kungfubellydancer Posted February 18, 2008 Share Posted February 18, 2008 Here's a brand-spanking new topic for the Game Violence thing we were talking about under "Newbies" in case anyone wanted to continue talking about it. Here's an idea. I believe that if game violence was somehow involved in the real-life violence, then the person who performed them probably had some psychological disorders. Maybe, there could be a law in which we are granted a permit to purchase violent video games, provided we have a thorough examination from a psychiatrist first. If you believe you are perfectly sane and are not about to blow your neighbor's brains out because you saw it on a game, then you should have nothing to worry about, and just go to the psychiatrist, then get a permit, and buy your games! Then of course games would go black market for those without permits, and we'll have a whole new thing to let our poor law enforcement to worry about....But isn't letting people with unknown mental histories buy video games a thing to worry about in itself? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Abramul Posted February 18, 2008 Share Posted February 18, 2008 Why not do this for firearms instead? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ninja_lord666 Posted February 18, 2008 Share Posted February 18, 2008 I don't think this is going to be a very heated topic. It's in a gaming forum. That would be like going to a forum entitled "Liberals USA" and starting a topic about whether or not Bush is a good leader; you're going to get a rather unanimous answer: YES! It's no different here. Anyone who joins a gaming forum and adamantly opposes video games is either a moron or a troll. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Abramul Posted February 18, 2008 Share Posted February 18, 2008 However, that doesn't necessarily apply to someone who adamantly opposes specific elements that appear in some games. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thekid345 Posted February 18, 2008 Share Posted February 18, 2008 Why not do this for firearms instead? Exactly. Why would we be concerned about violent people purchasing something like GTA, when we could stop them from buying guns. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ninja_lord666 Posted February 18, 2008 Share Posted February 18, 2008 ...we could stop them from buying guns.We can't. It against the law to prevent the purchase of guns. You can restrict it, but, in the end, the second amendment shines through and lets people buy their guns. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Duskrider Posted February 18, 2008 Share Posted February 18, 2008 *sigh* This one again. Anyone who actually thinks that video game violence causes real-world violence is completely lacking in both common sense and understanding of basic statistics. Trying to censor video games is a fundamentally broken idea, and an abuse of our basic freedoms. The idea of a mandatory license and psychological evaluations just goes so far beyond this and off the scale of painful stupidity that I can't really even begin to address its problems. ...we could stop them from buying guns.We can't. It against the law to prevent the purchase of guns. You can restrict it, but, in the end, the second amendment shines through and lets people buy their guns. Not only is this false in theory, but it's false in practice as well. If you can't prevent the purchase of guns, how are we doing it right now? I can't walk down to my local sporting goods store and buy a 30mm machine gun, as much as I'd like one. I can't buy and carry a pistol without a permit. I couldn't buy a gun of any kind until I was 18. If I am convicted of a felony, I will no longer be able to own a gun of any kind. Clear legal precedent says that these laws are constitutional, but besides that, common sense says they are a good idea. Even if you have a right to own a gun, that right is not absolute. Also, by this reasoning, the first amendment says you can't restrict video games at all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kungfubellydancer Posted February 19, 2008 Author Share Posted February 19, 2008 I think people didn't understand me. I am NOT opposing video games. I am pro-video game, but I am wondering why other people are trying to say that video games are the reason for violence. If somebody banned video games I think that would be the end of me. Also, banning gun ownership is against the 2nd amendment. So, since we are all gamers, please state why video games ARE NOT the reason for real world violence. And give full thought, and don't give answer like, "people who think gaming violence is bad are stupid". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Duskrider Posted February 19, 2008 Share Posted February 19, 2008 I think people didn't understand me. I am NOT opposing video games. I am pro-video game, but I am wondering why other people are trying to say that video games are the reason for violence. If somebody banned video games I think that would be the end of me. Then why do you propose an absurd license system that would essentially be the death of the industry? Also, banning gun ownership is against the 2nd amendment. See above. No reasonable interpretation of the second amendment makes gun ownership an absolute right. Besides this common sense fact, all legal precedent says this is the case. Just to repeat the obvious example, convicted felons are banned from owning guns, and nobody has any problem with this. So, since we are all gamers, please state why video games ARE NOT the reason for real world violence. And give full thought, and don't give answer like, "people who think gaming violence is bad are stupid". Why? "People who think gaming violence is bad are stupid" is really the only thing that needs to be said here. There is no evidence for any significant causal effect between the two. Asking for detailed proof against their claims is no different than demanding a detailed explanation of why my theory that eating pizza causes violence is wrong. The burden of proof is on the person making the claim, and the games-cause-violence side has completely failed to meet this burden. All that's left to do is laugh at them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kungfubellydancer Posted February 19, 2008 Author Share Posted February 19, 2008 I think that the people in control of banning or not banning the government can say whatever they want, regardless of the proof. And honestly, even if we as gamers did speak out against anti-gaming, it would do no good. In case people didn't already get it, the people DO NOT control this government, no matter what history books tell us. Therefore, why make this post? I am not trying to start a real "heated debate" since most people I assume have the same opinion. This isn't a real serious issue to me, but its absurd altogether, so why not talk about it? I feel that things concerning the gaming industry deserve to be discussed among gamers, since outside groups would say that gaming violence is bad. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.