
US Senator says games are a bigger problem than guns - Swifty
http://arstechnica.com/gaming/2013/01/yes-a-us-senator-just-said-games-are-a-bigger-problem-than-guns/
======
_delirium
It's interesting that "violent games" and "violent music" often get blamed
(often by the same people), but "violent films" or "violent novels" less
often. I would guess demographics are a big part of it: lots of people who
don't think of themselves as potential killers like horror films, but they
think of video games, or black metal, as something only weird obsessives are
into, because people in their circles aren't into them.

I'm personally rather more disturbed that people actually enjoy watching the
Saw series of films, than I am by people playing Call of Duty or buying Dimmu
Borgir albums, but ymmv.

edit: That isn't to say that I think violent films should be banned, either.
But I'm more weirded out by the fact that some really gory stuff is really
popular, than I am by anything that comes out of the game or music industries.

~~~
DanBC
I said it before (and other people made useful rebuttals) but I find it
interesting that people are quick to condemn pro-anna and thinsperation type
imagery, but they'll also defend violent video games.

If someone _really_ wanted to get a law on the books they'd take an existing
game, re-skin it to be full of children, "Jews" and "blacks", and build some
levels in schools and shopping malls, release it anonymously, and then tip-off
the most vocal press.

And I find it a bit confusing that people spend _billions_ on influencing
others, but that we never refer to the research when discussing this.

~~~
_delirium
I think people _could_ make some pretty hateful games, yes, and some people
probably do (but they aren't that popular, as far as I know). But isn't that
true of any uncensored medium? People publish white-power books, and books
about how Hitler was great, and we're not (at least in the U.S.) pushing for
laws about those. Heck, Stormfront is on the net with no age-related access
controls. It's just sort of a fact of uncensored media that you'll have to
live with some pretty unpleasant stuff. What I don't see is games being
uniquely dangerous, or having the unpleasant stuff in unusually high
concentrations.

~~~
JoeAltmaier
Really? Its pretty well understood that women come off badly in video games.
Either super-sexualized, or just props to be beaten and killed.

And now somebody will point to 1 or two games that don't. That's called 'the
exception that proves the rule'.

~~~
_delirium
I agree there's a ton of sexism in games, yes. I don't see them as so
outrageously different from our general culture as to be the source of a
unique problem, though. Certainly not as the explanation for why the U.S. has
such unusually high levels of violence for a developed country.

I mean, American culture and media are full of sexism, some of it pretty
absurd. Beer ads are super-sexist, for example, and those are allowed to be
shown at prime-time to children, despite peddling both sexism _and_ alcohol.
And the treatment of women in Hollywood is extremely problematic as well. I'm
willing to believe that games are even more sexist than the already pretty low
bar for media in general, and that's something worth criticizing game
developers for, but it seems strange for a Senator to single them out. I would
be _really_ surprised if Lamar Alexander is the one to lead a general charge
against sexism in the American media.

~~~
JoeAltmaier
Other media is temporary entertainment of an escapist sort. Viewed/read and
forgotton.

Video games are immersive environments. Roleplaying continues for scores of
hours. You might spend longer in one game than watching all of Star Wars put
together.

And you are the protagonist in a video game! You are PERSONALLY doing all that
misogynistic violence. Its fun! You get points!

I think video games are fundamentally different than all other 'media', to the
point that video games aren't media at all. They are closer to a club, or a
school, or a gang experience than they are to a book.

And I've played hundreds of games. I have a room at home dedicated to the
playing of games, with machines arrayed around a large round table with power
strips mounted below, built for the purpose. So no I'm not here to slam games
through ignorance.

But we do our cause a huge disservice when we pretend not to 'get it', when we
paper over the real differences between our hobby and other entertainments.

~~~
_delirium
I guess that part I just don't agree with. I feel _much_ more immersed in
novels than in games, myself. Games are just escapist entertainment, whereas
novels have changed my worldview, stuck with me for years, and made me feel I
was _there_. I can't think of a game that has been more than entertainment for
me, and I've played quite a few also. Heck, even in sci-fi situations, Ender's
Game felt much more immersive than Doom. All that stuff about "demons from
hell" and "being on Mars" in Doom I just saw as sort of silly skin on top of
what's fundamentally some abstract gameplay. And it's hard to take the skins
of Counterstrike or CoD any more seriously than that.

More to the point, though, the scientific evidence that games change behavior
more than other media just isn't very compelling, despite lots of money spent
trying to prove it (some of it in the positive direction, as people with
"serious games" grants try to prove that games are uniquely positioned to
enact positive behavior change).

~~~
JoeAltmaier
You say novels have deeply impressed you - at a conscious level, with moving
themes and new ideas. Despite violence, evil characters and events, maybe even
genocide. They all happen in novels.

Compare a video game - you kill an NPC, scoop up some loot, scrounge around
breaking all their crates and pots, then move on. Not thinking about it, not
caring what it is you're doing or what it means to loot a body or take the
pathetic remains of some poor wretch's miserable existance. Ha! This gun is
way worse than the one I'm wielding! Throw it in the trash, or keep it to sell
for coin.

Clearly they are very different experiences. You can't tell me killing
innocent bystanders, looting strangers' homes, fencing stolen goods not once
but 10,000 times to get to the final level - none of this penetrates, not even
a little? You mention Doom which is disengenious - that was riveting when it
came out because of the tension, the surprises. But we're way past that now.
Now we hear the screams of carefully simulated civilians, see their blood,
then loot their wallets and cars.

Why? What moron thinks this is entertainment? It substitutes shock for any
scrap of intelligent gameplay, until it becomes meaningless. Until its just
abstract gameplay.

Anyway maybe I'm off the mark here. But until we admit that something is going
on here that's different from a book or movie, we've not begun to figure out
whether it matters.

------
btilly
The problem with this type of issue is that the topic is complex, it is hard
to get anything like clean evidence, people start with strong opinions, and
attempts at careful analysis immediately get derailed. We could try to reduce
it to its component parts. But that fails, as Calvin points out at
[http://www.myconfinedspace.com/wp-
content/uploads/2007/04/im...](http://www.myconfinedspace.com/wp-
content/uploads/2007/04/image_ed7vv0.gif?9d7bd4).

But that said, here are my personal beliefs:

\- Exposure to violence in mass media (including games) is probably correlated
with overall violence in life across all of society.

\- The individual correlation is very, very small.

\- There are widespread confusions about cause and correlation that come up
over and over again.

\- Long term comparisons have trouble dealing with the confounding influence
of a long-term decrease in violence in our society, with possible causes from
changing mores to reduced lead to parents not resorting to corporal violence
to who knows what.

\- No simple correlation exists between levels of gun ownership and violence
in a society.

\- The "assault weapons" (yeah, that term is not well defined) that get used
in high profile mass shootings are, on the whole, less often used in crime or
to kill people than handguns. Even if a ban was effective, it would be
unlikely to produce any noticeable effect.

\- There is no way that, given how polarized our politics are, that anything
resembling an assault weapon ban is getting through this Congress.

\- The Supreme Court in _Heller_ made it clear that governments have limited
power to regulate the kinds of arms that are available, but has not ruled on
what those limits are. There is a real possibility that assault weapons bans,
like the one that just passed in New York, are going to be struck down on
constitutional grounds.

I now return you to your regularly scheduled argument...

~~~
mattmanser
It's when stories and comments like this come out that I realize just how
alien America is sometimes.

Most of this comment is nonsense. But many of you can't see that because
you're American. It's quite obviously nonsense when you're outside America. On
THIS issue, your politicians are absolutely nuts, your citizens are absolutely
nuts.

We can all tell it is utter nonsense because you can look at all the other
countries in the world that don't have these weird mass murders at anywhere
near the frequency _per capita_. All of them have violent video games. Few of
them have massive gun cultures.

Yet Americans are seriously debating this. It's like some crazy countrywide
delusion.

But it's not just your gun culture, it's something else. Who knows what part
of the American psyche causes it. Perhaps it's the dark-side of the American
dream. You have massive homicide rates compared to the rest of the stable
developed world. When it comes to murder you're a backwards country. You're
down there with Belarus and Georgia.

That's really, really weird. And it's not video games. Or we'd all be joining
you.

So it's not really very complex at all. It's got nothing to do with video
games.

~~~
btilly
For your information I grew up in Canada. A long time ago I would have
immediately agreed with you.

But then I made the mistake of posting my views on Usenet. Unlike most people
on either side of these arguments, I actually followed up on the deluge of
references I got in return from both sides. And did my best to create an
informed opinion for myself. Here are some basic points off of the top of my
head from what I have learned over the following two decades.

\- Gun ownership and gun violence are nothing like linearly correlated. For
example Canada has a third the guns/capita that the USA does, and a fifth the
gun violence.

\- The USA's violence problems are tied closely to racial problems. Over half
of homicides are committed by blacks, and over half of the remainder by
hispanics, despite the fact that there are more whites than either of those
other racial groups. I just ran across a reference that I'm not sure is
trustworthy indicating the the homicide rate among US whites is actually 0.32
per 100,000. If true then that is down with Singapore and Iceland - and is
under half of most European countries.

\- When two areas have easy transport between them, the one with more
restrictive gun rules tends to experience worse gun problems tied to crime.

\- There is some evidence that removing guns increases levels of violent
crime, but reduces odds of death during that crime. Whether you consider this
an improvement is likely to depend on your politics.

\- I've seen and found believable (but have not researched) the claim that in
the short term after a major gun ban, the use of guns in crime actually goes
up. (It is believable because criminals still have their guns, and have less
fear about using them.)

\- No matter what the truth is, there is no way in the US system that we
actually could ban guns. It would require changing the Constitution in a way
that most Americans do not like.

~~~
galaktor
>"the the homicide rate among US whites is actually 0.32 per 100,000. If true
then that is down with Singapore and Iceland - and is under half of most
European countries."

you're forgetting that the vast majority of those other countries might also
find a large part of their violence being committed by "minority groups"

~~~
dredmorbius
In an ethnically homogeneous country (and not all are), the minority is likely
not one readily distinguishable by skin color alone. There are the Yakuza,
Kkangpae, and Ah Kong (the latter mostly Chinese Singaporeans). European
nations often have issues with right-wing groups (and in some cases ethnic
Muslim minorities). But the distinct racial and cultural division (and
history) present in the US is fairly distinctive.

------
tunesmith
I've been reading about bayesian stats and likelihood ratios lately.

So, a likelihood ratio is P(X|A) / P(X|~A) .

If you define X as "likely to commit gun violence", then A would be the way to
identify X.

Here, he's saying that A="plays violent video games". The problem is that not
only is there a poorly correlated relationship between gun violence and video
games, there's also plenty of gun violence by people who don't play violent
video games. So the likelihood ratio isn't great.

It's the same with "is mentally ill". Even if you screen for mental illness,
you're going to get a lot of false positives _and_ false negatives.

The problem is that people keep trying to identify "A", and I suspect there
isn't even a root cause. To me it seems like it's more a matter of multiple
contributory causes that reach tipping points. System dynamics, if you will.
For instance, if you reduce the allure of "preparing for the end of the
world", that could have a system-level impact. Or, if guns looked feminine,
that would probably do it too.

~~~
stephengillie
_Is mentally ill_ doesn't have binary outcomes. Mental issues are set on
spectrums (spectra?), usually from _normal to extreme_ or _extremely low to
extremely high, normal in middle_ , and each human has an analog value on each
spectrum for each disorder. With the latter, we expect a Poisson distribution.

~~~
_delirium
A particularly tricky aspect for the purposes of this discussion is that the
positions on those spectra are somewhat circularly defined when looking at
outcomes, at least as defined in the DSM, the most common U.S. diagnostic
manual. Many of the conditions have outcome-related diagnostic factors right
in the definitions: whether the person is experiencing significant distress in
their life, conflict with others or their surroundings, inability to work a
job, etc. The pragmatic goal is to avoid over-diagnosing things that aren't
actually causing people problems, but as a result it's tricky to isolate
causal factors. Even worse if you're diagnosing people in retrospect: of
course someone who went on a shooting rampage is going to meet all those
criteria, after the fact.

------
mkolodny
I actually wrote a paper in university about whether violence in games and tv
causes violent behavior in real life. It turns out that the US has spent tens
of millions of dollars since the 1950s on studies trying to prove that violent
media does in fact cause real-world violence. After the decades of studies,
and the gobs of money that's been spent, still not one shred of conclusive
evidence has supported the notion that games cause violent behavior.

Here's a link to a draft of the paper if anyone's interested:
<http://goo.gl/TJQaU>

------
dobbsbob
Didn't James Holmes dress up like the riddler/joker, record an insane
voicemail greeting in joker character, cover his apartment in batman posters,
and shoot up a theatre playing batman? Clearly it was call of duty and gaia
that made him do it

At least this senator could've found some sort of phony empirical evidence
before scapegoating. Guess the violent movies are the root of all evil card is
played out

------
stackcollision
Parenting is the real issue here. If you can't teach your kids the difference
between reality and fantasy, you have failed.

I had caring parents who love video games. I have been playing violent games
since my dad got Doom for our N64. I am a well-adjusted individual with a good
job, a happy relationship, a stable living condition, and plenty of friends.

Why didn't video games turn me violent? It's probably because while my parents
love games, they didn't let me sit in front of them 24/7. They made sure I did
my work, had an after-school job, was involved in clubs, etc. The same applies
for any other medium, like TV. Everything in moderation.It's not the job of
the video game industry to make sure kids are only playing x-hours per day, it
is the parents'.

~~~
pekk
There is no evidence that sufficient experience playing (say) Doom deathmatch
will turn anyone into a mass killer. 'Moderation' is probably a red herring.

~~~
Firehed
Indeed. I think the best correlation may be that if someone is already
inclined to commit mass violence, they may be able to improve their technique
for practicing murder with a violent video game by studying various reactions
by human and computer players.

This, of course, is equally true for watching any violent movie, and even just
the news these days. But don't let that get in the way of some good
sensationalism.

------
msluyter
This is Lamar Alexander, one of the top senate recipients of NRA contributions
([http://sunlightfoundation.com/blog/2012/12/18/nra-and-
congre...](http://sunlightfoundation.com/blog/2012/12/18/nra-and-congress/)),
so this sort of misdirection is rather unsurprising.

~~~
marssaxman
Oh, _that_ guy? Co-sponsor of PIPA and COICA, and therefore by definition one
of the baddest of the bad guys? Yeah, this is exactly the sort of inane
blather you'd expect from him.

~~~
yen223
I think you might be thinking of Lamar Smith.

~~~
marssaxman
I think you are right, since Lamar Smith has been a prominent baddie, but it
is still true that Lamar Alexander co-signed PIPA and COICA.

------
ajuc
Let's see.

USA - strict laws against violence in games (PEGI ratings etc), liberal gun
control, 4.8 intentional homicides per 100 000 citizens

Poland - liberal law regarding violence in games, strict gun control, 1.1
intentional homicides per 100 000 citizens

Source:
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intentiona...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intentional_homicide_rate)

~~~
aqme28
"The plural of anecdote is not data."

~~~
taligent
"Using a quote out of context just makes you look like an idiot"

~~~
aqme28
Is it out of context? Two datapoints with a multitude of confounding factors
do not actually tell us anything of value.

------
noonespecial
_I think video games is a bigger problem than guns, because video games affect
people. But the First Amendment limits what we can do about video games and
the Second Amendment to the Constitution limits what we can do about guns._

Wow. He's managed to combine "they say the darndedst things" with "that pesky
constitution, always in the way of the best ideas".

I'm sympathetic to the cause of limiting the power of weapons available to
average citizens, but with this guy on my side, I'm not sure the opposition
has much work to do. By dragging _another_ amendment that people are
passionate about into it, he effectively makes his case impossible to argue.

------
bernardom
US: Huge number of guns, access to violent games Rest of world: access to
violent games

US: lots of gun deaths Rest of world: not lots of gun deaths

So either 1- lots of guns = more gun deaths, or 2- lots of guns combined with
violent games = more gun deaths

No way to tease out the two variables, unless there are places with lots of
guns and no violent games that we can look at.

~~~
taligent
YES. Seriously why isn't anyone recognising this ?

The exact same violent video games and movies available in the US exist in
many Western countries (New Zealand, Australia, UK, Singapore, Ireland,
Scotland, France). But there is no where near the same issues.

In Australia I could get lost and end up at any house and be guaranteed I am
not going to be killed for no reason.

~~~
johngalt
Do you honestly think if you get lost and knock on a strangers door you'll
just be indiscriminately killed in the USA?

Remember that the statistics are all talking about relatively small numbers.
Take USA's 0.00004 vs Australia's 0.00001 it's technically correct to say
'300% more likely', but it's still a very small chance.

tl;dr Your more likely to commit suicide than be murdered in either country.

------
impendia
I have heard speculation that violent video games are _inversely_ correlated
with actual violence, in light of the fact that violent crime is way _down_
over the past thirty years or so.

The reasoning is, people who are predisposed to violence can get their kicks
from violent video games, in their own homes, rather than going out and
shooting people.

It is just a theory, but it is no less plausible than the opposite theory.

~~~
russell
And I remember reading that the drop in crime was correlated with the disuse
or ban of leaded gasoline when the cohort was in infancy or young childhood.

------
Tycho
US Senators are a bigger problem than guns _and_ video games.

------
ahallock
Statists are always looking to point to people's freedoms as being the
problem. The vast majority of gun violence is actually State-driven:
<http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g9bRDNgd6E4>

~~~
cadlin
That guy in the video is a crank. I watched the first eight minute (until he
brings out a poverty graph). He a)leaves out the massive reduction of poverty
in the US in the first half of the twentieth century and b) brushes off Social
Security's massive success in reducing the elderly's poverty rate.

~~~
ahallock
You stopped watching when he brought out a poverty graph? Did you think the
data was wrong?

He wasn't arguing about the elderly's poverty rate. It's not relevant to the
video.

------
rikacomet
There is a famous saying here, for such people: " If someone tells you to jump
in a well, would you? "

Voilent games can also be seen as a punching bag to vent out your anger,
without hurting somebody in actual. It is not always the case that kids turn
voilent in real life because of them. Parental guidance is needed at every
step of life, blame poor parenting if you have to :?

~~~
OGinparadise
_There is a famous saying here, for such people: " If someone tells you to
jump in a well, would you? "_

Bad example: I wouldn't but a lot of kids are easily influenced.

And no, I don't support a ban or censorship of games. I see this and guns as
part of life, bad stuff happens some times, like when you cross the street and
a car or a lightning might hit you.

~~~
rikacomet
True, the games should be in moderation as well, but I have seen numerous
instances of negligence on part of parents. Your kid is 12, why let him play
PG-13 games? A lot of people, need to be strict in this case.

this is indeed a very complex situation, like a algorithm, for which we know
one of the 'possible answers' but not the answer as of yet.

On a second thought, I do think thats not the best possible example :/

------
JVIDEL
Well I think the senator should be more worried about those amalgamated
automatons roaming around our steppes, breaking our penny-farthing bikes and
soiling our women's petticoats.

These godless contraptions are invulnerable even to the senator's modern
blunderbuss, and are fueled by the pills he needs to live.

------
toddnessa
It is only through the responsible use of freedom that people can continue to
remain free. Freedom used for selfish ends leads to bondage. History has
proven over and over again that in cases when self-serving attitudes spread
throughout the culture that they are ripe for picking by their enemies with
freedom soon lost. Freedom used responsibly always is to the benefit and
welfare of others.

George Washington: "Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political
prosperity, religion and morality are indespensable supports. In vain would
that man claim the tribute of patriotism, who should labor to subvert these
great pillars."

To those of you who out there who are consumers of this type of material...
buyer beware.

------
heifetz
How about an experiment. Subject a group of people to violent video games and
knives. Give another group of people automatic assault weapons. Create tension
in the group over the course of a year, and see how many people get killed.

------
newbie12
The article ignores the real issue-- the impact of violent video games and
movie content on children. There's no First Amendment right for kids to access
violent content.

~~~
esrauch
I disagree with your assertion. Some violent depictions can trivially be
political speech, and "think of what the children will do" is simply not a
compelling reason for the government to limit any political speech, especially
when there is such a tenuous scientific link between viewing that content and
long term health impact.

Consider The Bully Project film from 2 years ago; the MPAA rated it R because
they consider it to be too violent, even though it is literally actual footage
of bullying in schools. I find it difficult to accept that 15 and 16 year olds
should be _legally_ forbidden from watching something that has direct and
important relevancy on their lives and could, from a reasonably objective
view, actually improve the lives of bullied kids. Just because you are 16
shouldn't mean you have no rights.

~~~
JoeAltmaier
Yeah pretty much just because you aren't 21 you have few rights. Its strange -
by legislating a number (legal age) we can disenfranchise, economically
marginalize, and socially stigmatize whole groups of people. And no
constitutional protection helps.

------
fotoblur
In my research I came across what I think is the best explanation for the
cause for violence in our society. I believe video games are just another
symptom but not the cause and effect.

"Of all crimes, those involving violence are most closely related to high
levels of inequality." \- <http://www.guardian.co.uk/books/2009/mar/13/the-
spirit-level>

~~~
newbie12
That doesn't explain the mass rampage murders, which have been all committed
by wealthy or upper-middle class perpetrators. Plus, violent crime in America
is decreasing even while poverty is increasing.

~~~
pekk
Violent crime is decreasing, period. It is spurious (if not intentionally
misleading) to suggest that this correlates in a meaningful way with changes
in poverty.

~~~
JoeAltmaier
Yes, recently an article was posted here (WSJ) that correlated unleaded
gasoline with violent crime. That's actually believable.

~~~
morpher
IIRC, Freakanomics had a section correlating legalized abortion with a drop in
crime ~18 years later. Also plausible. But, of course, not necessarily causal.

------
WalterBright
On the other hand, violent games may actually reduce violence, because people
with violent tendencies may be using the games to get their "fix" in a way
that doesn't actually hurt anyone.

------
strlen
Good luck, Senator:
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brown_v._Entertainment_Merchant...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brown_v._Entertainment_Merchants_Association)

------
jussij
Yet another excuse to not get tough on gun control, all thanks to a badly
worded Second Amendment.

The reality is without serious gun control the massacres in the US will
continue.

------
zoowar
If games are a bigger problem than guns, war is a bigger problem than games.

------
WalterBright
Don't forget to blame the comic books!

