backtop


Print 93 comment(s) - last by Venkman2012.. on Jun 20 at 8:46 AM

Study shows conclusively that gun controllers train shooters; was Jack Thompson right?

Concerns about violent video games were recently stoked when Norwegian mass-murder Anders Behring Breivik revealed that he had used "Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2", a wildly popular title published by Activision Blizzard, Inc. (ATVI) to train for his killings.  The self-proclaimed Christian [source] who sought to become a "martyr", logged many hours in the game, which in one level depicts the player in the role of covert U.S. operative-cum-terrorist, murdering helpless citizens.

I. Scientific Evidence: Gun Controllers Train You For Real-Life Headshots

Now a controversial study by Jodi L. Whitaker -- an Ohio State University graduate psychology researcher -- and Brad J. Bushman -- a Vrije Universiteit, Netherlands psychology professor -- has cast further fuel on the flames claiming scientific evidence that video games are indeed training killers.

In the study "Boom, Headshot!": Effect of Video Game Play and Controller Type on Firing Aim and Accuracy" researchers had 151 college students shoot at mannequins, as a test of aiming accuracy.  Each student was ordered to shoot 16 bullets at the target, and some students were first prepped with 20 minutes of gaming in a violent video game.

Among the gamers, some were given standard controllers, while others were given gun-shaped controllers, popular for many shooting games like the "Silent Scope" and "House of the Dead" franchises.

headshot
Psychology researchers demonstrated gun controllers prepare gamers for real-life "headshots".
[Image Source: Bethesda]

Researchers found that while standard controllers did not significantly increase the students' "kills" on the life-sized mannequin, the gun controller did.  Students who were prepped with the gun controller hit the target 33 percent more often, on average, and hit "headshots" 99 percent more often.

While the sample size was relatively small, researchers believe the results were large enough to rule out differences in firearms experience or statistical flukes.  They argue that despite their virtual nature, firearms game controllers provide ample training for potentially deadly real-life weapons use.

The authors write:

In the violent shooting game, participants were rewarded for accurately aiming and firing at humanoid enemies who were instantly killed if shot in the head.  Players were therefore more likely to repeat this behavior outside of the video game context... Just as a person might train how to use a sword by first practicing with a wooden replica, the pistol-shaped controller served as a more realistic implement with which to hone skills that more easily transferred to aiming and firing a gun in the real world.  These results indicate the powerful potential of video games to teach or increase skills, including potentially lethal weapon use.

The study was published [abstract] in Communications Research, a peer-reviewed journal published by SAGE.

II. Video Games and Society -- Murder? "Ok." Consensual Sex?  "Bad!"

The new study offers further challenge to America's video gaming status quo, which has a strong tendency to demonize sexuality, while glorifying and condoning in-game violence.  

While putting the player in the role of a terrorist murdering citizens only earns a "Mature" rating, soft-core depictions of consensual sex between adults is a ticket to an instant "Mature" in most cases.  And if you depict hard-core sex, well, you are virtually guaranteed an "Adults Only" rating.

 
Mass Effect 2
Softcore depictions of consensual, "vanilla" intercourse between adults helped earn Mass Effect 2 a "mature" rating, the same rating given for games where the player role-plays a fantasy of being a terrorist murderer. [Image Source: Bioware]

The debate over sex and violence in video games has raged in America.  Some individuals like Jack Thompson have sought unsuccessfully to ban seemingly "immoral" titles depicting violent criminal fantasies, such as Grand Theft Auto.  Sexual depictions have been especially criticized, with some members of the media allegedly resorting to outright lies to villainize games with sexuality like Mass Effect.

Some claim that video games have destructive psychological effects, but other studies contradict this premise.  Some studies even show that gaming benefits reflexes and problem solving skills.

Over 97 percent of U.S. children play video games.  Studies found males to gravitate towards more violent video games.  Coincidentally males murder people in the U.S. at a rate nine times higher than females according to recent studies.

Many adults game as well, though the population of gaming adults -- particularly console gamers is thought to be smaller.  A recent study by the Centers for Disease Control claimed that the average 35-year-old gamer is overweight and depressed, suggesting long-term gaming may contribute to these health problems.

Sources: Communications Research, EurekAlert



Comments     Threshold


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

Such BS....
By Cheesew1z69 on 5/22/12, Rating: 0
RE: Such BS....
By JasonMick (blog) on 5/22/2012 10:52:11 AM , Rating: 5
quote:
I have played many games since 96, I don't want to shoot people in the head. The person who does, they, IMO, have underlying issues that causes them to think this way. Using games as an excuse, is pretty LAME.
The study didn't explore intent, as far as what I read. It merely discussed accuracy .

In other words, you may well be correct -- if you play shooter games, even with a gun controller, that isn't necessarily going to make you kill people.

On the other hand, the study may also be correct -- if you are psychotic, a game with a gun controller may help you kill people more effectively. Of course, so would gun training, but sometimes psychotic individuals can't use handguns due to criminal history or (in the case of children and teens) family rules.

I'm not saying the study is infallible -- it's just like any other psych study -- a jumble of statistics that may or may not reflect reality. But it is an interesting idea, sociologically, that games could prep psychotic individuals (e.g. terrorists, murderers) to kill more effectively.


RE: Such BS....
By Reclaimer77 on 5/22/2012 10:59:42 AM , Rating: 5
This has to be the dumbest waste of time ever. So this "study" is trying to prove that the classic handgun form factor will lend itself to someone being more accurate? Can we say "duh"? For over 100 years this has been a perfected and proven design for accuracy as well as recoil management. How is this some revelation again?


RE: Such BS....
By JasonMick (blog) on 5/22/2012 11:04:01 AM , Rating: 1
quote:
This has to be the dumbest waste of time ever. So this "study" is trying to prove that the classic handgun form factor will lend itself to someone being more accurate? Can we say "duh"? For over 100 years this has been a perfected and proven design for accuracy as well as recoil management. How is this some revelation again?
Isn't that psychology researchers' job -- to prove things we already know? ;)


RE: Such BS....
By Reclaimer77 on 5/22/2012 11:10:18 AM , Rating: 5
Yes but the video game tie-in seems very biased and unnecessary. Because you would get the same results in real life. If you gave someone a slingshot and someone else a handgun, I damn well guarantee you the person with the handgun will be more accurate. How does that "train" you to be a better killer again?

Jack Thompson is still wrong by the way :)


RE: Such BS....
By JasonMick (blog) on 5/22/2012 11:18:47 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Yes but the video game tie-in seems very biased and unnecessary. Because you would get the same results in real life. If you gave someone a slingshot and someone else a handgun, I damn well guarantee you the person with the handgun will be more accurate. How does that "train" you to be a better killer again?

Jack Thompson is still wrong by the way :)
I agree, in the sense that even if the study is right, it shows no reason why violent videogames should be placed out of the hands of law-abiding individuals.

I think the only worthwhile conclusion of the study is that perhaps violent criminals, persons with known terrorist ties, and individuals diagnosed with psychosis should be barred from purchasing violent video game titles, as they would be barred from purchasing guns.

Most retailers already ID for age restrictions, so this wouldn't be more onerous than the current system and would have no effect on law abiding gamers and gun owners, both of which are valuable assets to the nation!


RE: Such BS....
By Reclaimer77 on 5/22/2012 11:25:05 AM , Rating: 2
I wouldn't base any policies on this study. However even if that did happen, it couldn't be enforced. They would just give someone the money and have them buy the game for them. Dozens of ways to get around this.

Just like gun control. It doesn't work because people motivated to kill or be criminals ALREADY seek to operate outside the law anyway, making gun control laws irrelevant to them.


RE: Such BS....
By JasonMick (blog) on 5/22/2012 11:41:34 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Just like gun control. It doesn't work because people motivated to kill or be criminals ALREADY seek to operate outside the law anyway, making gun control laws irrelevant to them.
I agree with you to some extent, but I think you miss the sole positive benefit of handgun control laws.

Gun control generally doesn't work in taking handguns out of the hands of violent individuals (that's why law-abiding citizens deserve the right to bear arms).

But it has been shown to be mildly effective in establishing intent to commit crime and create charges against dangerous individuals, as if you have a history of violent crime and are banned from owning a gun, if you get caught lurking around with one, you are likely contemplating a crime and can be arrested just for that.

While this does create some glaring civil liberties issues, you could argue it does take repeated violent offenders off the streets, as well.

The same could (in theory) be applied to say terrorists who train for real-world shootings using video game gun sims.


RE: Such BS....
By Digimonkey on 5/22/2012 1:40:27 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
The same could (in theory) be applied to say terrorists who train for real-world shootings using video game gun sims.


Seems to me you'd have to ban them from playing laser tag or paint ball too.


RE: Such BS....
By tastyratz on 5/22/2012 4:17:08 PM , Rating: 5
And owning a bb gun
and going to a shooting range.
And even an elastic gun.

Practicing shooting with proper form and any form factor or weapon of choice improves your skills and ability to handle a similar device be it real or virtual.

This is no more different from removing marshmallows from the hands of the skinny because they are practicing to be fat.


RE: Such BS....
By MrBlastman on 5/22/2012 4:27:53 PM , Rating: 4
quote:
The same could (in theory) be applied to say terrorists who train for real-world shootings using video game gun sims.


Jason, have you ever shot a firearm before? Not just once or twice, but with any significance--i.e. thousands of rounds?

I can tell you from my own personal experience that while a video game handgun controller might help teach you to keep your wrist steady, it will do little beyond that on improving your aim.

Why?

Well, several factors, really. First is trigger pull--I doubt any of these controllers accurately simulate trigger pull. Trigger pull is actually the number one cause for missing a target or hitting it where you aim. Bad trigger pull ruins everything. Now, it would be possible to get close to realistic pull on these controllers--but it still wouldn't be the same as the gun you were using.

Secondly, even if you could simulate the trigger pull, doing this would be useless without actually recreation of how the sights work, be it iron or holographic. Iron sights need to be lined up via the posts on both a rifle or handgun and kept that way through a consistent trigger pullthrough. The way this technology that interacts with the television screen works makes it nearly impossible to properly estimate the impact point unless they used motion sensing technology along with it--and I highly doubt any game will do this.

Third is recoil. The controllers just don't simulate it. Beyond the first shot, you have no recoil to prevent follow up shots from hitting the target.

Fourth is double action/single action/chamber/mag reloading/cocking/charging handle etc.

There are so many factors it is absurd to expect most if not all games will simulate this.

If you want to learn to shoot, you have to shoot the real thing at real targets, and preferrably outdoors and not in some indoor range.


RE: Such BS....
By JasonMick (blog) on 5/22/2012 6:06:47 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Well, several factors, really. First is trigger pull--I doubt any of these controllers accurately simulate trigger pull. Trigger pull is actually the number one cause for missing a target or hitting it where you aim. Bad trigger pull ruins everything. Now, it would be possible to get close to realistic pull on these controllers--but it still wouldn't be the same as the gun you were using.

Secondly, even if you could simulate the trigger pull, doing this would be useless without actually recreation of how the sights work, be it iron or holographic. Iron sights need to be lined up via the posts on both a rifle or handgun and kept that way through a consistent trigger pullthrough. The way this technology that interacts with the television screen works makes it nearly impossible to properly estimate the impact point unless they used motion sensing technology along with it--and I highly doubt any game will do this.
Oh of course, I would guess the reason for improved accuracy was more the mental side of it, e.g. lining up your target accurately visually, etc. Possibly confidence too.

Obviously "handling" (don't know the precise term) the pistol makes much more difference.

I've fired pistols before, though, I've only use I'd say 5 or 6 models. In my experience the models I fired varied substantially in amount of kick, trigger sensitivity, etc.

So yes, I would agree with you, but on the same token I would say that a simulator could help, kind of like a driving simulator doesn't really simulate the pedal feedback (in most cases) and shift "feel" of a real manual, but does give you some insight into how they worked.

Is that worth a study or potential restrictions on violent felons/potential terrorists' access? IDK, that might be kind of a stretch. But it's interesting to think about, even if -- as you aptly point out -- playing games doesn't make you a great marksman without real world experience.


RE: Such BS....
By Lord 666 on 5/22/2012 7:27:04 PM , Rating: 1
To build on Blastman's point, it is also the reason why 4 out of 5 nutjobs with little firearm experience select .22 (Reagan, Lennon, Kennedy) or 9mm (Giffords). Heck even the Muslim soldier at Ft. Hood used a FN57. While the first three were target specifc, the last two were massacres. All weapons were compact with low recoil and with the last two having high capacity magazines of 31 and 30 rounds respectively.

Had the AZ whack job had firearms experience, he would have selected a .40/.45, a 12 gauge, or used a 7.62 from a distance. Thankfully for everyone he didn't.

The only link between accuracy and type of controller is eye/hand coordination.


RE: Such BS....
By TSS on 5/22/2012 5:49:55 PM , Rating: 2
This study is bogus. Not so much as the content as the person who made it. As soon as i read "vrije universiteit" psychology professor i stopped taking it seriously.

Obviously you wouldn't know, but so called "free universities" have the lowest standard in education in our country. There have been numerous scandals in the news about how they'll give out a diploma out to anybody, and multiple diploma's have been invalidated because of it.

The educational system in general sucks (schools these days get paid by the student that graduates) these vrije universiteiten suck the most by far. There nothing but the result of the socialist wet dream of absolutely everybody obtaining a university degree, an idea left over from the hippies. And i'll be darned glad the day they tear down each and every one of these universities (and i'm saying that as a socialist, going to vote socialists in the elections in 3 months, so that's saying something).

Just looking at the masters educations, there isn't a single beta (read: math) education like physics or actual science. But there are tons of social studies, psychology, management studies, economics and finance, languages, religious studies even. Just about everything where you don't need to know anything, just talk funny really.

I'll wager $100 that if you repeat the study, give one group a controller but the other one a reflective glove which a kinect can track, then make them form a pistol type sign with that hand (thumb up, index finger as the barrel, the rest of the fingers as "handle") which is to be used as the actual "gun controller", you'll still see the 33% increase in accuracy. Replace the glove with a stick, same thing.

Basically, this studies says "if you practice pointing at stuff, you will get more accurate at pointing at stuff". Then they try to pass it off as real science just to get PR, which they then use to prove their "validity". If there's any news here, it's that you can basically write off ohio state university since they are just as stupid to have collaberated with a vrije universiteit.

If you wanna have a laugh, repeat their experiment in exactly the same way, only this time turn the screen and the controller off, and tell the subjects to just imagine the whole thing in their head but move the controllers as they would as if the game where turned on. You'll get the same results and increases in accuracy as the original study.


RE: Such BS....
By LemonJoose on 5/26/2012 6:18:34 AM , Rating: 2
First, I'd like to point out that both of the authors are affiliated with Communications department at The Ohio State University which is separate from the Psychology department. Bushman apparently has a dual affiliation with another university on the Netherlands.

That said, I agree with you on the criticism that this is another study that simply proves what is already obvious -- if you train at something, the more closely the training conditions match the real-life situation, the better you'll perform.

It does not prove that violent video games will cause otherwise normal people to want to shoot at other people. A mannequin is not a real person. And banning violent videogames would not prevent those with criminal intent from training their shooting skills by other equally or even more effective means such as using real guns or the kind of Airsoft pistol that served the role of the "realistic gun" for shooting the targets in this study.

The 1st and 2nd ammendments to our Constitution are at the core of what it means to be an American, and we shouldn't tolerate misguided attempts to limit either of them.


RE: Such BS....
By Keeir on 5/22/2012 1:54:08 PM , Rating: 4
quote:
I think the only worthwhile conclusion of the study is that perhaps violent criminals, persons with known terrorist ties, and individuals diagnosed with psychosis should be barred from purchasing violent video game titles, as they would be barred from purchasing guns.


No... this just showed when you practice something, you get better at it!

There are many many ways to practice gun aiming and killing people without using games. Video games might be especially effective, but this study doesn't show that at all.

I wonder what the effect of having 10 minutes a video instruction on shooting and 10 minutes of live practice before the contest would have been? Or paintball? Or laser tag? Or using a laser pointer strapped to a mockup? Or an especially powerful water gun? There are tens if not hundreds of ways to practice your killing skills. Video Games are a convient method and MIGHT be very effective, but unless they are shown to be super effective versus existing alternatives, I wouldn't see a reason to ban them to anyone.


RE: Such BS....
By vortmax2 on 5/22/2012 2:17:08 PM , Rating: 2
I think the bigger question is this: Why are violent video games entertaining in the first place? Or: Why do we find it fun to 'fake' murdering people on a TV screen?


RE: Such BS....
By knutjb on 5/22/2012 5:06:24 PM , Rating: 2
Maybe it's from our infatuation in defining good vs. evil. There will always be evil in the world. What side do you play? Some think we can cure all bad behaviors. I don't believe we can, eg Charles Manson.

Show me any culture today that doesn't have a violence problem of some sort. I would prefer no violence but to expect it, let alone demand it is simply delusional. To limit or prevent games such as these will not change our underlying irrational behaviors.

I don't mind trying to get a better understanding of what's going on but most of the social (so called) sciences are based more on interpretation through subjective filters than repeatble objective empirical observations. This applies to both liberal and conservative groups pushing agendas.


RE: Such BS....
By WalksTheWalk on 5/23/2012 9:45:11 AM , Rating: 3
There are multiple factors to why games are the way they are today.

Part of it is that we know it's a game so the "anything goes" aspect of it is OK.

Another part is desensitization to violence. Once we get used to a certain level, say gibbing someone in DOOM, the level of violence needs to be increased to get that same level of initial rush/disgust/uniqueness to the experience. This happens over and over and you have the kind of super violent games we have today. (Super violent by yesterday's standards.) The same applies to movies. The slasher movies are old hat so to ratchet up the experience and fear factor they have moved into extreme torture.

This is also probably a cycle that will experience a backlash as society eventually begins to reject that level of violence and try to go back to a previous state of less violence.


RE: Such BS....
By Mint on 5/22/2012 1:26:06 PM , Rating: 2
Not that I think video game violence is bad or should be banned, but you seem to be misunderstanding the study.

Everyone is shooting the mannequins with a gun. The study was looking at how video game prep time before doing so made an impact. Prepping with a fake gun was more effective than prepping with a controller, but that's an ancillary finding. It's simply quantifying that people who play video games can become better shooters.

Thankfully it's not a particularly useful study in advancing the cause to ban violent video games, but it's interesting how much impact it can have on the real shooting activity.

Personally, I found a similar thing with driving. I loved games, and during my first go-carting experience (before I'd ever driven a real car) I was getting the top lap times.


RE: Such BS....
By Reclaimer77 on 5/22/2012 3:37:15 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
It's simply quantifying that people who play video games can become better shooters.


If this is the case, it's only because "gamers" might have better eye-hand coordination or reflexes. But shooting in an FPS and shooting a gun in real life are two entirely different experiences. Games do not prepare you for the realities of handgun shooting mechanics. In a game your grip is irrelevant, trigger pull weight is non-existent, you aren't anticipating recoil and there's no muzzle flip, you aren't aware of the trigger reset; and the list goes on.

In real life these are crucial factors and each one must be mastered through shooting literally thousands of rounds of ammo to attain competence with shooting.


RE: Such BS....
By bah12 on 5/22/2012 4:19:34 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
But shooting in an FPS and shooting a gun in real life are two entirely different experiences.
They are different, yes, but not entirely different. You would not practice all the skills to get better with a real gun, but a simulated gun would help with sight alignment. Obviously recoil control, grip, and other controls would not be improved.

As others have said all this study shows is that with practice people get better. Better practice is ... well ... better of course. So you are correct a gun range would be ideal practice, but in its absence a video game provides some level of practice. I'd argue that paintball/laser tag would be and even better (or as Mick is trying to say worse) activity. Or heck just picking up a bb gun or airsoft gun to adjust to get a feel for real projectiles.


RE: Such BS....
By Mint on 5/22/2012 10:11:44 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
If this is the case, it's only because "gamers" might have better eye-hand coordination or reflexes.
Wow, you really breezed over the article quickly, didn't you. There were three groups with randomly chosen participants. One group had a 20 min session with a gun-like controller. Another had a 20 min session with a regular controller. The final group is the control group with no prep session. Gamers are equally likely to appear in any group.
quote:
But shooting in an FPS and shooting a gun in real life are two entirely different experiences. Games do not prepare you for the realities of handgun shooting mechanics.
No doubt, just like driving games don't prepare you for a real car or even a go-cart. However, gaming does make an impact, and according to this study it improved accuracy and affected the target choice.


RE: Such BS....
By Reclaimer77 on 5/23/2012 12:03:56 AM , Rating: 2
You and Jason need to stop trying to give this "study" the benefit of the doubt. The methodology is crap, the conclusion obvious as hell, and the attempt to correlate this to some violent causation is laughable. Just...stop. This is not science, it's garbage.


RE: Such BS....
By torpor on 5/22/2012 1:50:21 PM , Rating: 3
Whether it's wooden swords, punching bags, or simulator movies for driving, people have been training with realistic models for thousands of years. It's a proven method to learn with reduced risk.

Two other things are worth noting:
1. Most people play with controllers, not fake guns.
2. The opposite isn't true. I received a .22 rifle when I was 11, before most FPS games came out. Being a good shot with the rifle didn't make me a master of Wolfenstein 3D.


RE: Such BS....
By Ramtech on 5/22/2012 5:07:45 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
1. Most people play with controllers, not fake guns.


Right how many games nowadays are even compatible with these light guns?
Wiki shows list of 20 titles most of them don't even have light gun option enabled in USA...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_light_gun_ga...

While we are at it isn't "training" with Paint-ball or Air-soft far better for training than sitting at your couch trying to hit targets?


RE: Such BS....
By kleinma on 5/22/12, Rating: 0
RE: Such BS....
By JasonMick (blog) on 5/22/2012 11:21:11 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Next up on the ban list will be the original Super Mario Brothers for the NES, because a study found that games had direct links to kids taking mushrooms.
That sounds like an entertaining study, at least. :)

If you can get someone to fund that, I would personally give you a high five (er.. pun not intended, ahem).

I don't think this study shows any evidence that violent videogames should be banned. I think that would be a gross misinterpretation. At most it might suggest that violent video game sales be restricted (as with hand gun sales) to individuals with severe mental illness, violent criminal history, or known terrorist ties.


RE: Such BS....
By kleinma on 5/22/2012 12:51:33 PM , Rating: 2
Then those people should be banned from watching R rated, no wait, PG13 rated movies, as those can feature death and voilence that can rival video games. Also, they should be banned from watching TV, especially the news, as there are many graphic images there, and hell, the news even likes to inform terrorists what our current weaknesses are in our security, industrial systems, and water ways, so definietly no news for anyone who might commit a violent act.


RE: Such BS....
By 91TTZ on 5/22/2012 2:49:27 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
The study didn't explore intent, as far as what I read. It merely discussed accuracy . In other words, you may well be correct -- if you play shooter games, even with a gun controller, that isn't necessarily going to make you kill people. On the other hand, the study may also be correct -- if you are psychotic, a game with a gun controller may help you kill people more effectively.


But without proving intent, this study is just left proving the obvious- that having practice makes you better at something.

I could also "prove" that eating properly and playing sports with your friends makes you more effective at running from police after committing a crime, since your conditioning will be better.


RE: Such BS....
By loganSLC on 5/22/2012 6:25:27 PM , Rating: 2
""The study didn't explore intent, as far as what I read. It merely discussed accuracy .""

That's as accurate or meaningful a study as saying, people who work in any office or from any computer will have stronger fingers for pulling triggers to shoot people.

Ya know, because of all the typing... and ... clicking..


RE: Such BS....
By Springfield45 on 5/28/2012 3:54:25 PM , Rating: 2
Erm... Accuracy in and of itself is not a bad thing. In fact, I would say that it is a good thing! Of course, I grew up on a ranch in Wyoming, where literally EVERYONE had firearms and no one was afraid of the inanimate tools. Firearms are not bad in and of themselves. They are just useful tools that deserve respect and care in handling.


RE: Such BS....
By cknobman on 5/22/2012 1:45:14 PM , Rating: 2
I play FPS games too (have for year) and I dont want to shoot people in the head.

But I can be damned sure if I ever did want to (or need to) it will be a heck of a lot easier since I have had so much practice!!!!!!!!


Flawed Research
By skyflier on 5/22/2012 10:44:05 AM , Rating: 2
Mannequins don't fight back, How accurate will these shots be if they were being shot at? There are way too many variables in a real world shoot out. Your enemy is not striking a pose for your scope.




RE: Flawed Research
By Reclaimer77 on 5/22/2012 11:06:06 AM , Rating: 2
Headshots are mostly Hollywood video-game bullcrap. In real life the head is not only the least accurate shot to make, but the least lethal. "Center mass" is the most viable place to shoot in terms of lethality and hit chances.

I've read and heard countless accounts of the skull deflecting handgun rounds or "grazing" shots off someones head. I've never once heard of someones chest or stomach stopping a bullet.


RE: Flawed Research
By sviola on 5/22/2012 11:25:48 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
I've never once heard of someones chest or stomach stopping a bullet.


But you have to take into account that people carry medals/badges or the bible in their chest pocket, and if Hollywood has that us anything, those always deflect bullets (bad guys usually are killed in odd situations to prevent a breach of this rule - e.g., thrown as huge fans, eaten by sharks/crocodiles/lions/other creatures, spears, explosions, crushed by something heavy, etc).


RE: Flawed Research
By The Raven on 5/22/2012 12:03:33 PM , Rating: 2
ROFL

Yeah but you are forgetting that if shot at your head you can just catch the bullet with your teeth.

I don't want my medals damaged so I'd prefer they shoot at my head.


RE: Flawed Research
By sviola on 5/22/2012 2:53:12 PM , Rating: 2
That won't do for me. Besides having issues with shotguns, grabbing bullets with someones teeth will invariably lend to some expensive dentist bills...;)


RE: Flawed Research
By The Raven on 5/22/2012 3:57:48 PM , Rating: 2
Teeth are less needed than a heart. Plus they are cheaper to fix than a heart or a pancreas.

Plus the tooth fairy will hook you up.


RE: Flawed Research
By mmntech on 5/22/2012 11:52:15 AM , Rating: 2
Not only that but an FPS can't train you to fire a real gun. A controller doesn't have the same mass, recoil, or noise of a real pistol or assault rifle. Penn & Teller did an unscientific study a couple years back where they gave a kid, who was an avid FPS player, a gun to fire. It was conducted at a target range with a licensed instructor. Not only did our gamer miss, he burst into tears because he underestimated the weapon's power (that whole recoil and noise business).

The whole violent video games leads to violent kids thing is not only crazy, it's a cop out. It's a clever way to sweep other mitigating factors under the rug. Saying someone shot up a place because he was mentally ill, impoverished, or beaten as a child isn't sexy. That's because these are factors specific to individuals. The media, politicians, and many scientists would rather develop some sort of mass social plague because it's attention grabbing, and thus grabbing more eyeballs and makes them more money. First it was controversial books, then jazz, then rock & roll, then television, then rap music, then violent films, now it's video games. Society loves its scapegoats. Plus society would happily ignore the true mitigating factors of violence because they're very difficult to deal with, and make politicians unpopular.

As a gamer who has played many games, both violent and tame, I shoot and assault and rape as many people as I fell like. That number is zero.


RE: Flawed Research
By Ramstark on 5/22/2012 11:54:46 AM , Rating: 2
Ooook...now...you are a scary person Reclaimer...xD


RE: Flawed Research
By Reclaimer77 on 5/22/2012 12:13:38 PM , Rating: 1
Did I mention that I'm an avid shooter, have a concealed n' carry license, and just started IDPA competitions?

What's there to be scared of!? :)


RE: Flawed Research
By Schrag4 on 5/22/2012 12:42:09 PM , Rating: 2
I started doing IDPA about a year ago - it's WAY more fun that just punching paper! I agree that if you wanted to stop someone you'd shoot center mass. But if they decide to keep fighting, eventually you'll want to switch to headshots, as they may be wearing body armor. Even if you penetrate their heart, completely disrupting bloodflow, they'll still have a good 15 or 20 seconds to keep fighting, if they choose to do so. Studies have shown that the reason people fall down when they're shot is because they have a preconceived notion of how they should act when they're shot. Many people will take many shots and keep on going until they lose too much blood to stay concious. Hollywood routinely gets pretty much everything wrong about how gunfights actually work.

Oh, and my response to this so-called study was "well duh." Gaming with a mouse or a controller will not prepare you for firing a real gun like gaming with a gun-style controller. That's still pretty poor training, though. Recoil management and anticipating recoil (which is bad, and takes lots of practice to avoid) are a HUGE deal in shooting well, and gaming will not help with those.


RE: Flawed Research
By Reclaimer77 on 5/22/2012 6:23:25 PM , Rating: 2
Awesome what do you shoot? I'm thinking of doing some steel match too on off-weekends.

I might have to go back to 9mm (like everyone else hehe). Once I joined this IDPA local shooting club, the extra cost of .40 S&W is really starting to add up!


RE: Flawed Research
By Schrag4 on 5/22/2012 8:28:12 PM , Rating: 2
I don't get to go nearly as often as I'd like. I usually shoot the SR9c but sometimes I shoot the Gen3 Glock 22. It's funny - if I'm firing slowly at a paper target, the added recoil of the .40 throws me off a bit but when doing IDPA it doesn't seem to make any difference. Personally, I feel it has something to do with my focus on moving, taking cover, and reloading, and forgetting about recoil, but I don't know if that's true.

I don't really compete. I've only ever gone to local matches, and they've gotten so busy in the last 6 months that I haven't been in a while. The only IDPA practice I get nowadays is with my brothers or friends at a private range, but that's not all that often. I'm hoping that the hot weather that's coming will drive people away from the local matches (the range isn't air conditioned). I just can't bring myself to spend almost 4 hours at a match if I know I'll only shoot 3 stages. I'd much rather set up on a private range for half a day and shoot as much as I want.

Anyway, what do you shoot? Do you follow the spirit of the sport and shoot what you carry? Or are you one of those competitors that shoots a huge pistol like a Glock 34 or 17L? :-p


RE: Flawed Research
By Reclaimer77 on 5/22/2012 9:01:09 PM , Rating: 2
Oh I follow the spirit alright. I use my carry gun, a Springfield XD .40 SC, 3" barrel model. Everyone else seems to be using full sized or even 5" "tactical" models! Knowing damn well that's not a carry gun lol. But it's a competition, so oh well, people will always look for that edge.

1911's are really popular too. Another good "carry gun" apparently :)

I looked on the IDPA website and Glock is just massively over-represented. I know a lot of people worship at the Church of Glock, but the Springfield fits my hand better. And you know, palm feel is a third of what makes a good shooter.

Funny you mention .40 recoil. When I first got this piece I was used to 9mm and the high snap of the .40 was really foreign to me. Even at the range it requires me to focus a lot more on grip, squeeze, and stance fundamentals. With a 9mm you can get away with being sloppy a bit. But like you said, when I started this IDPA thing and you're racing against the clock, I barely even notice it. I think adrenalin and muscle memory take over when the pressure is on, I don't know.

Pretty cool you have a place you can shoot outdoors! The local range has no A/C and it gets pretty hot here in the Carolina's. Our IDPA course is outdoors though, and man, before long I'm sweating buckets.


RE: Flawed Research
By Lord 666 on 5/22/2012 8:39:10 PM , Rating: 2
Some people in my area have been on the FN57 train for competitions. Definitely not for any cost savings though. I'm Luke warm about that weapon... Great feel, just not sure how much stopping power blue-tips really have.


RE: Flawed Research
By Reclaimer77 on 5/22/2012 9:06:15 PM , Rating: 2
Stopping power? Probably about as much as a .22 Mag. The 5.7 is definitely not even on the list for a "self defense" caliber. Although it would be TOP of the list if used against someone with body armor lol. Knowing FN that's probably why they made it, to use the same round as the FN P90.

Great shooter I'm sure. Carry gun? Hell no.


RE: Flawed Research
By Schrag4 on 5/23/2012 8:46:56 AM , Rating: 2
FN57 for IDPA? Does IDPA allow the 5.7 cartridge? As far as stopping power, it might be a little lacking, but shot placement is so much more important with handguns because they're all pretty weak man-stoppers. If you want to stop someone instantly you're talking CNS, no matter the size of the bullet. Otherwise your second option is massive blood loss. A .45 gives you an edge, but I'm not sure it's that much of an edge. I wouldn't choose the 5.7 for obvious reasons such as extreme cost of the weapon and especially the ammo, but I probably wouldn't try to talk someone out of it either. The low recoil will help the shooter put followup shots downrange quickly and accurately - and some shooters are recoil sensitive to begin with. Personally, I prefer 9x19 and .40S&W because of magazine capacity (another thing the 5.7 has going for it).


RE: Flawed Research
By Schrag4 on 5/23/2012 10:08:25 AM , Rating: 2
I also think it's worth mentioning that the FN57 was used in the Ft Hood shooting. Now, one might argue that the fact that the shooting took place in a gun free zone really helped the shooter take out as many targets as possible (are you paying attention, libs?), but I think it's hard to argue against the effectiveness of the 5.7 cartridge when studying the aftermath of that tragedy.


RE: Flawed Research
By Lord 666 on 5/23/2012 1:39:09 PM , Rating: 2
Agreed. Check out my 7:27 post from last night. Never saw it disclosed What version of the ammo he used; civi only blue-tips or 195 jhp or the older green tips. Did see that he had something like 300+ rounds.

The one guy in particular started with a FN57 and then got a ps90 for kicks. Both are restricted to 10 rounds were we live (nj) so its more of a rich man novelty. Either way, he did well with it without any formal LE training.


RE: Flawed Research
By stardude692001 on 5/22/2012 12:20:14 PM , Rating: 1
I remember a couple of news stories years ago about people with body armor rampaging about killing people and the police were almost powerless to stop them.

Shoot them in the Fucking head. what do you mean less lethal, yes you miss more so you get fewer kills per bullet but if your opponent is wearing body armor then this is not the case.

Don't forget we need to prepare for the zombie apocalypse.


RE: Flawed Research
By shin0bi272 on 5/22/2012 1:36:24 PM , Rating: 2
That was the 96 or 97 north hollywood shoot out. The only people who died in that shoot out were the robbers. One from self inflicted pistol shot to the head and the other from being shot in the legs from underneath the car he was hiding behind and he bled out waiting for an ambulance to get there. His family actually sued the city for letting him bleed to death... the retards.

But the point you were after is still correct. a sniper with an m24 and a good 10x scope could have ended that altercation much faster.


RE: Flawed Research
By sviola on 5/22/2012 2:46:18 PM , Rating: 2
There was a movie about this, and if I can recall correctly, the sniper with the swat team were stuck in a traffic due to an accident that happened on the highway to the place where the shooting was happening.


RE: Flawed Research
By The Raven on 5/22/2012 3:51:10 PM , Rating: 2
You should have a nice long sitdown with Mary Jo Buttafuoco.

After getting shot in the face I don't think she was in a position to defend herself from subsequent shots. She was very lucky.

I'd rather take a body shot.


RE: Flawed Research
By The Raven on 5/22/2012 3:54:48 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
I've never once heard of someones chest or stomach stopping a bullet.
You haven't?!...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detail...


RE: Flawed Research
By shin0bi272 on 5/22/2012 11:40:24 AM , Rating: 2
that wasnt the point of the research. The point was to see where the people aimed after playing video games. More people aimed for the head after playing. Would that be effective in real life? probably not. But that's not what they were looking at. They were looking at the effect of video games on your point of aim.


By Taracta on 5/22/2012 11:27:29 AM , Rating: 2
Well, I guess the Arm Forces should jump on this! Imagine simulating combat, aircraft, tanks, etc. This would make for better warriors!

What kind of BS crap is this? And what does this have to do with computer video games and how people really play them?




By shin0bi272 on 5/22/2012 11:45:39 AM , Rating: 2
Actually they do train with virtual reality. You remember the game America's Army? A game was made for training soldiers that was then released for free to the public. Plus the soldiers who train to fire the Javelin anti-tank missile have to train virtually because each rocket costs like 30,000 bucks. Only the top 5% of the class get to actually fire the thing. So not only are they already doing that... its saving you tax money.


By twhittet on 5/22/2012 12:16:26 PM , Rating: 2
Exactly. Video games don't turn people into killers, but there are some obvious relationships. The military trains you to shoot at human shaped silhouettes. Why? To prepare you to shoot at people. A video game can probably help in the same way.

BUT - we are humans, capable of more than just muscle memory and trained instinct. We make a difficult choice - this type of training simply makes following through easier. While training can make a determined killer more destructive, it can also help decision making to prevent accidents (police, miltary, even hunting).


By Taracta on 5/22/2012 1:39:24 PM , Rating: 2
You do understand sarcasm don't you?


Thank you for part 2
By shin0bi272 on 5/22/2012 11:38:04 AM , Rating: 5
Ive been saying that same thing for years. Its fine for a 13 year old to shoot someone in the face with a sniper rifle but god forbid they see a digital boob... the world might end. I would tend to think you'd rather have kids more interested in sex than death. But apparently I was wrong.




By Arsynic on 5/22/2012 10:56:30 AM , Rating: 2
Most girls who get pregnant when they're teens owned baby dolls. So baby dolls must make it easier to get pregnant as a teen.

See I'm a scientist because I used this super-duper scientific method!




By martin5000 on 5/25/2012 11:05:52 AM , Rating: 2
Next time read the article fist.


By mattclary on 5/22/2012 12:16:29 PM , Rating: 4
I don't doubt gun-shaped controllers would make one a slightly better shot, but that has nothing do do with HOW you would use a real gun.

Just more liberal propaganda.




A point of clarification
By Trounce on 5/22/2012 4:47:08 PM , Rating: 2
From Breivik's "manifesto" /sarcasm/ on pg. 1307.

Quote: "A majority of so called agnostics and atheists in Europe are cultural conservative Christians without even knowing it. So what is the difference between cultural Christians and religious Christians? If you have a personal relationship with Jesus Christ and God then you are a religious Christian. Myself and many more like me do not necessarily have a personal relationship with Jesus Christ and God. We do however believe in Christianity as a cultural, social, identity and moral platform. This makes us Christian."

He is only a "Christian" when bloggers and reporters need to incite public fervor thereby boosting both ratings and page hits.




By Captain Orgazmo on 5/22/2012 7:16:12 PM , Rating: 2
Correct. The same hypocritical, sensationalist, and cowardly media refuse to put "muslim" and "terrorist" in the same sentence. Instead you hear politically correct qualifiers like fundamentalist, Islamist, or militant. Breivik is a terrorist, using extreme and shocking violence to further a cause, just like the Muslim Terrorist Jihadis.


Durrr
By Gunbuster on 5/22/2012 11:48:50 AM , Rating: 3
You mean to tell me that training on a more accurate simulation produces better results when transitioning to the real thing?

Research money well spent...




So let me get this straight...
By Motoman on 5/22/2012 3:52:54 PM , Rating: 3
...if someone practices shooting with a gun, they'll become better at shooting with a gun?

Wow...glad these guys did that research. I'd have never guessed that.




Some things of note
By nafhan on 5/22/2012 11:00:46 AM , Rating: 2
1. Better aim DOES NOT make someone more violent.
2. The "silent scope" style controller is both:
2a. Much closer to being a simulation than one would have with a standard controller.
2b. Not how most people play "shooter" type games.

A little difficult to tell exactly what conclusion they're going after here. If it was something along the lines of "Using a gun simulator may make you better at shooting.", I'd be fine with that conclusion. If they're somehow trying to tie "violence" in with this, I'd say their results don't show anything of the sort.

Back to the videogames thing. It's interesting to note that most of the time when a shooting happens and it gets blamed on video games, the gamer was into something like Doom or WoW where the results of this study wouldn't even be relevant. ...Of course, that'll get ignored by the media.




FSX
By shadowamazon on 5/22/2012 11:41:06 AM , Rating: 2
damn it! I do flight sims with keyboard and mouse, hoping that some day it will help me in real flight training. Now according to this study, my plan is ruined.




Shooting at the range.
By HrilL on 5/22/2012 11:47:04 AM , Rating: 2
How is this any different than people shooting guns at the range? I've been shooting since I was 7 years old and would be able to make headshots without a doubt but I never committed a violent act and don't ever plan to unless its in self defense.

What a waste of a study. To think that practicing shooting guns be them real or virtual would make you a better shooter. Are these professors really that desperate for things to research?




See, mom!! I told you!
By The Raven on 5/22/2012 12:08:59 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Study: Violent Video Games Prep Gamers for Real-Life "Headshots"
Nice. Now I can rest knowing that I haven't been wasting my time. I will also tell my wife that I need to play more if she wants to be more safe. ;-)

Also does the game have to be violent? I don't see the connection? I mean can't I get the same benefit from playing Greg Hastings Paintball? As long as the paint is red, maybe?




By The Raven on 5/22/2012 12:15:01 PM , Rating: 2
Hmm...this would account for a lot at my house. You are saying that Duke Nukem is responsible for the success of my aim and my marriage?




This is wrong!
By geekman1024 on 5/22/2012 12:18:12 PM , Rating: 2
Should be the other way round:

People with murderous intentions would score 99% more "headshots" in violent video games.




Really???
By Fujikoma on 5/22/2012 12:34:57 PM , Rating: 2
Practice makes perfect... they needed to do some research to verify that practicing an action makes one more proficient. Maybe they'd have impressed me if the person shot at center mass instead of focusing on head shots. Did the test subjects hold their guns 'gangsta style' or where the researchers so impressed that practicing improved accuracy they didn't notice it.
And how is practicing like a controller similar in any way to practicing with a fake gun and then using a real gun to shoot targets. It's like expecting someone using a controller to do as while driving as someone who uses a stearing wheel/pedal setup to drive video races... maybe that should be a new project... racing games could be linked with aggressive driving.




and why is higher accuracy bad?
By KaTaR on 5/22/2012 2:29:16 PM , Rating: 2
As we continually push everybody in the United States to arms themsevles, from the home to the schools, at the behest of the NRA and right wing elements, is better accuracy really a bad thing? Go to Google news and type in 'stray bullet'




Research?
By MegaHustler on 5/22/2012 2:35:28 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Researchers found that while standard controllers did not significantly increase the students' "kills" on the life-sized mannequin, the gun controller did. Students who were prepped with the gun controller hit the target 33 percent more often, on average, and hit "headshots" 99 percent more often.


So, the "research" basically boils down to: "People who have previously shot a firearm, even a simulated one, are more likely to hit a target than people who have not"?

Who would have guessed?




Another miss represented "No Duh"
By Trisped on 5/22/2012 3:11:08 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
They argue that despite their virtual nature, firearms game controllers provide ample training for potentially deadly real-life weapons use.
No duh, training with a weapon increases your accuracy with it. It is just like shooting ranges, except without appropriate gun weight or recoil.

Did anyone else read the headline and expect a study linking playing of violent video games with a "less emotional" response to pain, suffer, death, and/or carnage? Because that is what I was expecting. :)




Accuracy in presentation
By Trisped on 5/22/2012 3:39:48 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
While putting the player in the role of a terrorist murdering citizens only earns a "Mature" rating, soft-core depictions of consensual sex between adults is a ticket to an instant "Mature" in most cases. And if you depict hard-core sex, well, you are virtually guaranteed an "Adults Only" rating.
The difference between a "Mature" and "Adults Only" game is suppose to be the difference between a 17 and an 18 year old.

While murdering citizens should probably also be AO, the fact is that until we can start enforcing the age brackets the ratings are suppose to indicate it is a moot point.




Yawn
By overlandpark4me on 5/22/2012 7:00:41 PM , Rating: 2
And driving sims show me how to run over people more efficiently...What a bunch of f ing idiots.




This is so supidly simplistic...
By greywood on 5/23/2012 12:17:28 AM , Rating: 2
... that there IS no science to it at all! To quote the authors:

quote:
In the violent shooting game, participants were rewarded for accurately aiming and firing at humanoid enemies who were instantly killed if shot in the head. Players were therefore more likely to repeat this behavior outside of the video game context...

How on earth can the fact stated in the first sentence possibly justify the conclusion of the second? This so-called "study" is nothing of the sort!




Really?
By Strunf on 5/23/2012 7:33:50 AM , Rating: 2
I'm pretty sure you would get the same results or even higher accuracy if you had them play paint-ball, laser tag or any other game with a gun shaped pointing device.

Saying that violent games makes them more accurate is completely wrong it is not the game that does it but the method of holding a gun shaped pointing device and a target, as in even if you were shooting targets or ducks you would get the same effect.




By transamdude95 on 5/23/2012 10:59:10 AM , Rating: 2
Just sayin'...




One Fact
By Stuka on 5/23/2012 11:13:16 AM , Rating: 2
There is one single fact which no one has ever mentioned in these discussions on violent games and murderers: The volume of violent video games sold has ZERO correlation with the number of violent crimes, especially when only counting the perpetrators who admit to using the games for "training". How many Trillions of copies of DOOM, CoD, Splinter Cell, Half Life, Halo, Battlefield, Unreal, etc. have been sold? Even if you count every terrorist and assassin and petty murder in the last 50 years, I would imagine we're looking at maybe one hundred thousandth of 1%. And what's the typical threshold for a statistical anomaly?

I wager more people have died as direct correlation to Build-A-Bears.




Rocket Science
By Florinator on 5/23/2012 1:44:54 PM , Rating: 2
So wait, this study shows that "simulator training" actually improves performance on the real thing? Hmmm... who would have thought?




zombies
By voodoo1979 on 5/23/2012 1:57:49 PM , Rating: 2
I know I didn't read all the comments... but with the ongoing "Zombie" fad... we all know you have to shoot them in the head to stop them...

How many video games are out there now with Zombies in them?




omg
By vezon on 5/28/2012 7:42:54 AM , Rating: 2
This is the dummest study I ever read about gaming and violence.
Give a gun controler to a child and put him to shoot baloons in a teen rated game and he will be much more precise in shooting with real guns then anybody else playing hardcore games with the mouse.
I dont understand why so much study about games and none about television, movies, music, etc?
A psycho will be psycho even if it never touch a game. But yes if someone has killing intents firstly he will satisfy his urges in a virtual world.




gun games have taken over
By Venkman2012 on 6/20/2012 8:46:07 AM , Rating: 2
Gun games are just training us all up for the next world war, lol. There are so many gun games that the shock (ever since DOOM) seems to have waned alot, especially over the last few years. Personally Im bored of the genre, so many games are generic, but its obvious with the genre sells more than any other. So we dont want an 18 rating or the equivalent, right? It just wouldnt be good for sales. A new gun game set in a 'real life iraq' with your character as a US or UK soldier during a fairly recent war might help increase that likely age rating in that genre though. It may be too soon to release now, but you just know that it will be one day. After 2001 we have had non stop terrorism and army related news on our channels, its almost as if the majority of gamers now want to have their own mini-role and take part via first person shooting games.

As for mature games being far more unacceptable in games, thats laughable. So anything of a sexual nature or past mild nudity in games is far worse. What happened to the age rating? You know the reason as to why though. Although the audience that first played Sonic the hedgehog and Mario are far older now, and despite many still playing, games are still considered to be mainly JUST FOR KIDS. In the gaming market, so many kids do play, so games with this kind of content would be considered outrageous, but dont kids also watch DVDs? Im sure there are plenty of DVDs that kids shouldnt watch, again, thats where the good old age rating should come in.

As for anything of a sexual nature in general, in the uk at least (unlike 10 yrs ago) we have now all switched over to free digital tv or satellite. Many children well under the age of 10 have televisions in their bedrooms than ever before. I wonder how many of these kids have played shooting games on console or pc, but people also forget that they can switch that tv on anytime if they cant sleep, and flick through it without their parents knowing-only to find multiple free adult channels they can watch. Not all set top 'freeview' boxes or tvs with digital channels built-in can block or delete them. Not all parents know how to, even if they can. Ill assume its the same as in america and elsewhere. There are multiple petitions online to ban these channels, but I dont see that likely to happen, as those channels are there for a reason-as with the gambling and bingo (whether on tv,net or phone) they all make money, and fast, and its something they are VERY good at. With the difference and opinions between violence and anything of a sexual nature, in games or otherwise, the current certificates suggest that anything of a sexual nature would do far more harm than violence to anyone. I would certainly not want my kids viewing either, but I would think very young kids would likely be more confused with the latter, unlike seeing someones head getting blown off in any shooter-and games of today can look far more realistic than ever before.




By MagicSquid on 5/22/2012 9:33:02 PM , Rating: 1
Anders Behring Breivik making the statement that CoD MW2 helped him train to murder children is utter nonsense. It doesn't take any sort of training to stalk and kill unarmed children on an island that they can't escape from when the killer is holding the only firearms on the island. It only takes a really sick and twisted mind and the will to do it.

He was prone to doing this type of thing already, as evidenced in his hate speech ridden statements and online posts and numerous other examples. That he lived out his fantasy of killing people virtually before completing it in the real life just shows he was a sick and twisted person already, and is not evidence that a video game aided him in actually doing it.

If Anders Behring Breivik liked vanilla ice cream, and was eating it and thought it reminded him of someone's brains, and stabbed it with his spoon, would we ban vanilla ice cream because it invoked violent tendencies and fantasies of about hurting people? No. He was already prone to that type of thing, and random, benign things, like ice cream, or a video game can cause that type of behavior to come out. It's not the ice cream or the video game's fault; crazy people do crazy shit.

tl/dr: Crazy people are crazy and find crazy meaning in everyday things.




It's research
By Beenthere on 5/22/12, Rating: -1
RE: It's research
By Skywalker123 on 5/24/2012 11:55:25 PM , Rating: 1
What we do know is that you are a moron.


RE: It's research
By AOLAOL on 5/25/2012 4:47:00 PM , Rating: 2
Im pretty sure this guy didn't play video games

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=942_1337867910


"Mac OS X is like living in a farmhouse in the country with no locks, and Windows is living in a house with bars on the windows in the bad part of town." -- Charlie Miller














botimage
Copyright 2014 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki