a lot of people claim video games cause violence. imo they do.

a lot of the arguments try to prove that because the majority of video game players aren't shooters isn't valid in my opinion, because, in tjis situation, even if 99.99% of gamers with access to a gun don't have a mads shooting, the 0.01% is enough.

add in a loneliness, a bad childhood, mental health issues, and being in a bad place at the time, i think it's possible.

now don't get me wrong - i don't believe video games should be banned or something, i'm just saying i believe it's feasible that video games could be a contributing factor in a mass shooter's choice to do unspeakable actions.

do you guys think i'm being naive or logical ?

We always had video games in my country and not one mass shooting has ever occurred.
Regarding mental health, it's just a scapegoat. Could some of those bastards have mental issues, ofc, but it wasn't a deciding factor.

https://google.com/amp/s/...

There is also people with mental issues where I live, but again, not one mass shooting has ever occurred.

I would blame it to gun ownership, since guns are heavily regulated here. But there is also Switzerland, where they do have guns (or so have I read), and as far as I know, not one mass shooting has occurred.

@irene Naivety is not the only one to blame, in my opinion. People are just looking for "easy target". That way they can blame something, and better than that, not a change a thing in their behaviour. (Same thing with antivax)

@rutee07 I couldn't agree more.

@irene That and a pinch of hypocrisy for some. Or even a whole cup to use the same unit of measurement.

Re logical: From what you wrote alone, you can't conclude video games cause (or contribute to) violence. Simple test: Replace "playing video games" with something harmless, e.g. "drinking water":

"a lot of the arguments try to prove that because the majority of water drinkers aren't shooters isn't valid in my opinion, because, in tjis situation, even if 99.99% of water drinkers with access to a gun don't have a mads shooting, the 0.01% is enough."

It's exactly the same argument. For whatever you insert instead. If the argument is the same for whatever you argue with, it holds no weight at all. Therefore it doesn't lead to your conclusion.

IMO, guns cause violence. Nothing else.

I'm with @irene on this one.

I think the opposite is true, people vent their violent tendencies in video games. Without them people would've taken it on people in the real world.

@irene even if guns weren't the root of the issue, I favour strong anti gun regulations like the ones we have here

your opinion is objectively wrong, as every study about it keeps proving.

same as people were objectively wrong about tv and movies causing violence, and before that radio and books causing whatever negative thing.

@Frederick not really. For most rifles, in most states, you only need to have adult consent. Where I'm from you could own just about any rifle at the age of 14, if your parents/guardians approved. Handguns are a different story. If you're buying it from another person, you only have to be 18. If you're buying from a dealer, you have to be 21. Most of the recent shootings have been people that are above 18, and most have used a rifle.

For example, the El Paso shooter was 21 and used an AK-47. Which here in Texas, as long as it's a semi-automatic, is perfectly legal. So he legally owned the weapon he used.

Being human is also a correlating factor to being a mass shooter.

There might be a small fraction of already troubled people who get their final trigger by playing a violent game or watching a violent movie for that matter. That doesn't take away from the fact that they were already troubled.

Even guns themselves are a correlation. Owning a gun doesn't make you a violent sociopath. The problem is that you can't kill 9 people in 30 seconds with a video game, pretty sure you can't even clobber a single person to death with it in 30 seconds. You can with a gun.
And even when the 'good guys with guns' are responding fairly fast, people will always get killed when guns are involved.

TLDR; this isn't a discussion about causation. Troubled people will always find a trigger because they are troubled. The discussion is about the fact that guns can kill very easily and in large quantity, and video games cannot no matter how much doom guy you add to them.

Nothing curbs my need for violence like a game of Nintendogs! 😡😠😡

@M1sf3t I don't know how things are in your country, obviously no formula works everywhere.
I don't see how everyone owning guns could improve security in my country, are there criminals who own guns? Yes, a few (you cannot remedy it). But a bullet wound is an extremely rare occurrence (even for criminals).
And let me reiterate, this formula works for my country, I wouldn't venture it to work anywhere, since I don't actually know other countries realities.

@irene @M1sf3t then it's the way the guns are regulated. We need better regulation fir guns.

Videogames aren't responsible for violence. If that were the case, Pong (the videogame), would be the definitive "gateway drug" of violence. Violent videogames don't make people violent; violent people, play violent videogames.

A more likely cause of shootings are things like: unchecked metal illness, lax gun regulations, and the overall gun culture in the USA.

If you want an opinion here it is:
Videogames are a form of art. Like the established art of books, it has different audiences. A violent person would not choose to read a children's book, and a child would not choose to read a violent book.

Your opinion is unequivocally false

@M1sf3t which is why universal background checks are a good idea. .. peer to peer sells make it extremely easy to purchase firearms illegally. Most of my family works in law enforcement, and you're vastly overstating how easy all this actually is. Also, just because criminals won't obey a law, doesn't mean you shouldn't have said law. Under that same logic, we should legalize murder and rape. Because people who want to rape other people won't obey the law anyways. What you're suggesting is we throw out the rule of law in favor of... Mutually assured destruction? It doesn't work. Look at other countries with gun safety laws. And as states have loosened gun controls laws, mass shootings and shootings in general have gone up. What you're saying might be theoretically true, but it isn't reality. To be clear, my dad's a gunsmith, has worked with/in law enforcement for years. I own several firearms. But common sense gun laws do work, as shown by real examples.

@M1sf3t Also the idea that a 9 week bootcamp is going to prepare you for being shot at is laughable. I can't remember the guys name, but after Sandy Hook there was a SWAT instructor being interviewed. The interviewer asked what kind of training can properly prepare someone for a mass shooting. His answer: they better come down here and train with us once a month, every single month, forever.

@M1sf3t

Whilst I agree with the fact that owning guns does not make you inherently bad, I disagree with keeping them around.

We're all human, we're all flawed beings. Everyone can become a killer. Making weapons easily obtainable increases the risk of gun-related crime.

As for your points on armed robbery. I live in a country where there are extremely rigid gun laws (pretty sure less than 5% of people here own guns). Armed robberies are a rarity here (I think the last one was 7 years ago).

To me, guns do not have a place in society, especially not for citizens.

It's easy to kill with a gun, take guns away and you force people who want to kill to go in close and personal. Not only does that decrease the chances of actual mass killings, it makes it very difficult for most people to even kill like that. You have to be not only troubled but need a lack of empathy to randomly kill people like that. And the amount of troubled sociopaths/full-blown psychopaths in society is small.

@M1sf3t my country has some strong gun regulations, and our murder rates are some of the lowest in the world. As for maintaining a police force, that's why we pay taxes (one of the highest rates in the world).
We pay taxes so that no matter your income, you are protected by our police force.

As I stated before, I only know the reality I live in my oun country. Our formula has demonstrated without a shade of doubt to work for us. Would it work for others?
I don't know.

@M1sf3t no. You're making an argument that we shouldn't restrict firearms because criminals can still obtain them. Under that same logic, nothing should be a crime because criminals don't obey the law.

And saying shit like that isn't going to help your case. That's not how law enforcement works, and would be against a whole set of laws. And also not really relevant to my argument.

@M1sf3t
That's my point. People that want to kill will kill no matter what. It's better to decrease the ways available to them to kill so they can only kill the smallest amount of people possible. You don't do that by making guns available to the public.

You have law enforcement to make sure those people get stopped as fast as possible. As for bombs/suicide terrorists, there's no way to stop them other than their own stupidity (eg. the guy blowing himself up in Paris outside of a soccer stadium with no one around because he wasn't allowed inside).

@M1sf3t then the problem is our training standards. Also, you're making a pretty big assumption. At least 40% of the country is all for some form of gun regulations, even according to the most slanted polls. And personally that seems about right. Even living in Texas, I'd say half the people I know are all for some gun reform laws.

@M1sf3t it seems you might be taking your personal experience with law enforcement and assuming that everyone's experience is like that. What your describing is by no means typical, nor is it legal or standard procedure.

@M1sf3t
Not saying we trust all police officers here, but we have a special forces branch for that kind of cases who are extremely well-trained people.
And I sure as hell trust them to make sure casualties stay as limited as possible.

@M1sf3t I will admit we have serious issues with our police force, but for the most part I trust them over mutually assured destruction to protect me.

@M1sf3t but you keep mentioning that keeping guns out of criminal hands is impossible, and it's not. Will some always be able to obtain guns? Sure. But that doesn't mean we allow everyone to have a gun. I understand what you're saying, but you keep insisting we as a country are incapable of limiting access, or that limiting access would not improve the problem, but it can and has.

@M1sf3t first, that's completely off topic. Second, it's false. I have an aunt who re-enlisted in the Air Force in 2014. And an uncle who re-enlisted in the Army in 2013. So you're going to have to clarify what you're trying to claim here.

@M1sf3t both of them were well past a year. My uncle was out in 2010. I have no idea when my aunt got out.

Is this discussion getting too political in nature? Asking because I don't know where the cutoff is on devrant.

Video games become a scapegoat WHEN its fits a political agenda to scapegoat them. Then it becomes an ISSUE. I find it interesting that mass stabbings are hardly reported on, but mass shootings are reported everywhere. Also violence in Chicago is hardly reported on at all. My conclusion is that mainstream media is not interested in human life. I see politicians picking on games when it suits them and furthers their agendas as well as the media.

I have started to find life more enjoyable as I start to tune out of media and political crap. The shock and awe of media sources is unhealthy. So when an outlet blames video games, guns, or other scapegoats, I just roll my eyes and move on. Its not worth the aggravation.

>0.01% is enough
That's not how statistics work

> Add depression, loneliness, mental issues
That's your culprit right there. People that shoot other people weren't stable to begin with.

Do you really want to argue that Elliot Rogers was a perfectly sane individual? Honestly if you go out and shoot someone you're either mentally ill or actually desperate, but its not because of video games. A person that would get tipped by a game wasn't stable to begin with, difference between correlation and causation. Someone mentally ill might get affected by games, but even without them he would snap sooner or later to something else. Theres violence in tv and books, any kind od violent fantasy could make him go berserk, but that doesn't make these media to *cause* it, they may be correlated, or maybe even reverse correlated if you take the fantasy as venting mechanism, but never a cause, its not MK Ultra...