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

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.


"If they're going to pirate somebody, we want it to be us rather than somebody else." -- Microsoft Business Group President Jeff Raikes














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