backtop


Print E-mail del.icio.us 47 comment(s) - last by cochy.. on Apr 23 at 3:40 PM


A Phoenix Wright parody by Torokun on Deviant Art
The man has only one line, for Christ's sake! Video game violence? Murder simulators? Killing machines? Doesn't anybody notice this? I feel like I'm taking crazy pills!

Michael blogged yesterday about that raving lunatic Jack Thompson and his itchy trigger finger pointing to video games as a cause for the horrific tragedy at Virginia Tech on Monday, and now I’m about to present some new evidence showing how deluded this Florida attorney is.

Thompson appears to feed off school shooting tragedies worse than any ambulance chaser imaginable. One of his latest appearances is on MSNBC’s Hardball with Chris Matthews. Thompson spews his usual garbage, adding this time that his sources are telling him that Cho Seung-hui was an avid player of Counter-Strike. The computer game apparently lowered Cho’s heart rate and enabled him to be a more efficient killer. In a refreshing change, the show host calls into question Thompson’s massive leaps in flawed logic and unsupported facts. View the video here in Kotaku’s story.

The whole link to Counter-Strike may have been started when Washington Post writer David Cho (no relation) wrote that the VT shooter was a fan of the game during his high school days. The odd part is that the original article was later updated with the removal of any reference to Counter-Strike. Joystiq caught up with the original writer and found out that the deletion of Counter-Strike details was due to the lack of evidence that the VT shooter continued to play any video games while in college. In fact, the killer’s roommates report that, although he was on the computer for many hours of a day, none of it was for playing games. Furthermore, the Counter-Strike contingent at VT had never heard of Cho Seung-hui nor seen him at any of the college’s tournaments.

As for the writer’s excuse of why his story jumped the gun on shakey facts, author David Cho said “it was standard practice to replace a rougher online version of a story with the polished print version when it was available. The Counter-Strike connection was removed, Cho said, to make room for more recent, more relevant information.”

From David Cho’s explanation, we can safely assume that anything read on Washington Post’s Web site should be taken with a Kryptonian-sized crystal of salt.

Oh wait, there is just one more thing. According to the search warrant results, hosted on CNN and referenced by Gay Gamer, authorities found no videogame consoles in the killer’s dorm room. There is still the possibility that there could be computer games stored on Cho Seung-hui’s PC (though roommates reported as never seeing play a game) but for now we can rule out gaming consoles.

Sometimes I get the suspicion that Jack Thompson is actually laughing at all of us. This guy could just be getting a kick out of having his name in print and on the Web while legions of angry gamers collectively give him the virtual middle finger. Sadly, if his plan is just to get into Guinness for being the most hated individual amongst gamers, he’s succeeding.

At least not everyone is turning into a dysfunctional beetle after a hailstorm. Chris Matthews hardballed Thompson on his show, as I mentioned earlier, and Rush Limbaugh with his power ties served one of his listeners a dose of reality, as quoted on Kotaku:

CALLER: What I really think is an issue is video violence, video gaming. I will guarantee you, I'll bet my last dollar in my pocket, that this shooter will be found to have been a compulsive video gamer, and when people are living that kind of lifestyle -- and college students do this a lot.

RUSH: (sigh) Let's say you're right. Not every video gamer goes out and murders 33 people on the college campus though. There's more to this than that. We can find all kinds of societal problems and ills, but the fact of the matter is that whatever you would look at as a bad influence -- video games as you mentioned -- it may desensitize people, but it doesn't turn everybody into mass murderers.

...

So you gotta be real careful here not to paint with broad brushes on these things. You gotta be very careful not to plug this into your own individual political prism, because then you become no different than what the Drive-Bys are doing. If you just wait, eventually we'll find out more than we want to know about this guy, and you're going to have to listen to what's reported about this guy with keen ears, and you're going to have to read with sharp eyes out there, because the Drive-Bys are going to report about this guy in ways that will advance their political agenda because that's what this story is to them.

Hmm, some guy with a political agenda... I wonder who that could be? HINT: IT’S JACK THOMPSON.



Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

Taliban Jack?
By Mithan on 4/20/2007 5:40:53 AM , Rating: 5
He is exploiting a huge tragedy to further his own ends and I find it disgusting.

Cho was a mentaly disturbed young adult. It was his deranged decision to do what he did and video games, music, movies, etc were not the cause.

Might as well ban crime novels.




RE: Taliban Jack?
By LaGUNaMAN on 4/20/07, Rating: -1
RE: Taliban Jack?
By zombiexl on 4/20/2007 9:13:09 AM , Rating: 2
I dont know that I'd classify this as a conservative vs liberal thing.

Its more likely an extreme radical religious conservative thing.


RE: Taliban Jack?
By masher2 (blog) on 4/20/2007 9:25:29 AM , Rating: 2
I'm very confident that the number of people who "feed off fear" on this incident to push their own gun-control agenda will be far more than those who use it to push videogame-control.

Probably by about a 10,000:1 margin.


RE: Taliban Jack?
By zombiexl on 4/20/2007 9:28:42 AM , Rating: 1
I'd tend to agree i think those would mostly be classifed as liberals. Although like I said in my previous post I beleive they are the more vocal extreme liberals.


RE: Taliban Jack?
By BMFPitt on 4/20/2007 9:46:50 AM , Rating: 2
While I know that you're terrified of them taking away the guns you need to defend yourself form the King of England, I think most rational people see "Don't let stalkers who have been in a mental hospital have guns" as a reasonable measure.


RE: Taliban Jack?
By zombiexl on 4/20/2007 10:11:20 AM , Rating: 3
I'm guessing that he doenst want a gun to protect him from the king, but from jack asses like this guy who killed all those people.

I doubt many people would disagree with your argument that he shouldnt have been able to get a gun. The problem is that just because someone needs a background check to get a (certain) gun doesnt mean they can't get one if they really want it.


RE: Taliban Jack?
By BMFPitt on 4/20/2007 11:32:17 AM , Rating: 2
First off, you haven't watched The Simpsons enough.

Second, why does a person's ability to obtain something illegally make it sensible to get rid of laws restricting their sale? Do you think crack should be legalized because anybody an buy it?

And it's not nearly as good of an argument to say, "An obviously crazy guy would be able to get guns, anyway" than "criminals would be able to get guns, anyway."

If you think that the mentally deranged must have unfettered access to firearms in order to protect the 2nd Amendment rights of law abiding citizens, then I don't know what to say to you. Otherwise, you should rethink your arguments.


RE: Taliban Jack?
By Keeir on 4/20/07, Rating: 0
RE: Taliban Jack?
By cochy on 4/20/07, Rating: -1
RE: Taliban Jack?
By CCRATA on 4/20/2007 2:54:39 PM , Rating: 2
There are countries with more guns/capita than the US with less gun crime than the US. Do some research and you will see that guns/gun control is not the issue.


RE: Taliban Jack?
By cochy on 4/20/2007 3:42:13 PM , Rating: 2
Fine if you say so...I'll do some research. Hmm.

http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_mur_wit_fir_...

Oh look the USA ranks #8 in guns per capita. And it the #1 ranked first world country. If you noticed I was referring to first world nations in my post.

So thanks, but I'll stick to my guns on this one. No pun intended :P


RE: Taliban Jack?
By cochy on 4/20/2007 4:02:24 PM , Rating: 2
Follow up as I didn't quite answer your post correctly since my link was to gun crime not gun ownership. It is proving difficult to find actual statistics on amount of guns per capita. However I'm quite confident that the US ranks as the top first world nation in that regard as well. Unless you could specifically specify otherwise.

Finally I'm not saying we need better gun control, with screenings and registrations and so on. I'm saying we need to rid guns completely. Of course there is a black market but there needs to be a start.


RE: Taliban Jack?
By mars777 on 4/23/2007 7:19:15 AM , Rating: 2
So waht? Here in Croatia we have almost 1 gun per elder male person and a lot of guns in children hands (we had war recently if you know/recall) and we are not even in that list.

Gun per capita means nothing if people dont kill with them.


RE: Taliban Jack?
By HVAC on 4/20/2007 4:39:37 PM , Rating: 2
The issue is an argument over impediments to the "Right to bare[sic] arms". The gun lobby doesn't want ANY impediments to gun ownership, saying there should be no restrictions to sales. The opposition...er...well....says the opposite.

The fact is that there already are impediments to gun ownership and the kind you are allowed to buy.

The reason US citizens have the right to bear arms is as a deterrent (wait for it....) to formation of a tyrannical government by those in power, not as a deterrent to home intrusion or any other kind of personal attack.

The side effect, or the elephant in the room that we have to live with and deal with when we have this right, is that some innocents (as though anyone is "innocent") will die by the gun.

There's the threat of tyranny in one corner and dead people in the other. What do you do? What....do....you....do?


RE: Taliban Jack?
By zombiexl on 4/20/2007 3:40:35 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
I'll never understand "Right to bare arms".

According to Family Guy thats was the right to bear arms.

quote:
This isn't the wild west anymore. Why is there any need for civilians to have legal access to firearms of any kind? I see none at all.

I believe the initial intent was to keep the government from overstepping their bounds. I don't think it worked.

quote:
There will always be mentally disturbed individuals. Guns and gun control was most definitely the problem

You are right, I guess he couldnt have gone to any sportsmans shop used a bow and arrows or crossbow for that matter.

Ok.. now for my not so politically correct statement of the hour:

We could always say hey this guy is obviously nuts lets lock him away, but that wouldnt happen. It's much more important to protect society from pot heads than mentally degranged people.


RE: Taliban Jack?
By cochy on 4/20/2007 3:47:46 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
You are right, I guess he couldnt have gone to any sportsmans shop used a bow and arrows or crossbow for that matter.


Not unless they have semi-automatic bows. If he committed this crime with any other weapon he wouldn't have been able to murder a couple of dozen people so easily. There's no question about this. Please notice I said easily. So don't come back with:

"oh he could have fashioned a home made bomb and blown up the building Oklahoma style."

That won't fly with me, as thats not nearly as easy as walking into a sporting goods store with a Visa.


RE: Taliban Jack?
By zombiexl on 4/20/2007 3:59:27 PM , Rating: 2
I know a few bow hunters that could do some damage at a distance and knock off a number (probably not the same number before being caught) of targets. Of course killing yourself with a bow is definately more difficult.

I hope you realize making guns illegal will NEVER stop the ability to get illegal weapons. If you think it would you are only fooling yourself. Think of it this way drugs are illegal, people still get them.

How many crimes do you really think are committed with legally registered hand guns? I'm sure you can find some stats on it if you care to look.


RE: Taliban Jack?
By cochy on 4/20/2007 4:16:40 PM , Rating: 2
I totally agree. Of course there's a black market for everything. Plus the vast majority of gun owners would never commit any crime. I'm thinking from a society point of view. I think there's no use for having them around the way they are now.


RE: Taliban Jack?
By cochy on 4/20/2007 4:17:23 PM , Rating: 2
Ment to reply to zombiexl above.


RE: Taliban Jack?
By cochy on 4/20/2007 4:18:11 PM , Rating: 1
Ok...the reply button isn't working correctly, or I'm just overtired or something.


RE: Taliban Jack?
By cochy on 4/20/2007 4:28:44 PM , Rating: 2
Nope it didn't work properly </bug_report>

PS. Sorry for quadruple posting.


RE: Taliban Jack?
By cochy on 4/23/2007 3:40:57 PM , Rating: 2
Ah now it got fixed.


RE: Taliban Jack?
By KristopherKubicki (blog) on 4/20/2007 6:23:48 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
murder a couple of dozen people so easily.

I would have to think his next weapon of choice after guns would be some sort of explosive.


RE: Taliban Jack?
By slacker57 on 4/20/2007 6:22:04 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
I'll never understand "Right to bare arms".


So I'm guessing you wear sweaters in the summer. ;)


RE: Taliban Jack?
By masher2 (blog) on 4/21/2007 12:08:55 PM , Rating: 1
> "This isn't the wild west anymore..."

During the entire history of the Wild West-- all the states and years it encompassed-- there were less firearm-related murders than there are in Washington D.C. in just one year.

Guns are, of course, nearly impossible to own legally in D.C.


RE: Taliban Jack?
By mars777 on 4/23/2007 7:25:33 AM , Rating: 2
masher this is one of the few times i have to agree with you (here in croatia the situation is the exact opposite. guns per capita extremely high - murders none). So our situation confirms your opposite post.


RE: Taliban Jack?
By housecat on 4/23/2007 10:44:35 AM , Rating: 4
I sleep with a 12 gauge racked on the wall right above my head every night. Its loaded. I have no children in the house so I feel its completely appropriate.
Needless to say if a "Cho" breaks in one of my windows at night, I feel its completely appropriate to assume if hes crazy enough to do that.. hes probably crazy enough to be armed and dangerous and needs to be killed.
Why take chances hoping an invader is "OK" when they've already proved themselves unstable by breaking in your home?
You are a liberal, so you probably want to talk it out but theres certain lines you must draw.

Your Japan example, an asian country where people live and breathe a whoooole different culture than here is absurd. Gun control has nothing to do with their suppressed nature.
I've been to Japan, if you think its so great go move there and shut up.
I'll take my chances with my 12 gauge.


RE: Taliban Jack?
By Axbattler on 4/23/2007 9:55:47 AM , Rating: 2
Gun don't kill people. But it makes it easier. I reckon that it is easier to escape/subdue a Leatherface wannabe than an firearmed individual. It comes down to the ease of acquisition/use/effectiveness (if perceived). I suspect that it is easier to buy a gun in the US, than to obtain high strength acids (and even if not, I'd argue is still not as effective as a bullet for killing, and less efficient in terms of reloading) or build a bomb (which may fail due to builder inexperience - like in the Columbine shooting). A modern firearm is comparatively more reliable than most alternatives (I can't comment on mass poisoning, but it still seems more work - if you get caught sneaking in the kitchen your plan fails and you get put away without cause any serious damage). I wouldn't be surprised though, if those deranged individuals would acquire some military explosives (grenades etc.) if they were affordable, and as easily obtained as civilian firearms. Heck, if there was a red button that says "blow the world up", they might go for that instead. Thankfully, those aren't options.

And yes it would be nice if they can identify mentally disturbed individuals and end the issue first. However that itself present a problem. I do not think that it that easy. You can find reserved guys everywhere. I've heard people comment about his 'disturbing plays' - but I do not think that is enough of an evidence to do anything about it. Certainly no more of a reason than someone purchasing a firearm. There are many people who can write far more disturbing plays, who would not go around shooting people. The stalking part is the nearest thing to an indication of a disturbed individual.. although can you really put someone away from society for life on that basis? Probably not - stalking is unhealthy, but it's no indication that the person will follow up with something as horrific as mass-killing.

To sum up, the number of deranged criminals may be independant on the availability of firearms. However, they act as damage multipliers. Firearms are [i]more[/i] effective than most alternatives. That's why modern infantry use them rather than acid loaded super soakers. No, gun control can not completely remove gun crime from the picture - they do exists in the UK too. But they do make it considerably more rare. Burst of school violence may end up with people getting stabbed/hurt by some sort of sharp objects - but the scale of damage tend to be comparatively smaller than many school shootings in the US.


RE: Taliban Jack?
By zombiexl on 4/20/2007 3:28:12 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
First off, you haven't watched The Simpsons enough.


I guess not..

quote:
Second, why does a person's ability to obtain something illegally make it sensible to get rid of laws restricting their sale? Do you think crack should be legalized because anybody an buy it?


I never said to take away the laws.

quote:
If you think that the mentally deranged must have unfettered access to firearms in order to protect the 2nd Amendment rights of law abiding citizens, then I don't know what to say to you. Otherwise, you should rethink your arguments.


WTF? Did you read my post at all?


RE: Taliban Jack?
By Kefner on 4/20/2007 3:45:48 PM , Rating: 2
Second, why does a person's ability to obtain something illegally make it sensible to get rid of laws restricting their sale? Do you think crack should be legalized because anybody an buy it?


Actually yes. Not that I want to do it, but this America, and if some jackass wants to smoke crack in his house, he should damn well be allowed. I believe this is a free country!


RE: Taliban Jack?
By masher2 (blog) on 4/20/2007 12:00:01 PM , Rating: 3
> "I think most rational people see "Don't let stalkers who have been in a mental hospital have guns..."

That's already an existing law. Cho wasn't registered as a mental patient, however, or he wouldn't have been able to purchase a firearm.

I also have to point out that Germany has far more draconian laws than we do on gun control, and its failed to prevent school shootings there either...they've had a recent spate of them.

Finally, had Cho been denied a gun, would it really have prevented him from killing people? Maybe he would have grabbed a knife instead, and killed only one or two...or maybe he would have done a few internet searches on improvised munitions, built a bomb, and brought down the entire building.


RE: Taliban Jack?
By BMFPitt on 4/20/2007 3:34:40 PM , Rating: 2
He checked off a box on the application that said, "No, I haven't been locked up for being nuts." That was basically the extent of the check. There needs to mandatory reporting of these types of things mandated at the federal level, and for more reasons than just gun background checks.

And as far as him building a bomb, judging by his apparent mental capacity, I don't think he could have built anything more complex than a Molotov cocktail. That doesn't hold true for every psycho out there (and thankfully, the Columbine kids were simply too inept to build a bomb that worked,) but I think that in cases like this the killers want a more up-close kill to satisfy their delusions of power.


RE: Taliban Jack?
By zombiexl on 4/20/2007 3:43:15 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
but I think that in cases like this the killers want a more up-close kill to satisfy their delusions of power.


A few sticks of homemade dynamite strapped someones body and a simple trigger would solve that up close thing. I'm guessing he could have done that pretty easily.


RE: Taliban Jack?
By goatfajitas on 4/21/2007 1:02:15 PM , Rating: 2
Its always the blame game. Cant possibly be the fact that he was just a natural psycho.


Violence
By michaelheath on 4/20/2007 12:02:07 PM , Rating: 2
I'd like to state for the record that violence existed long before video games. Graphically violent video games are an even more recent development. Before that, television and movies were to blame, and before that rock and roll music was blamed for violence and promescuity. Pop culture pushes envelopes for acceptability, and I can't turn a blind eye to that because I feel that it's true. However, anyone who feels that there is one single cause behind events like these is a fool.

Heaven forbid that this fellow might have had a psychological problem (deep depression or mild schizophrenia come to mind, considering his delusions of oppression and his reclusiveness), or, on a social interactive level over the course of months or years, might have been a catalyst to this all (maybe every day he got beaten up, given a wedgie, his head dunked in a toilet, and his lunch money stolen, something that's happened since school bullies existed). In the end, he perceived the world differetly than the rest, and felt that violence was his only way out. He wanted to be a martyr (for what, who knows, but I've heard Osama Bin Laden, Columbine, and Jesus so far). That doesn't happen every day, but it's happened without video games.




RE: Violence
By masher2 (blog) on 4/20/2007 12:16:03 PM , Rating: 4
The poor guy apparently went 15 years without a friend, or even having anyone speak to him in a friendly manner. Is it any wonder he snapped?


RE: Violence
By HVAC on 4/20/2007 4:48:44 PM , Rating: 5
Apparently we as a society do not deal well with anti-social behavior. We tend to let loners continue being loners.

Just walk....across....the room.....

Not everyone can break down the wall they have built for themself. Some people need help.


yeah
By vze4z7nx on 4/20/2007 3:52:04 PM , Rating: 2
Might as well ban crime novels? I agree totally with what you said.

And also, we might as well ban curse words for everyone, boxing, and other stuff.




RE: yeah
By kmiller1700 on 4/22/2007 3:05:23 PM , Rating: 2
dont forget wrestling. and Nascar.


I wish
By quiksilv3r on 4/20/2007 7:43:25 AM , Rating: 1
I wish I could shoot Jack Thompson with a Desert Eagle.




RE: I wish
By quiksilv3r on 4/20/2007 7:43:42 AM , Rating: 2
thomson*


Minor Details...
By BMFPitt on 4/20/2007 8:07:42 AM , Rating: 3
Yeah right, like a little detail like him not playing any video games will stop Crazy Jack.

Don't you realize that Chewbacca is a wookie?




Should he have been?
By othercents on 4/20/2007 10:26:55 AM , Rating: 3
There have been many writings about the negative side of playing video games, but what about the positive things. During a very stressful time of my life I consistently played video games as a release. This was my way of dealing with the stress. What if the VT shooter would have played video games instead of bundling everything up inside until it overflowed?

Other




Not so sure I can agree...
By Aikouka on 4/20/2007 8:17:18 AM , Rating: 2
I should probably start off with a disclaimer as I don't agree with ol' Jackie at all, but there may be an issue with the logic presented in the article against what he's been bringing up.

Essentially, this article is debating that if video games have any effect at all, it must be short term, because he didn't play them since high school. But now, that I don't think I could agree with. If video games warping young minds was true (which I believe it is not; I think the young minds would already be warped), then I highly doubt it'd be a short term effect and could be comparable to other mental jarring effects like child abuse that can affect some people even when they're at a collegiate age. From a logic standpoint, you're trying to say that If video games don't cause long term effects & He hasn't played games in awhile Then video games weren't a factor ( (A'&B')->C' )... problem is, no one has ever proved or disproved A.

So what I'm trying to say is, I think this article presents a poor counter-argument to Thompson's argument. It is possible to bring up the one article posted probably around a month ago on DT about the immediate effects of gaming on brain activity after playing to show that short term effects are what gaming can show if anything. But short term effects existing don't necessarily disprove long term effect existence.

I'm done babbling now... but in closing... I like that Phoenix Wright mock picture ;).




<no subject>
By Scabies on 4/20/2007 10:11:28 AM , Rating: 2
reflexive blame-card paranoia: pwned!

The only time I've heard a reflexive accusation to be accurate was in 2001. We walk into my english class on 9/11 to find Fox News running and video footage of the WTC tragedy. My friend Merritt says "I bet it's that fool, Osama Bin Laden."
I kid you not, he said that at 9:07AM CST 9/11/01.
That aside, I love how people toss the blame card so casually. Some people dont need violent influences to reinforce or develop violent tenancies or behaviors.




not news to me
By kattanna on 4/20/2007 11:19:52 AM , Rating: 2
some of us have known that the guy wasnt a gamer and it has been in the media for a bit

just ignored




"Spreading the rumors, it's very easy because the people who write about Apple want that story, and you can claim its credible because you spoke to someone at Apple." -- Investment guru Jim Cramer

DailyTech Poll
Do you use copy/paste on your smartphone? 




16 Comments















botimage
Copyright 2010 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki