can't seek help, train people to do it for them.

 

4 minutes ago, bcking said:

Absolutely. I'm in the same boat. I loved BF 1942 and the early Call of Duty games. I liked the ones based on historical events. That doesn't mean I grew up wanting to reenact them or something. I don't even own a gun and would never want to.

 

Risk factors aren't about individuals. It's impossible to study for a specific person what has put them at risk or not. In the end you only have one outcome, the one that occurred. So you can't study what kind of "chance" you had to end up a violent murderer since you didn't.

 

Risk factors are about populations. The data is fairly consistent that exposure to violent media (games and other mediums) are a risk factor. That doesn't mean the majority of people exposed will be murderers. But the risk does go up (I already provided a link to a systematic review on the topic from last year).

 

Again it's just like smoking. Most smokers won't get cancer. The numbers are like 10%. For the ones that are cancer free it is easy to think that smoking didn't increase their risk, since in the end they didn't get it. But by looking at a whole population of smokers (compared to those who don't smoke) it's clear the risk goes up substantially.

And, like yuna pointed out a much larger percentage of smokers end up with cancer than gamers who kill someone. I personally hope they change nothing about video games, it's not anyone's place to.

[bcking 3,157]

Just now, OriZ said:

And, like yuna pointed out a much larger percentage of smokers end up with cancer than gamers who kill someone. I personally hope they change nothing about video games, it's not anyone's place to.

Absolutely true about smokers. There is a very good reason a lot of public health funds have been devoted to getting the word out that "smoking kills". All of the education tries to avoid talking about the absolute risk and instead focuses on the relative risk (with good reason).

 

I would never advocate the same level of resources be devoted to reducing violent video games. It would be wasteful spending.

 

That still doesn't mean violent games aren't a risk factor though. It may not be a large enough one to devote significant public health resources. It may be significant enough to devote SOME resources. It depends on what other modifiable risk factors there are and whether other ones have greater impact or are easier to target. Not my job to decide that, fortunately.

[-Trinity- 513]

29 minutes ago, OriZ said:

It's a slippery slope. You can then blame movies, the news, other people's offensive language, their driving(road rage) and it goes on and on, all can serve as triggers. And you can also make a counter argument - that for some, games could be a good way to "channel" whatever they are feeling towards something else so that they don't do it in rl. In my opinion games should be left completely out of this. If someone can't seek help, train people to do it for them.

 

And, like yuna pointed out a much larger percentage of smokers end up with cancer than gamers who kill someone. I personally hope they change nothing about video games, it's not anyone's place to.

That's why I said banning videogames isn't the solution. But parents should be more aware of who or rather WHAT is raising their kids. 

 

Forexample I don't let my kids watch movies with violence. First they would wake me up every night because they have nightmares. But more importantly their little brains are like sponges. The same thing with offensive language. My husband sometimes shouts out : w..t...f. and he had to stop doing this because the little one was copying him.

 

It might seem a minor thing to other people, but I truly believe that all of this can make or break a child's personality.

 

And yes, some video games are actually good for helping in development. But not all videogames are created equal.

And sometimes kids don't have anyone supervising them, and coaching them.

 

Edited March 9, 2018 by -Trinity-

[-Trinity- 513]

31 minutes ago, yuna628 said:

Its odd because IWD is actually hand in hand and celebrated like Mother's Day in some countries. Doesn't sound to be terrible to me. IMD has a theme this year of being good role models, something I think men around the world, should try harder at - and it also raises a significant amount of money for men's health issues.

Again I can think of nowhere else on earth where video game addiction is more prevalent than in Japan and South Korea. People can literally live in cubicles and will play until they die. Gaming is a huge industry as well as being exposed to violent media, even more than the US. And yet... we know there are rarely deaths involving guns.

 

Every smoker me and my husband has known died due to smoking. They continued smoking right up until they died knowing it was killing them. Smokers overall contribute to our unhealthy population by increasing health costs, secondary and related health problems, and potentially creating effects to others around them with second-hand smoke.

There they have other problems.

 

Let me make myself clear: I'm not for banning videogames, I'm not for banning guns nor cigarettes. But I do feel that the effects are under estimated, and marginalised.

 

And personally I don't see how playing a violent video game is going to help my kids in their development. But this is off course my own opinion, and every parent should do what they consider the best.

[Voice of Reason 10,298]

3 hours ago, OriZ said:

I did update my post to mention a couple of the games I played/play. I don't feel they put me at any higher risk at all. I always knew they are exactly that - a game.

But... did your parents raise you, or did the games/TV?

[yuna628 9,682]

32 minutes ago, IDWAF said:

But... did your parents raise you, or did the games/TV?

I have to say this with a lot of consideration.. at least looking back at my youth, I was raised very differently from most kids. But to a large degree, I was mostly left to raise and figure things out myself. Dad was too busy and Mom.. was well, not always right in the head or well enough to be looking after a child. I was born much later than my siblings, but my sister would make the effort to be the real 'mother figure' when she came home every day from work. Often joke with my mom about the time she was in hospital for a month. My grandparents really weren't into looking after kids anymore, and Dad had work. About the only thing he could fix was runny half cooked eggs. I was a tiny scrawny child, and was pretty much left at home every day (about five or six years old this was). I was teaching myself schoolwork, doing the laundry, and cleaning by that age... but I didn't know what to do to get proper food.  My sister told me how to make eggs. We had a gas stove, so I dragged a small stool over and started fixing my own food. Why I laugh about it now is, I certainly don't think it's appropriate to be leaving a young one home alone like that and it probably wasn't safe for me to be cooking on a gas stove.. but it was what it was. I would say that my parents instilled values in me, when it comes to ethics and a respect for life. But I'm not sure I could say they raised me. There may be many kids that are similar - but TV/games and their peers take the place of the raising. I had access to those things, minus peers - but was honestly too busy looking after things to have it shape me.

 

My husband's experience is a little different. Raised traditionally but his parents are much younger than mine, and though they are awesome they can be very much about themselves. He fended for himself a lot, and being the oldest, looked after his siblings. TV/games did help raise him to a degree, and inspired him in his education and interests today. I'm very much a 'let's get it done' now type person, where he is a very 'come on and let's relax and watch some tv.. the stuff can wait.. and wait' person. But both of us could always tell reality from fantasy. Some people retreat into fantasy to escape pretty unpleasant lives.. others forge ahead.

 

I remember thinking back to the Columbine killers, and that their parents just couldn't figure out where they went wrong... it seems to be the same story with a lot of parents, that are oblivious.

[Steeleballz 7,550]

17 hours ago, eieio said:

One of the most frequent common denominators to these schools shooters is that they came from single parent households.  I saw a clip of Ann Coultier saying the main predictor of whether someone was going to end up in prison is if they were raised in a single parent household. Of course…all the feminists promoting single motherhood were up in arms. It is one thing to end up in a divorce…but quite another to get pregnant with the plan of being a single mother. Not good for our society and it does contribute to many of our problems.  I blame the feminists for promoting single motherhood and at the same time blaming men for any perceived problems.

 

Another main factor in these school shootings is the media.  I don't blame the media for the shootings as they are actually covering the news. But, now we have instant breaking news about any school shooting.  This leads to a copycat scenario where it is the new thing for depressed angry kids to take out as many or more than the last one….and become instantly famous while doing it. The whole world will know who they are now. 

 

  Haven't seen Danno-logic for a while. Just as suspect today as it was in the past. I would like to see the data you have to back this up. I saw a clip of Ann Coulter saying radiation is good for you, so I'm not sure that's she's the best source for anything except rubbish really.

  

[eieio 1,594]

5 hours ago, bcking said:

Do you know what study/studies Ann Coulter used for that. You said she had the data. Do you know from where?

 

 

I'm mostly interested in the fact that you claim a distinction between a "single mother planning to be a single mother" and a couple that get divorced (or various other reasons to end up a single parent household).

 

Does the data actually separate those, or is that just your opinion? My understanding is the risk factor is a single parent household, it doesn't matter how that comes about. I'm not aware that anyone has ever broken it down like that.

If i claimed there was a distinction in results…..i never meant it that way. I believe I said there is a difference between mothers who plan on being a single parent vs. mothers who ended up single via divorce, death of spouse etc. The main point is that celebration of single motherhood is not good for society. 

[Steeleballz 7,550]

5 hours ago, bcking said:

Do you know what study/studies Ann Coulter used for that. You said she had the data. Do you know from where?

 

 

I'm mostly interested in the fact that you claim a distinction between a "single mother planning to be a single mother" and a couple that get divorced (or various other reasons to end up a single parent household).

 

Does the data actually separate those, or is that just your opinion? My understanding is the risk factor is a single parent household, it doesn't matter how that comes about. I'm not aware that anyone has ever broken it down like that.

 

  I think we all know from where. 

[bcking 3,157]

3 minutes ago, eieio said:

If i claimed there was a distinction in results…..i never meant it that way. I believe I said there is a difference between mothers who plan on being a single parent vs. mothers who ended up single via divorce, death of spouse etc. The main point is that celebration of single motherhood is not good for society. 

When you said there was a difference I thought you meant there was a difference between those groups with respect to the risk of their child becoming violent.

 

Apologies.

[Steeleballz 7,550]

4 hours ago, OriZ said:

IMO it's insane to blame it on video games. People need to be accountable for their own actions and parents need to actually teach their kids how to behave. Sadly these days everyone likes to lay the blame on someone else and take 0 responsibility for their own behaviour. One of my fav games when I was younger was "carmageddon" where the sole purpose is to run as many people over as possible and you get more points for certain people. Well, I'm not trying to go out and run people over in my car. My wife and I play resident evil but we don't go out and look for people to shoot. If you have a mental disease seek help, and if you're too oblivious to your disease your family should intervene. Telling game companies what they should or shouldn't do is far from the answer.

 

   I'm with you on that one. Never once mistook what was happening in a video game for real life.  Occasionally get a warning from a game not to try this at home, but the thought never once crossed my mind to try it IRL. When I play a game, I know it's a game. If someone is at the point where they can't differentiate between a game and real life, there are bigger issues to resolve.

[smilesammich 10,727]

16 minutes ago, eieio said:

If i claimed there was a distinction in results…..i never meant it that way. I believe I said there is a difference between mothers who plan on being a single parent vs. mothers who ended up single via divorce, death of spouse etc. The main point is that celebration of single motherhood is not good for society. 

if single mothers weren't good for society, then single mothers wouldn't be allowed to adopt/foster children in need.

[eieio 1,594]

11 minutes ago, smilesammich said:

if single mothers weren't good for society, then single mothers wouldn't be allowed to adopt/foster children in need.

the celebration of single motherhood my dear.