"On Killing"....

[Jonathan Randall]

I can't take him that seriously because of his views about video games being the blame of kids killing people. Someone was tweaked to begin with. If it wasn't video games, it'd be something else that would set them off.

If you're going to blame video games for kids killing people, then you'd may as well blame C&W music for incest.

Cthulhu

I agree wholeheartedly. These kids would have been disfunctional individuals with or without video games, no doubt about it. However, I think that saturating (or allowing them to saturate themselves) them in violent games and movies can contribute (NOT CAUSE) to setting them down the path of destruction. Bottom line, some people are just plain mean and disfunctional, regardless of what sort of parenting they have. However, parents are under no obligation to buy their kids games where they steal cars and shoot up and run over police officers and innocent bystanders. I literally can't believe what I see at the computer stores. Parents spending hundreds of dollars on the newest video games with their spoiled kids in tow. This doesn't mean that all games are bad, or even that violent ones have no place - only that many parents need to exercise better judgement on their purchases.

 

[MJS]

only that many parents need to exercise better judgement on their purchases.

I think you hit the nail on the head Jon!! Problem is, is that parents, well some of them, just don't want to take the responsibility and admit that they may have messed up and made a mistake. They instead, look for every possible way to blame someone else.

Rather than looking close at what the game is about, they'll blame the manufacturer, saying that it should have been marked clearer, blah, blah, blah. Hmm... I have a few of those games and they looked like they're clearly marked to me.

Mike

 

[sgtmac_46]

That seems to be the solution regarding violent games and movies - parents DON'T buy them for your kids. That's an easy answer right there. Don't buy your 12 year old a video game that has them stealing cars and running over police officers for points.

Exactly. It's as much a symptom, as the actual problem. Parents won't parent. If my child has something I don't agree with it, I simply will throw it away. There's no discussion. I have an obligation to know what my child is doing, 24/7.

The whole Columbine issue is a prime example. Did violent media contribute? Possibly, but it's also a symptom. How do teenagers stock-pile large amounts of weapons and explosives in a home without someone know it?

If my child had been in the trouble that the two boys at Columbine had been, they'd be under 24 hour watch. They wouldn't have a door on their room, and i'd conducted spot checks all the time. How do I know? Well, i've got two young children, who no where near that age, so I don't know because of them..... but I have a teenage cousin who had gotten in to trouble (stealing, drugs, running with a rough crowd), and his mother asked me to keep him one summer, because she couldn't handle him.

The first thing I did was spell out the rules, in detail, to him. I told him that he had no real expectation of privacy, if I decided he did not. I also spelled the consequences for the types of behavior he had been engaging in at home, along with the fact that consquences would be both SWIFT and SEVERE. The whole summer, he exhibited model behavior. We worked out together, and he helped around the house. He never once even raised his voice to me, not even once (so he never had to experience those 'severe and swift' consquences). If your child loves and respects you, fine. If he's the more prickly sort who respects very little, then a little healthy fear is a good close second. Parents...parent.

 

[bignick]

What I got when I read On Killing was not that video games cause kids to kill, but gives them the same experience that caused the kill rate to rise dramatically in the Vietnam War. The soldiers were desensitized to shooting at a human form, instead of a bullseye, you have a human sillouhette. Of course, you are also rewarded for this behavior, with marksman badges, etc. This training didn't make U.S. soldiers into crazy killers, but it did desensitize them to shooting at the human figure, and made it reflex.

Video games won't make kids killers, however, I cannot believe, that playing a game where you can blow someone apart limb by limb, and be rewarded by getting the high score, or passing the level, does not have any effect on someones head. Although I enjoy a good game of Grand Theft Auto as much as the next college student, I can easily see what type of effects that doing these things could have.

The majority of On Killing is about how unbelievably hard it is for humans to kill humans. Violent video games don't make you kill or drive you to kill, but if you were demented enough to make that decision you are already gonna have a lot of practice pointing that gun and someone and pulling the trigger.

 

[NARC]

Take a look at amazon.com for a overview of his second book....

 

[Rich Parsons]

Interesting discussion:

As a friend and I were stopping off at another friends house on Friday to have him look at a gun that was damaged. Their were kids in the street with Cap Guns who were having a "Gun Fight" and were almost like the Gangster street, of walk up to someone and start to shoot versus the old "War Games" played when I was a kid where you had to have cover.

Since this was before video games, this was caused by the news of Vietnam? or was it the WWII movies and the Old West movies with the Indians?

Very curious if boys will play this game to some extent anyways, even without additional sensory overload?

We also played cops and robbers on our bikes, no shooting you had to chase the people on their bike with your own bike and catch them by a clean cut off, over being able to do a slide by or into them with your back tire. The girls on our dirt road even played this game.

No arguement about the desensitivity, just curious as all.

 

[hardheadjarhead]

What I got when I read On Killing was not that video games cause kids to kill, but gives them the same experience that caused the kill rate to rise dramatically in the Vietnam War. The soldiers were desensitized to shooting at a human form, instead of a bullseye, you have a human sillouhette. Of course, you are also rewarded for this behavior, with marksman badges, etc. This training didn't make U.S. soldiers into crazy killers, but it did desensitize them to shooting at the human figure, and made it reflex.

Video games won't make kids killers, however, I cannot believe, that playing a game where you can blow someone apart limb by limb, and be rewarded by getting the high score, or passing the level, does not have any effect on someones head. Although I enjoy a good game of Grand Theft Auto as much as the next college student, I can easily see what type of effects that doing these things could have.

The majority of On Killing is about how unbelievably hard it is for humans to kill humans. Violent video games don't make you kill or drive you to kill, but if you were demented enough to make that decision you are already gonna have a lot of practice pointing that gun and someone and pulling the trigger.

I find it difficult to believe that the human sillouhette targets introduced to the military had any profound effect on the kill rate in Viet Nam. It is black and only approximates the human sillouhette, with no identifying features such as ears or a nose. Note too that the tradition of awarding badges dates back to at least World War I...if not earlier. So the "reward" has been there for some time.

It would be far easier for me to believe that the introduction of better weaponry and the massive increase of firepower at the squad level had something to do with the increased lethality of the Viet Nam war. I don't recall if Grossman's data accounts for that, nor if it adjusts for increased efficacy of combined arms (artillery and air in conjunction with ground combat), or, for that matter, reputed inflation of "body counts."

Should a police officer find a violent video game among the effects of a criminal, what can we conclude? That a violent person was driven to violence because of the video...or attracted to it because of his nature? A non-violent person might as well own the game, and millions do, but they don't kill. They have a conscience over-ride that prevents them from doing so. The killer does not, and needs no incentive to pull the trigger. Both sociopaths and people with consciences buy the games...the latter in greater numbers than the former. We don't see a shift to sociopathy in our society.

For those that took the time to click on the DOJ website link I provided, you'll note that gun crimes--as well as all violent crimes--have decreased dramatically in the last twelve years...and "first person shooters" were introduced about twelve years ago and have escalated in popularity.

Grossman's hypothesis doesn't stand, given that. I could easily, and perhaps more cogently, argue that the rise in popularity of violent games in America has reduced violent crime due to the catharsis of the games. Like Grossman, I'd be wrong...the data supporting that hypothesis also is weak.

Someone suggested here that I go listen to a Grossman lecture. I wouldn't hesitate to attend one. However, charisma and presentation don't equal truth. While I don't for a moment think he's intentionally misrepresenting the facts, it is clear to me his arguments concerning video games are unsupported.


Regards,


Steve

 

[Jonathan Randall]

Exactly. It's as much a symptom, as the actual problem. Parents won't parent. If my child has something I don't agree with it, I simply will throw it away. There's no discussion. I have an obligation to know what my child is doing, 24/7.

The whole Columbine issue is a prime example. Did violent media contribute? Possibly, but it's also a symptom. How do teenagers stock-pile large amounts of weapons and explosives in a home without someone know it?

If my child had been in the trouble that the two boys at Columbine had been, they'd be under 24 hour watch. They wouldn't have a door on their room, and i'd conducted spot checks all the time. How do I know? Well, i've got two young children, who no where near that age, so I don't know because of them..... but I have a teenage cousin who had gotten in to trouble (stealing, drugs, running with a rough crowd), and his mother asked me to keep him one summer, because she couldn't handle him.

That's the thing I don't understand - how did their parents let it get so far? Once, when I was in my early teenage years I was caught with something minor (one thing) that I definitely should NOT have had. My parents searched my room for any other "stuff" that I might have had and shouldn't. Resentment? No, I was caught dead to rights and they were excecising their parental duties (to myself AND others who could be harmed by my behavior). Case closed.

In another school shooting, despite several severe behavioral problems, the parents bought the kid a handgun and allowed him to keep it in his room loaded - as an expression of their trust for him. Now I know many teenagers are extremely responsible around firearms, but you don't take a kid who has already acted out and hand them a loaded gun as a "peace offering".

While these kids would probably have been greatly disfunctional (they were sociopaths, IMO), they, with proper parenting, would have been stopped before they were any where near able to do the damage they did.

Why are so darn many parents unable to say NO to their kids? There is a difference between being "mean" and having high standards of behavior enforced.

 

[Makalakumu]

Didn't the DC shooters practice their "trade" with video games?

I have a lot of experience with "at-risk" kids who have a hard time separated reality from fantasy and I can tell you that video games and the media has a HUGE effect on this population. They fantasize about it and write about it and talk about it and no matter how many times certain individuals are referred to batteries of psychologists, it doesn't seem to matter.

I'm a firm believer that most individuals are not going to go out and kill because they played video games (however, I'm pretty confident that it desensitizes people to violence and that can be a good and a bad thing). Yet, there is a certain segment of the population that cannot handle these things...and they too have very easy access.

What do we do?

1. We need to restrict the access of young people to these images and educate parents better. We already do this (to our detriment in many cases) in regards to sexual images and I think that society can demand this in regards to violent images. I think that it is ironic that my child could (if I wasn't paying attention) turn on the TV at 8:00 pm and watch someone get blown away, but they couldn't watch a woman pull out a breast and feed their child.

2. We need to hold children and parents accountable for not monitoring their children. When a minor commits a crime they held to a lesser standard of punishment because it is known that their minds are not developed enough for true adult decision making. Yet, if we look at punishment and guilt from Jeremy Bentham's Utilitarianist ethical position and examine the "total weight" of what occured, their is still a "debt". In my opinion, it is logical that it be paid by the parents. The bottom line is that parents are supposed to help kids make good decisions. If they do not do this, I see no problem is letting them share the criminal burden.

No one can make the bad apple go away...so we just need to deal with that.

upnorthkyosa

ps - I find this debate extremely ironic considering our societies weirdness regarding sex and I often wonder if this hyperfocus on violence and the proclivity toward sexual taboo are major factors in some of the problems we have in both areas.

 

[Jonathan Randall]

Didn't the DC shooters practice their "trade" with video games?

I have a lot of experience with "at-risk" kids who have a hard time separated reality from fantasy and I can tell you that video games and the media has a HUGE effect on this population. They fantasize about it and write about it and talk about it and no matter how many times certain individuals are referred to batteries of psychologists, it doesn't seem to matter.

I'm a firm believer that most individuals are not going to go out and kill because they played video games (however, I'm pretty confident that it desensitizes people to violence and that can be a good and a bad thing). Yet, there is a certain segment of the population that cannot handle these things...and they too have very easy access.

Well said! There are kids who are affected by this stuff and as many have mentioned in this thread, they need their access restricted. I think that most of us are agreed that while video games and violent imagery do not CAUSE violent behavior, they, in certain disfunctional individuals, can CONTRIBUTE to it.

 

[sgtmac_46]

I find it difficult to believe that the human sillouhette targets introduced to the military had any profound effect on the kill rate in Viet Nam. It is black and only approximates the human sillouhette, with no identifying features such as ears or a nose. Note too that the tradition of awarding badges dates back to at least World War I...if not earlier. So the "reward" has been there for some time.

Actually, they weren't measuring the kill rate, they were measuring the rate at which a shooter would shoot at an exposed enemy. The actual kill rate in Vietnam was quite low, but the rate at which soldiers would shoot at exposed enemies was quite higher than in World War II. Again, difference between kill rate and the rate at which many would fire at an exposed enemy.

The actual accuracy in Vietnam was lower, due mostly to the different docterine of fully automatic resulting in HUGE expenses of ammunition, with less enemy actually hit. The main battle rifle of World War II was the highly accurate M1 Garand, which had a higher hit per shot rate than the M16.

It would be far easier for me to believe that the introduction of better weaponry and the massive increase of firepower at the squad level had something to do with the increased lethality of the Viet Nam war. I don't recall if Grossman's data accounts for that, nor if it adjusts for increased efficacy of combined arms (artillery and air in conjunction with ground combat), or, for that matter, reputed inflation of "body counts."

Again, two different concepts. It isn't the 'kill rate', it was the tendency of soldiers to fire at an exposed enemy. It's been studied since at least World War II. It was determined that shooting at round bullseye style targets was less advantageous to shooting at more realistic human sillouettes. The tendence to fire at exposed enemy was 50% in WWII, 70% in Korea, and 90% in Vietnam....Note, that's the number of Soldiers activily TRYING to shoot the enemy, not the number successful, which actually fell in Vietnam due to poorer shooting discipline. What's more, these aren't the conclusions of Grossman, they are considered military doctrine, after decades of research. Grossman cited them, he didn't invent them....so you're not arguing with Grossman.

Should a police officer find a violent video game among the effects of a criminal, what can we conclude? That a violent person was driven to violence because of the video...or attracted to it because of his nature? A non-violent person might as well own the game, and millions do, but they don't kill. They have a conscience over-ride that prevents them from doing so. The killer does not, and needs no incentive to pull the trigger. Both sociopaths and people with consciences buy the games...the latter in greater numbers than the former. We don't see a shift to sociopathy in our society.

Violent video games don't drive individuals to violence, they enable and enhance violent behavior already present. A non-violent person DOES have a violence override. However, some people who don't can be further enable by conditioning. That is the point. Just because someone has a predisposition to violence, however, doesn't mean that stimuli and conditioning won't further enhance violent behavior. That happens all the time.

For those that took the time to click on the DOJ website link I provided, you'll note that gun crimes--as well as all violent crimes--have decreased dramatically in the last twelve years...and "first person shooters" were introduced about twelve years ago and have escalated in popularity.

The reason violence has fallen, is that increasing numbers of violent individuals are incarcerated every year. That means the number of those who have a predisposition to violence are less and less in circulation. It doesn't mean they aren't prone to being influenced by violent media, it just means they aren't out here with us for very long.

Grossman's hypothesis doesn't stand, given that. I could easily, and perhaps more cogently, argue that the rise in popularity of violent games in America has reduced violent crime due to the catharsis of the games. Like Grossman, I'd be wrong...the data supporting that hypothesis also is weak.

Well, this isn't really about Grossman, the vast majority of psychological studies of the last 30 years show a direct link between media violence and real world violence. The amount of data is staggering, and it's not Grossman's data. Grossman just has become an easy target by people who believe they can make this topic go away just by attacking Grossman.

Someone suggested here that I go listen to a Grossman lecture. I wouldn't hesitate to attend one. However, charisma and presentation don't equal truth. While I don't for a moment think he's intentionally misrepresenting the facts, it is clear to me his arguments concerning video games are unsupported.

I don't think every point he's made is true, I do believe there is a definite causal link.

 

[NARC]

Lt. Col. Dave Grossman will be returning to the Northern VA Criminal Justice Academy on June 28,2006 for those of you who may think of attending.

 

[CuongNhuka]

my comments for those of you are getting upset on this matter. rember that this is based on years of sceintific research and i hold to be true:
hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahhahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha
cann't breath i'm laughing so hard
hahahahahahahahahahahahahahhahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha
haaah, my side hurts i'm laughing so hard
hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha
ouch, i fell out of my chair
hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha
more darth vader breathing
hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahhahahahahahahahahaha
luke, i am your father

the point is, the guy is a partly right, but wholly wrong. chill out, 'cause some of you seem to be getting testy. yes parents are partly to blame for the crapp that video games are being blammed for.
Here are some more fun facts for you guys. I play a lot of violent video games and watch corny and violent Chinese martial arts flicks. Yes I’ve been in a few fights, and only the last one I didn’t a good reason. Most people who are deeply into violence will beet there friends and girl friend, disrespect their parents, and gloat about their fights. I rarely hit with the intent of hurting. And I have never done that to one of my friends. While I hate my dad I have overwhelming respect for my mom and older sister. And I have talked about the fights I’ve been in with seven people. I’m terribly ashamed of the fights I’ve been in. only two people know the whole story about my last fight. That gave me a choice in the matter. I hate talking about my fights, and normally get really –blank-ed off when I’m asked about them.
My point is, the so-called “reasons” for violent crime are something I enjoy, but did not affect me the way people think it would have. Another matter, PEER PERSURE IS NOT AS BIG AS PEOPLE THINK IT IS!!!!!! Parents, if your kids break the rules or the law and they say it was peer pressure, smack them. It does not exist as much as people think it does. It is like media and games. It has an effect, but most kids don’t care enough to listen to there friends. At least if there parents are half way decent. If you are a good parent, it’s almost will not going to happen. But if it does, it’s not because of peer pressure. Though it does have more of an effect on behavior then games, movies, and the like.

Sweet Brighit Bless your Blade,

John

 

[MJS]

Another matter, PEER PERSURE IS NOT AS BIG AS PEOPLE THINK IT IS!!!!!! Parents, if your kids break the rules or the law and they say it was peer pressure, smack them. It does not exist as much as people think it does. It is like media and games. It has an effect, but most kids don’t care enough to listen to there friends. At least if there parents are half way decent. If you are a good parent, it’s almost will not going to happen. But if it does, it’s not because of peer pressure. Though it does have more of an effect on behavior then games, movies, and the like.

Sweet Brighit Bless your Blade,

John

I'm afraid I have to disagree with this. How can you assume that peer pressure is not a big deal? Are you lumping all kids into the same group, or just from what you've seen in your area?

Mike

 

[shesulsa]

Check out the movie "Thirteen" for a pre-teen's perspective on peer pressure. If you have any young females in your family, it will knock your socks off.

 

[Jonathan Randall]

Check out the movie "Thirteen" for a pre-teen's perspective on peer pressure. If you have any young females in your family, it will knock your socks off.

I saw that movie ... and it was intense.

It should be required viewing for parents (or guardians) of teenage girls. The MOST informative part of the movie was seeing that the mother, although involved and caring, had no idea how far things had gotten until it was almost too late. Yes, Shesulsa, this is a good movie to add to this thread. I'm really glad you mentioned it. Parents watch this movie!

Like the other posters, I have mixed feelings on LTC Grossman's conclusions; but no mixed feelings about this - don't buy impressionable teens and pre-teens video games where you get points for stealing cars and running over police officers.

 

[Henderson]

How can you assume that peer pressure is not a big deal?

I will tell you how he can assume peer pressure is no big deal. The original poster of this comment, coungnhuka, is 15 yrs old (according to the profile). Of course, he's going to say he doesn't submit to peer pressure. No offense intended Coungnhuka, it's just simple fact. All kids will deny peer pressure as a means to try to assert their self-reliance and independence.

Respects to all,

Frank

 

[CuongNhuka]

Henderson, thanks, and that was rude. Most of the people around were I live (so it might be just were I live) don't give in to what other people tell them to do. Not just me. If parents are involved, at all, it doesn't happen nearly as much as people think. It's mostly an excuse used by bad parents for why there kids do something bad. The kids of invloved parents don't do worse then cheating on tests, or copying homework. Little drug use, or being very active sexually. The people who do these things, have abusive, or unattentive parents. Be invloved, show them the right way, and tell them what will happen if they go the wrong way.

Sweet Brighit Bless your Blade,

John

 

[sgtmac_46]

Henderson, thanks, and that was rude. Most of the people around were I live (so it might be just were I live) don't give in to what other people tell them to do. Not just me. If parents are involved, at all, it doesn't happen nearly as much as people think. It's mostly an excuse used by bad parents for why there kids do something bad. The kids of invloved parents don't do worse then cheating on tests, or copying homework. Little drug use, or being very active sexually. The people who do these things, have abusive, or unattentive parents. Be invloved, show them the right way, and tell them what will happen if they go the wrong way.

Sweet Brighit Bless your Blade,

John

If parents are involved, kids don't succumb to peer pressure because the parents don't allow them too. It's hard to go somewhere and fall in with the wrong crowd....if you're grounded and on lock-down at home. That's why children of involved parents don't succumb to peer pressure, they don't allow their children to run guideless and adrift, through those turbulent and formulative years.

The very worst thing a parent can be is an understanding and accepting friend to their children. They have been where their children are at, and they know many of the ultimate consequences of those choices. Children, not having seen the outcome of growing up, and not having experienced the trials and errors of their parents, are complete without a map and compass. Worse, they don't even believe that anyone else has ever even been through what they are going through, so they are not likely to just accept guidance. Parents have to be parents.

 

[Jonathan Randall]

If parents are involved, kids don't succumb to peer pressure because the parents don't allow them too. It's hard to go somewhere and fall in with the wrong crowd....if you're grounded and on lock-down at home. That's why children of involved parents don't succumb to peer pressure, they don't allow their children to run guideless and adrift, through those turbulent and formulative years.

That's true, and had the Columbine killers had any parental oversight, their actions to date before the massacre would have landed them in 24/7 surveillance and they would not have been allowed anywhere unescorted or allowed to possess so much as a rubber band gun.

However, going too far the other way likewise encourages rebellion. Both underdisciplining and overdisciplining are dangerous and cause a loss of respect for authority. Many (not speaking of you, or anyone else here) like to quote Biblical Scripture on parent's rights and yet ignore the Biblical commandment "Fathers provoketh not your child to wrath". Of course, this doesn't mean buy your kid an X-Box if he's acting like a little snot, but it does mean not throwing the book at him or her for every minor offense or overpunishing.

It is important to note that all but TWO of the students at Columbine were victims. Many demagogues have taken this to mean that all teens are potential killers just waiting for a chance to strike. Certainly, as an adult I would hate to be treated so just because a disgruntled adult employee went postal somewhere.

On edit: probably a little more than two as I believe that there were others who were either directly involved or had previous knowledge of what the two killers planned.