Video games aren't the direct cause of violence. We all know this. But, if I can hazard to say something highly, highly controversial...
What if video games are a small part of the glorification of violence... and may contribute a *tiny* bit to violence in real life, along with movies, music, and endless media coverage of shooters? Is it possible that video games could be a tiny part of this equation?
violence was always glorious
Lol
I'm an actual psychologist.
The reason you're seeing an escalation in shootings is because of the news media hyperfocusing on the "gun issue" which is getting the crazies to realize how fucking unsafe a gun free zone is.
Granted, this is WHY these zones are gun free, because they know it's fundamentally unsafe and it gives them political capital to try to steal your rights.
Yes they KNOW that having schools be gun free will likely result in the schools being shot up, and this is something they WANT to happen.
However, if shootings were reported on in a way that reflected their rarity and were restricted to the immediate area they occurred you both, literally, because it wouldn't be overboosted to a nonsense degree, and because crazies wouldn't key in on the fact that a lot of places are totally defenseless.
And this isn't even acknowledging in general violence of all kinds has actually been trending downward, but the media spins it like it happens constantly.
>im a psychologist
>heres a political take that has nothing to do with psychology
Good post
Here's some cunny
What a cuck
>You acknowledged political influence on the issue so now it doesn't count.
Would you have preferred if I ignored the exploitation of the mentally ill?
>I'm an actual psychologist
>proceeds to spew schizo-tier conspiracy theories
For your sake I hope you're baiting.
>Yes they KNOW that having schools be gun free will likely result in the schools being shot up, and this is something they WANT to happen.
That is 100 percent fat-free bullshit. I doubt any educated person worth their salt would actually believe that congress are making gun-free zones JUST so that mass shootings happen so they can "take away our rights". That's the stupidest fucking thing I've ever heard. Do you know how many people are just walking around with guns? Not many. I have only ever seen one non-military, non-police person openly walk around with a firearm (and it was tucked down the back of their fucking pants)
I'm interested in knowing how many violent acts, even besides mass shootings, have been prevented by good guys with guns (not military personel or cops) I'm genuinely interested
if video games where the cause why did we have two world wars before them? If anything they are allowing people to vent so we don't get in another stupid situation.
In reality though they add nothing to the cluster fuck that is the human thought process for violence.
>So, my fellow gamers, we all know video games don't cause violence
>But seriously what if they actually do?
wow dude, noggin's a joggin'
>I'm an actual psychologist.
>It's all a conspiracy dooood.
>Fuckin crazies, amirite?
God, I hope you get your license revoked, or whatever they do to disgraced practitioners.
Read my post again, carefully.
Maybe, but things shouldn't be censored simply because they might have a small impact on people.
I expected a well thought out psychological post, not another generic "theyre tryna take ur rights!" Cope post from a /pol/ crossposter
Whats your opinion on acerola, user?
I worded it deliberately. Games are obviously not the "direct" cause of violence. No one is going to pick up a game and just decide to go on a killing spree.
Not for censorship anyway. I love the fuck out of violent video games.
>acerola
Not him, but what's acerola? I'm afraid to google it. Judging by your images, and the way you're leading the question makes me wary.
That entirely depends on your definition of "with guns". Because stopping something could happen without even firing a shot.
girl in pic or something. google acerola anime
Acerola Is the girl in the images my good man
Clearly the best girl from gen 7 dont you agree?
Okay, I'll bite. How many good guys with guns, shooting or not, have prevented violence? Is this the part where you tell me that if everyone was armed, everyone would be safer?
How have you not gotten banned yet?
Dont worry about it
Platelet is cute too, but shes not videogames
She's cute, I want her on my dick.
Mods gotta finish before that user
kek
unzips
Range's between as low as 100,000 and into the 2,000,000 territory, because the impact of the defensive use of the presence of a fire arm isn't well documented, regardless of how low or high the actual impact is, it's still higher than incidences of gun violence, which, if we break down is more correlated with gang factors than lower predictability occurrences such as a mass shootings.
Honestly you're more likely to die of fat than a mass shooting in america.
>Is this the part where you tell me that if everyone was armed, everyone would be safer?
Fucking called it.
You got any real evidence behind those numbers? Some meaningful anecdotes? Or are you just entirely making this up?
You used "I'm a psychologist" as an argument from authority to try to trick gullible retards, it had no relevance to your post whatsoever.
Federal Center for Disease Control studies.
>Range's between as low as 100,000 and into the 2,000,000 territory
LMAO no
It always amuses me how right-wingers pretend that America is the only country on Earth and/or follows its own special rules.
What's the seventh gen? Is that the newest one? Sword and Shield? Or is it the last one? I don't know pokegirls.
I am failing to find it.
Humans are inherently violent. We're thrilled by violence, revel in it.
We put violence in our media because we want to see violence to vicariously live through.
Man can pretend he's civilized and above nature all he wants but he's ultimately just a slightly more intelligent than normal, instinctually driven animal.
I read manifestos and these absolute beta fucking incels always say the same thing before they shoot up a school or mall or something: they're worried someone else might be armed and take them down
The only media directly causing violence is rap music.
If you hold the notion that video games contribute to a tiny bit. Then you have to admit that Hollywood has been doing that for decades longer and glorified it and made it acceptable much earlier.
There were parents trying to get Mortal Kombat to not be sold because of violence. But movies like Rambo, Terminator, Pick any horror movie.
These all had at the time, far more realistic or over the top gore, violence and other things. And some just had full on extinction events or what have you
So if video games contributed some, then TV/Movies contributed a lot. So before anyone tries to shut down games, they should sue Hollywood for glorifying violence.
That is the flimsiest anecdote I've ever heard.
>endless media coverage of shooters
i'd say this does more harm than any other media combined because it's actual -real- -like people in the actual physical world died- violence
I don't disagree with anything you just said. I wasn't trying to single out video games only, but also point the finger at all media including but not limited to rap music for glorifying violence.
Honestly, I thought this thread was going to be way more hostile to me for daring to suggest that games might be a small part of the problem.
7th gen is sun/moon
8th is sw/sh
Never saw this
Thanks
That's because they hadn't published it, because at the time they were trying to push gun ownership as "dirty, deadly - and banned"
> I'm an actual psychologist
> Lol jk, I'm a gun lobbyist
Is Sun and Moon the one with the Chicken protag? Because if that's the case, I'll have to choose NONE, YOU FUCKING PEDO. THEY'RE ALL LITTLE GIRLS.
Chicken-chan is sun-moon yes.
But you can easily hack any 3ds/2ds
But sw/sh has this cutie
You're doing a piss-poor job of backing up your facts, and if they haven't published it, how do you have the inside scoop? I don't expect you to spoon feed me the facts (I'm trying my damnedest to find the study right now, actually) but when you claim something with absolutely no evidence other than the broadest hand-wave (CDC bro I swear) then you must understand why I'm seriously not picking up what you're putting down.
What if we brought back individual responsability?
>>psychologist
You can call yourself anything you want when you take one class at a community college!
Look up Gary Kleck.
washingtonpost.com
Here's the article in question where a representative from the CDC, Mark Rosenberg, is suggesting in getting firearms stigmatized in the same way as cigarettes, at the time of the surveys that were not publicly released.
Because the only way to say you are wrong is to hold the notion that media can in no way influence behavior. Which is just not true at all.
The level to which is does influence is up for debate though.
Because it doesn't have to be violence, any action one can do can be influenced by outside sources. So the question should be, "What parts of video games can cause an increase in violent tendencies among the playerbase?"
Because it might not actually be the violence at all, it could be something like a specific sequence of lights or sounds that cause reactions. And then to solve that would to just be remove that specific sequence.
But the argument that the entirety of video games cause a nebulous increase in violence, solves nothing but does allow finger pointing at other forms of media who aren't being scrutinized to show bias.
I looked up Gary Kleck and he seems to have a nice book and he made some interesting studies. Will read more later. It's possible that I may have underestimated how often DGU (Defensive Gun Use) happens. I'm willing to learn more about responsible gun use and its impact.
However, I also think that your conspiracy shit is ridiculous. It is going to take more than the CDC neglecting to publish a study and a spokesperson suggesting that guns not be glamorized to convince me that CONGRESS INTENTIONALLY CREATES GUN FREE ZONES TO ALLOW SHOOTINGS TO HAPPEN.
The CDC is an Agency and doesn't make laws like congress or the houses.
And you misquoted Rosenberg when you said he said guns ownership is "dirty, deadly, and banned". He was referring to cigarette's depiction in the media a long time ago. Work on your reading comprehension.
People who go shoot up public spaces don’t do it for glory you fucking faggot
They do it because they are angry and mentally unwell. And we all know video games make you both angry and mentally unwell.
There have been almost no shooters that have done it because they think its ccool, most of them have been motivated by politics or personal grudges
>could be something like a specific sequence of lights or sounds that cause reactions
Phony science.
Here's how I look at it. What we think is cool as a culture is largely dictated by what we see in the our favorite media. Movies and games always show guns to be a cool thing to have and use. I've actually met a few people who got into learning about and eventually owning guns because of video games.
Nice cunny
Most shooters didnt own a gun prior to committing the act
That's where I think you're partially wrong.
Being cool may not be the prime motivator for committing violent acts, but these guys often do want to be cool, and one of the biggest themes behind lots of mass shooters is their desire to be remembered. To go down in infamy.
youtube.com
Would he have tried to commit the shooting if he HADN'T watched V for Vendetta? Probably. But the film had enough of an effect on him for him to commandeer some of its imagery.
Just look at the way he holds the gun. He thinks he's so fucking cool.
You lost any credibility or seriousness you pretended to have in your thread when you decided to use that OP image.
Fuck off autistic fuck.
It's that time of the month huh?
Sounds like you are grasping at straws. Your own example shits all over your argument because V never used guns, why is it relevant at all that he did that to the fact he was killing people? He could have said Ayyy! like Fonzie, that wouldnt mean Happy Days motivated him to be violent.
That was just one anecdote, and yes I am grasping at straws. I even said that he'd probably have done it even if he had never seen V for Vendetta.
So whats the point?, the whole "coolness plays a factor" potentially applies to any action people can do. Its meaningless to point out.
It's every part of american culture. You'd only single out a single part if you had a vendetta, or were misinformed.
Pretty good cunny, user, thank you.
Or maybe I bring up games specifically because it's pertinent to the board. Maybe I've also mentioned other media such as movies, music, and tv numerous times in the thread including the very first post.
Why do countries who ban handguns have so much less gun violence than your shit hole then?
Maybe its about time to stop caring about citizens having the right to own weapons that are completely unnecessary and own up to the fact that violence will always be at its highest wherever tools of violence are acceptable possessions of civilians
Not every gamer is a killer but every killer plays games.
Damn I didn't think anyone on Yea Forums had the balls to say that. Not saying I necessarily agree or disagree, but damn.
Americans fetishize guns to the point where any discussion on regulating high grade weapons makes their testes shrivel up into their stomach in fear, and they clutch their rifles late in the night murmuring "They're coming for our guns they're banning all guns..."
But nah, I would hate for handguns to be banned myself. They're cool and hobbyists should be able to have them.
bruh
Very deep...
Wow...
Your image makes me uneasy, OP.
A lot of countries that ban handguns often have programs that allow their ownership by current/former military as well as some collectors.
Outside of currently-serving military though I don't think the guns themselves can ever leave a shooting range.
So they're not completely out of the question for hobbyists but there's enough headache in the process to deter anyone but the most committed to the hobby.
This reminds me of when I was growing up. My family would make jokes when we're in the car about hitting people would be a certain amount of points. Babies and handicap people were worth the most followed by the elderly and children. Niggas these days have no since of dark humor I swear.
Yes, this is why there should be restrictions to the amount of violence in games for children.
Of course adults might also be influenced one way or another, but they are responsible for what they choose to subject themselves to and their behavior afterwards.
Thing is, this probably would only work in smaller countries surrounded by other non-combatant countries.
The US is fucking enormous and shares a border with a nation that also has a culture of violence. Preventing a black market for guns in the US if they decided to ban lots of weapons would be as fruitless as the war on drugs. I think the real solution to gun violence is to fix the fucking economy and make it so that people don't have to resort to crime for cash and also aren't depressed because they're in debt. This makes the most sense to me. And that's why I'm voting for Andrew Yang. Thanks for coming to my Ted Talk.
Shota>cunny
Always and forever. I can't get enough dickgirls in my life.
I wasn't talking about you specifically.
IMO the news media is more at fault or this than games or movies. I also think that a tendency for violence is dependent on a person's nature. It seems inherently flawed to claim that people commit acts of violence because they see it on a screen. Children do that (to a much higher degree than adults, at least.)
You're projecting ya dumbass goon.
>Platelet
she only squat 2plate???
You stupid faggot, actually read what he said
The point was to make guns stigmitized the same way cigarettes were you disengenuious piece of shit.
I'm sorry for pointing out the flaw in your poorly-worded post. Go to bed.
Also top one ways I can prove the gun control argument is full of shit
If it's such an immediate threat and makes thing so unsafe, go try to shoot up a gun convention
Oh wait, you won't cause you and I know what'll happen you'll get clapped harder than the end of a movie at an american theater.
I actually believe that that is your best argument against gun control. lol
>muh guns muh guns muh guns muh guns you fucking librul
>in similarly developed countries, but without guns, murder rate is much lower
>REEEEEEEE
Similar countries are also like a hundredth the size and full of PUSSIES
>Similar countries are also like a hundredth the size
Valid point
>and full of PUSSIES
Meaningless non sequitur
Your communication skills are poor, and you are probably a bad person.
USA should break up then.
Then it would somehow magically have lower murder rate.
>Valid point
No, it's fucking retarded.
There is nothing about country size that makes people more likely to commit murder.
SAYS THE FAGGOT WHO'S TRYING TO DICTATE ANOTHER COUNTRY'S LAWS BASED ON A TOTALLY DELUDED VIEWPOINT AND INEXPERIENCE WITH THE TOPIC.
>100th the size
Which is why all stats are controlled for population, and the US still leads.
Why do you think the stats are listed as "X deaths per Y people" instead of anything else?
Number 1, I'm an American. Number 2, I support sensible gun laws / rights. Number 3, that is the exact reaction I was hoping to get out of you.
>Is it possible that video games could be a tiny part of this equation?
It's possible, but it wouldn't justify banning or censoring them.
ACTUALLY JETTISONING CERTAIN STATES WOULD HILARIOUSLY REDUCE THE CRIME STATISTICS, GUESS WHICH ONES THEY ARE.
Here it comes...
>it's not guns, it's [boogieman]!
>pretending to be retarded
Jokes on you clown it's not racial.
Who was pretending to be retarded? Me?- when I calmly stated that you have poor communication skills and are probably a bad person to piss you off?
Who's more the retard, me grilling you, or you seething and screaming in all-caps?
You're funny.
They should just restrict guns to pistols and ammo limitations. No one needs a magazine that goes above 7, if that, unless you are planning to mow down whole crowds rapidly.
What about hobbyists and historians?
Yeah they need to ban all semi automatic guns, nobody needs to have something that you can just hold down the trigger and harm innocent people
I'm yuro from armlet country and I understand that gun control works at reducing murder rate, but I'd still prefer muh guns.
Without guns, you are helpless when jumped on by a pack of retards who beat you to retardation.
Death is better than helplessness.
How about pepper spray, tazers, knives, or batons as self defense items on the street?
I dont know. Too bad? I doubt their hobby is worth the chance of a mass shooting. Other than that maybe regular checkups on them mentally, socially etc. and if they are deemed at risk then the gun is taken away until they can prove otherwise. I dont know if there is a tax or not, but taxing guns so that poor people couldn't afford them might reduce risks.
>pepper spray, tazers
Not very effective against a pack.
Also not a very good deterrent since they wear off with no permanent damage.
And if you fail to fight them off, police may pretty much ignore the case because no one died, they just beat you up.
>knives, or batons
If you use those against unarmed attackers, you are likely to get worse punishment for self-defense than they get for assault.
Also, those rely on physical ability and hardened criminals fight better than you, even when not in a group. No, you wouldn't fight them off, this isn't anime.
Influence is just that, influence. The only thing that matters are real actions and decisions because those are what you are in control of and responsible for. This is why anyone wanting to censor art and curb your freedoms is to be sternly denied.
Yeah man, let's legalize heroin.
Anyone who does stupid shit to get his fix is just under influence and it doesn't count.
>let's legalize heroin
ABOUT DAMN TIME
Over 300,000 a year
which is how many bitches I fuck HEYO!
i have every STD known to man.
>The only guns that should be allowed are the ones that are easy to conceal
Well I can fit a bazooka up my you-know-what. (Can I curse on Fchan?)
>If you use those against unarmed attackers, you are likely to get worse punishment for self-defense than they get for assault.
And that isn't the case for shooting them?
A dead guy can't sue you user
A guy being slashed to fuck has a much better case against you than a guy with a bullet in him.
That's because anyone who's excessively slashed up is the result of an attack, not self defense. If you're defending yourself with a knife your attacker should end up with at most some scratches and a stab wound. You'd only be able to go Patrick Bateman on them if you pinned them down and used excessive force.