PS3 News: Study: Violent Video Games Might Cut Down On Violent Crime - PS3 News

Members Login: Register | Why sign up? | Forgot Password?

Study: Violent Video Games Might Cut Down On Violent Crime

For so long, video games have been blamed for having a direct increase on violent crime. But perhaps the exact opposite is the real truth, as a recent study has indicated.

According to a new study entitled "Understanding the Effects of Violent Video Games on Violent Crime," violent games may have a two-pronged effect: in the first place, the study supported findings from other studies, which successfully linked violent games and aggression. But on the other hand, we learn that games actually reduced violent crime by keeping potential offenders away from real-life trouble. The researchers are calling this the "incapacitation effect" and concluded that- "Overall, violent video games lead to decreases in violent crime."

Furthermore, the BBC cited this study and listed video games as one of their top ten reasons why crime in the US has decreased over the last 20 years. You may recall our talk with Dr. Bartholow after his study indicated a link between violent video games and aggression; it was an interesting result. But as he said at the time, this doesn't mean we'll all turn into serial killers, and how violence affects us requires more study.

P.S. Dr. Bartholow and I were interviewed for a NPR station in Missouri. My comments are right at the end; they're brief but they exist. :)

Tags: game study, violent games, video game industry

6/21/2011 8:59:25 PM Ben Dutka

Put this on your webpage or blog:
Email this to a friend
Follow PSX Extreme on Twitter

Share on Twitter Share on Facebook Share on Google Share on MySpace Share on Delicious Share on Digg Share on Google Buzz Share via E-Mail Share via Tumblr Share via Posterous

Comments (62 posts)

Nas Is Like
Tuesday, June 21, 2011 @ 9:33:45 PM
Reply

Wow, so without violent video games crime rates would be even higher? I'm actually pretty amazed by that find.

Agree with this comment 4 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

NoOneSpecial
Tuesday, June 21, 2011 @ 9:41:03 PM
Reply

I've seen so many of these studies on both sides of the argument, that I hardly even acknowledge them any longer. Just let me play my d***n video games already, I could care less about its effects on others. If someone is violent, don't blame it on the games, blame it on a lack of judgement or a serious mental problem. Just arrest the bad guys and bring them to justice. Analysis doesn't help if it is all across the board, because it really is accomplishing nothing, but that is just my opinion.

Last edited by NoOneSpecial on 6/21/2011 9:41:43 PM

Agree with this comment 5 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

kevinater321
Wednesday, June 22, 2011 @ 6:43:10 AM

What does d***n mean?

Agree with this comment 1 up, 1 down Disagree with this comment

Underdog15
Wednesday, June 22, 2011 @ 8:50:14 AM

Damn. (too many stars)

Agree with this comment 2 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

JackDillinger89
Tuesday, June 21, 2011 @ 9:48:13 PM
Reply

"Violent video games might cut down on violent crimes" Guess we got activision to thank for that lol

Agree with this comment 1 up, 1 down Disagree with this comment

jimmyhandsome
Tuesday, June 21, 2011 @ 9:48:56 PM
Reply

This is a pretty interesting find, to say the least. I mean the study does have a point, the more people playing video games, the more pleople are inside their homes not causing trouble. I assume this pertains to all kinds of videogames and not just violent ones?

This kind of reminds me of an interview I saw on ESPN....Did anyone see the interview with Ray Lew and Sal Palantonio? At the time I thought it was one of the most ridiculous interviews I've ever seen by a professional football player in a world that is filled with pre-maddona, twitter-vomiting, and dumb. athletes. Sal asked Mr. Lewis what he thought would happen if there was a lockout by the NFL and Ray provided one of the most self-absorded ignorant comments I've ever heard: " Do this research if we don't have a season -- watch how much evil, which we call crime, watch how much crime picks up, if you take away our game."

What, Ray? If you're not running around in football pads making millions by tackling other players, fans are going to turn of their TV on Sundays and run out side and start murdering people?

I guess this study somewhat pertains to what he was trying to say. The less time we waste away in front of the boobtube watching Sunday Night football or playing Killzone 3 the more of us that will be outside slinging crack and robbing pedestrians.


Agree with this comment 5 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

Fane1024
Wednesday, June 22, 2011 @ 2:08:36 AM

Jimmy,

Unless you were trying to take a shot at Madonna for banging athletes, the phrase is "prima donna".

Agree with this comment 0 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

Underdog15
Wednesday, June 22, 2011 @ 8:55:46 AM

Either works. lol

Don't worry. I made that mistake before. My mom corrected me and used a song from Phantom of the Opera to illustrate her point...... lol. (Guess what that song is called? Yup... Prima Donna.)

By the way, saw Paul Stanley (from Kiss, for those that don't know) star in Phantom of the Opera in Toronto a buncha years back! That guy's good!

Agree with this comment 4 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

jimmyhandsome
Wednesday, June 22, 2011 @ 9:58:04 AM

Dammit, Fane. Now I'm going to have "Like a Prayer" and "This Used to Be My Playground" in my head all day.

Haha yea this is not the first time I've done that though.

Off topic, I finally got rid of my junk LCD 32" "Proton" TV (that didn't even display true HD, I was using component cables because the HDMI ports were fried) and upgraded to a Vizio Razor LED 42". Holy cow! I can't believe the difference and what I've been missing out on. I spent almost my entire night popping in different PS3 games. Socom 4 and Killzone 3 look fantastic. I got it on Amazon for $660. Not bad considering Samsung's and LG's comparable models are almost $100-300 more.

Agree with this comment 3 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

Simcoe
Wednesday, June 22, 2011 @ 10:19:16 AM

Jimmy, my interpretation of Ray Lew's comments were that he and other professional football players would be the ones causing all the crime, if they got locked out!

Agree with this comment 1 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

jimmyhandsome
Wednesday, June 22, 2011 @ 10:26:21 AM

Ha, thats a good point. Ray ray already has gotten away with murder.

Agree with this comment 2 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

WorldEndsWithMe
Tuesday, June 21, 2011 @ 10:03:19 PM
Reply

Not too surprising, if you can get your aggression out in a non violent way then there's no need to resort to real violence.

Agree with this comment 0 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

CaptRon
Tuesday, June 21, 2011 @ 10:07:23 PM
Reply

This does not surprise me. If I didn't have video games I would've already killed somebody.

Agree with this comment 3 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

WorldEndsWithMe
Tuesday, June 21, 2011 @ 10:14:39 PM

I dunno bout that but if someone took my games away I might kill somebody.

Agree with this comment 5 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

Sol
Wednesday, June 22, 2011 @ 3:48:01 AM

Haha, I'm with World on that one...

Agree with this comment 0 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

BikerSaint
Wednesday, June 22, 2011 @ 8:56:14 PM

World,
Yup, I agree!

Anybody who dares to come into my house to rob my games, will have to figure out a whole new way to carry them out my door without any limbs left.

Agree with this comment 0 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

556pineapple
Tuesday, June 21, 2011 @ 10:22:14 PM
Reply

The reason people cry out against video games is because they only hear about the cases of teens killing being inspired by video games, but if you take those compared with the number of people who play violent games and DON'T kill people, it's rather minuscule. I enjoy playing games, getting my aggression out that way. Because of that, I'm less likely to lash out at people even verbally, much less likely to attack them. It's a good stress relief, and I've never felt compelled to act out violently because of it.

I honestly feel that the people inspired to kill by games were mentally disturbed already. It just so happened that a game set them off, when it really could have been anything at all. Take away the games, I'd bet you they'd still kill.

Maybe I'm getting a bit of subject here, but it's the parents' responsibility to raise their children properly. Quit blaming the entertainment industry and do some real parenting already.

Agree with this comment 1 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

Oyashiro
Tuesday, June 21, 2011 @ 10:29:45 PM
Reply

http://dualshockers.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/05/violencegraph_video_games_reduce_violence_stats.jpg

Agree with this comment 0 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

A2K78
Tuesday, June 21, 2011 @ 10:35:25 PM
Reply

The only reason why violent crime is down in america has everything to do with the fact that more and more people own a gun. Untop of that gun laws are becoming more and more liberalized given the advent more castle laws and open-carry.

Overall to that violent video cut down on violent is ridiculous.

Agree with this comment 2 up, 7 down Disagree with this comment

Jawknee
Tuesday, June 21, 2011 @ 11:00:55 PM

I never thought this day would come but I agree with you. I read another study a few days ago that attributed the lower crime levels to increased gun purchases since 2008.

Agree with this comment 3 up, 6 down Disagree with this comment

Gordo
Tuesday, June 21, 2011 @ 11:19:39 PM

Weird logic? You think having more guns on the streets actually lowers the amount of crime?

Thankfully Europe and Australia doesn't agree with this hypothesis! We'll stick with our strict gun laws and our murder rate a fraction of yours!

Agree with this comment 9 up, 4 down Disagree with this comment

Clamedeus
Wednesday, June 22, 2011 @ 12:40:32 AM

Gordo

You are forgetting the murders are being done by people who illegally possess a firearm and are criminals. I would rather have a gun on me to protect myself and family members than not have one like other countries which is just begging for more trouble if they find out you aren't armed and have valuables in your home.

I would rather be safe than sorry. I'm glad we have rights to own guns as long as we do it legally.

Last edited by Clamedeus on 6/22/2011 12:41:56 AM

Agree with this comment 5 up, 2 down Disagree with this comment

Gordo
Wednesday, June 22, 2011 @ 1:05:46 AM

Ok, I don't want to get into a debate about gun control on an American website.

As a Scot our Police don't even carry guns unless they are in a specialist armed response team, so I was just interested in peoples ideas that more guns = less violence.

Last edited by Gordo on 6/22/2011 1:06:44 AM

Agree with this comment 4 up, 1 down Disagree with this comment

Clamedeus
Wednesday, June 22, 2011 @ 1:17:42 AM

That's true, more guns doesn't equal less violence. There is always someone out there who will do bad deeds no matter what if there was gun laws or not, it still can happen and things will happen.

But all I'm saying is I'm glad we are able to carry guns, I just wish there was a way criminals wouldn't be able to get a weapon which would be impossible to do.

Agree with this comment 3 up, 3 down Disagree with this comment

Fane1024
Wednesday, June 22, 2011 @ 2:20:35 AM

Clamedeus,

From where do you think criminals get their guns, the gun fairy?

If there were no guns for sale, criminals *wouldn't* be able to get their hands on them.

Even leaving aside that question, are you really so naive that you think there is some fundamental separation between "criminals" (Them) and "law-abiding citizens" (Us)? All criminals were law-abiding citizens until they weren't.



Last edited by Fane1024 on 6/22/2011 2:23:04 AM

Agree with this comment 4 up, 6 down Disagree with this comment

Clamedeus
Wednesday, June 22, 2011 @ 2:36:10 AM

I should of worded what I said better, Anyone can be a criminal, I'm saying true law abiding citizens wouldn't do that. There is a possibility something could happen and them killing someone for what ever reasons behind the motive, I'm not Naive as you think.


"From where do you think criminals get their guns, the gun fairy?

If there were no guns for sale, criminals *wouldn't* be able to get their hands on them."

...really? Did you know you can buy guns from people off the street that they possess illegally stolen from people, or smuggled in? People don't need to go into a store and buy one because it's on sale. Come on now.

Agree with this comment 4 up, 2 down Disagree with this comment

Jawknee
Wednesday, June 22, 2011 @ 3:38:00 AM

"You think having more guns on the streets actually lowers the amount of crime?"

No, more guns in the hands of law abiding citizens who know how to use them for proper self defense means less crime. A home invader or robber is less likely to break into some ones home or rob a liquor store in states with less control than they are states with more gun control.

"Thankfully Europe and Australia doesn't agree with this hypothesis! We'll stick with our strict gun laws and our murder rate a fraction of yours!"

Those populations pale in comparison to that of the United States. That's the reason your violent crime rate seems lower. Not because you have more gun control laws.

"From where do you think criminals get their guns, the gun fairy?"

Most criminals get guns through illegal sales or off the streets from black market gun dealers as they are not allowed to purchase guns legally. Outlawing guns only ensures outlaws have guns. There is a reason violent crime is so much higher in places like Chicago vs places like Texas. Taking my right to own a firearm away only takes away my ability to defend myself from those who don't follow the law anyway. The playing field needs to even so to speak.

I was against gun ownership during a period in my life until I started doing real research instead of thinking about the issue with emotions and illinformed opinions. Having the ability to protect myself and my family is an issue of personal freedom and independence for us Americans and it's something a great majority of us are proud of. There are nearly 350 million prople in the USA, there are not enough cops to be everywhere at anytime.

Say I were to come home one day and find an intruder raping my wife, am I to go back outside and call the cops and wait as she is being brutalized? Hell no, I would shoot the SOB and I would be well within my rights to do so. Read John Lotts book, More Guns, Less Crime. It debunks all the gun control advocates claims quite effectively. Anyways, I'm done discussing this. Just wanted to acknowledge the rare moment in which I can agree with A2K78.

Last edited by Jawknee on 6/22/2011 3:43:00 AM

Agree with this comment 5 up, 3 down Disagree with this comment

Clamedeus
Wednesday, June 22, 2011 @ 3:55:58 AM

Thank you Jawk. You described it very well, that's what I was trying to say in my post to Fane.

I suck at this. Lol

Agree with this comment 4 up, 1 down Disagree with this comment

tes37
Wednesday, June 22, 2011 @ 6:24:58 AM

I'm a gun owner and proud of it.

If I were a criminal and a gun was unavailable, I would just as quickly beat your brains out with a baseball bat. Should we get rid of baseball bats too?

Agree with this comment 4 up, 1 down Disagree with this comment

Ludicrous_Liam
Wednesday, June 22, 2011 @ 10:04:08 AM

I already had this conversation with Jawk over PSN. I can't remember if we came to an conclusion or not, might have to search through the messages and bring it up. But I was on Fane's side of the argument :P

Agree with this comment 3 up, 2 down Disagree with this comment

Underdog15
Wednesday, June 22, 2011 @ 10:28:09 AM

Lol, I think the US is a little different than us Aussie/Europeans/Canadians. Gun accessibility is never going to deminish. I agree with Fane that most illegal guns wouldn't be around if guns were never accessible legally to begin with. However, given the state the US is in (in terms of accessibility to firearms), removing the rights to bear arms wouldn't solve their problem. You'd have to systematically incorporate a system over half a century to get the US like the rest of us. And that would be incredibly expensive and illogical.

So, in short, it doesn't really make sense for US citizens to suddenly not be allowed to have them. As for me (a Canadian), I've only ever seen a firearm on law enforcement officers. That's it. And yeah... our murder rate is astronomically lower (per capita) than the US's. I mean, just look at the difference between Detroit and Windsor. They are literally across the river from each other. Windsor sees -maybe- 3 murders in a year. How many do you think occur in Detroit?

Anyways, I've never touched a gun, and I've never felt the need to own one. I also doubt I ever will own a gun. Half the time, I don't even lock my front door when I leave. And never when I'm home. No one's going to try to rob me. (Obviously I lock up when gone for longer periods of time.)

There's definitely a huge difference between that sort of culture in the US and most every other first world country. I mean... it's unique in that it's a country born out of war. Your anthem sings about "bombs bursting in air". Obviously, the right to bear arms is a deep-seeded right that dates back to forever. I mean... the culture of firearms is written right there in your anthem for the whole world to hear. You know?

Anyways, as an outsider looking in, to us it certainly seems strange to think everyone ought to have a gun. And I admittedly chuckle every time I hear that line about rockets and bombs bursting in air (and chuckle even more when people sing that part with more emphasis than every other line. lol)

But in all honesty, it's silly to suggest Americans should somehow stop owning guns. It's in their culture for the long run, and due to the accessibility of firearms, it would be irresponsible to disallow people the right to protect themselves there. They have been there since day one. We other countries have had the luxury of being able to amend our laws as firearms came into existence over years and years. But they -started- with pretty much everyone owning one (since they were all pretty much militia or needing to protect themselves during the war for independence).

But you are right, Fane (et al), restrictions on firearms is necessary, I think so too. But Americans are so deep into public distribution, there's no backing out now. Not safely, anyways.

Last edited by Underdog15 on 6/22/2011 10:29:13 AM

Agree with this comment 4 up, 4 down Disagree with this comment

Underdog15
Wednesday, June 22, 2011 @ 10:36:57 AM

@tes
That baseball bat analogy isn't very good. That makes sense for pre-meditated murders by desensitized individuals actively engaged in crime setting out for a specific mission, however, for murders of passion or accidental manslaughter or mass-murdering, it's -significantly- less likely to occur without a firearm. That's a well known and established idea. A baseball bat requires much more brutality and an incredible disconnect between action and moral reservation. A gun can cause damage in the blink of an eye with ease.

And then there's the obvious point of range. lol Someone intent on hurting people with a gun is far more likely to injure multiple people, and they are far less likely to be stopped.

Agree with this comment 4 up, 2 down Disagree with this comment

jimmyhandsome
Wednesday, June 22, 2011 @ 11:12:38 AM

I haven't done as much research on this issue than some of you have, but I'm in the camp that believes getting a gun in this country(U.S.) is way too easy. That doesn't mean that the people who buy the guns are necessarily going to go shoot up a mall or school (unfortunately that HAS happened) but the more guns that are out there, the more people are going to misuse them and be stupid.

Last edited by jimmyhandsome on 6/22/2011 11:13:11 AM

Agree with this comment 2 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

Simcoe
Wednesday, June 22, 2011 @ 11:17:42 AM

My sympathies go out to anyone who lives in an area where they feel the need to own a firearm to protect themselves and their family from society around them and not solely for the purpose of hunting or recreation/sport.

Agree with this comment 4 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

Jawknee
Wednesday, June 22, 2011 @ 11:18:34 AM

You can't really site Detroit as an example. Detroit is a hell hole for many reasons and it's not because we're allowed to own guns. Eitherway, our Founders understood tyranny living under King George. They uderstood the first line of defense against a tyrannical government was a well armed citizenry. Thank God we have the second amendment, I can only imagine the horror our Federal government would puraptrate on us if we didn't.

As I said, it's an issue of personal freedom and indapendence. And like you said it's rooted deep in our haritage. There are a lot more people in the US than there are in Canada. We as free people need to be allowed to protect ourselves when law enforcement cannot. I often find that the same people who wish to take our guns away also want to control the most personal aspects of our lives. Those people have a tendency to gravitate towards tyranny to make it happen too. I don't trust those people as far as I can throw them and that isn't far.

Agree with this comment 4 up, 4 down Disagree with this comment

tes37
Wednesday, June 22, 2011 @ 4:27:32 PM

Underdog

My analogy works just fine for my point I was making. Anyone that wants to cause you harm, can and will do so, with or without a firearm. Ease of killing, accidental killing, or incidental killing, is not a good argument against gun ownership. Americans own firearms for different reasons such as hunting, sporting, and self defense.

Some people will allow criminals to rob them of their rights (to bear arms), their belongings, and their life.

Agree with this comment 0 up, 1 down Disagree with this comment

Underdog15
Wednesday, June 22, 2011 @ 5:44:14 PM

Yet no one has ever robbed my belongings, rights, or life. People can own guns for sport or hunting here too. But the registry for them is extremely complex. THAT'S the difference.

But that's just my point! It's become almost a necessity in the States! Why is it not the case in every other first world country??

Doesn't it seem odd that every reasoning you have to own a gun (especially in your final sentence there) somehow is COMPLETELY inapplicable to me, our UK and AU friends??

Thus my point stands... only in the States does it make sense. And like Jawk and I said, it's deeply rooted in your culture. SO deeply, in fact, that it's even rooted into your anthem.

Now... if anyone wants to cause me harm, you are right. They will do so (or attempt) to do so with or without a firearm. But just the reverse applies too, in terms of self defense. It's not a justification for firearms.

I guess I'm just glad I don't have to worry about being confronted by a gun. Hence, no need for one myself. Ya dig the cycle there? That's the cycle the US is in and will never get out of. It doesn't change the fact it's not applicable to me or anyone else outside US.

Statistical studies -CLEARLY- show in any intro to criminology class, that attempted murder is far more likely to occur if a gun is available. Without one, an attack, in many cases, won't even begin to occur.

Last edited by Underdog15 on 6/22/2011 5:54:04 PM

Agree with this comment 3 up, 1 down Disagree with this comment

tes37
Wednesday, June 22, 2011 @ 5:59:13 PM

I haven't either, but some people have and that's not a statement of fantasy, it is a fact. I own a firearm mainly because I can. It is in a safe and not accessible to anyone but me. Americans such as myself, don't live by the sword, so to speak. I hardly give much thought to my gun other than keeping it safe and handling it safely. It's not like a way of life, but we do like owning them.

Agree with this comment 0 up, 1 down Disagree with this comment

tes37
Wednesday, June 22, 2011 @ 7:12:12 PM

Sorry I thought you wrote that you haven't had those things happen. That's why I began with I haven't either. Mistook the way you phrased your first line by the time I replied.

Agree with this comment 0 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

Highlander
Thursday, June 23, 2011 @ 12:03:32 AM

AK and Jaw,

You're both nuts if you think that throwing more fuel on a fire helps put the fire out, or dampen it down. More guns = less crime? No, that's not simply counter intuitive, it's utterly wrong.

Take a look at western societies with negligible or zero gun ownership and examine the comparative crime rates, it isn't pretty reading from what I remember.

Agree with this comment 3 up, 1 down Disagree with this comment

Fane1024
Thursday, June 23, 2011 @ 5:32:38 AM

"Did you know you can buy guns from people off the street that they possess *illegally stolen from people*?"

Dude, you made my point. No guns in people's houses, no guns on the street.

I was, of course, speaking in the abstract. Underdog is right: getting from our current hideous mess to a sane condition requires putting the genie back in the bottle.

I'm not opposed to gun ownership (we had a gun until recently), just the stupid idea that guns are useful for self defense.

Well hand guns are made for killin'
They ain't no good for nothin' else
And if you like to drink your whiskey
You might even shoot yourself
So why don't we dump 'em people
To the bottom of the sea
Before some ole fool come around here
Wanna shoot either you or me?

Agree with this comment 2 up, 2 down Disagree with this comment

Clamedeus
Friday, June 24, 2011 @ 3:08:01 PM

Fane you missed my other point, smuggled in Illegally. Some can be stolen from people but not all of it is. I like how you picked one thing of what I posted.

Agree with this comment 0 up, 1 down Disagree with this comment

Fane1024
Saturday, June 25, 2011 @ 1:51:57 AM

From what other country do you think guns are smuggled INTO the U.S.?

I ignored that suggestion because it represents what, maybe 1% of guns on the street within the U.S.

I'm sure when Mexican gang members sneak across the border, they bring a few guns, but those guns probably came from the States in the first place.

In any event, my point is that if no one but military and police can legally possess firearms, fewer get manufactured and they are nearly impossible for criminals to acquire. Plus, even if they do acquire guns, the guns are so rare and expensive that the criminals will tend to keep them even after they are used in crimes, which makes both the guns and the criminals easier to track.

Give up. Your position is based on single-tier thinking. You clearly haven't considered the complexities of the situation. More guns cannot ever result in less gun violence.

I've admitted that there's no magic wand which will fix things with one wave, but it is an incontrovertible fact that reducing access to guns on a worldwide scale would drastically decrease gun violence.

p.s. tes, if your gun is in a safe, how will it be useful if you're ever in danger?


Last edited by Fane1024 on 6/25/2011 1:55:45 AM

Agree with this comment 0 up, 1 down Disagree with this comment

BIGRED15
Tuesday, June 21, 2011 @ 10:41:13 PM
Reply

Im not suprised about this study. Lol before i'd cap some real people, id much rather use videogames as an outlet for my aggression. Its a very good outlet at that. Imo you have to be a nut case to even think about committing a murder in the firstplace. THEN you have to be a special kind of nutcase to say "the games made me do it man" Videogames dont cause aggression in peacful people. It can only amplify a person's aggression, and twist their psyche if the aggression and psyche are already twisted in the first place

Agree with this comment 0 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

A2K78
Wednesday, June 22, 2011 @ 1:14:48 AM
Reply

"You think having more guns on the streets actually lowers the amount of crime?"

More guns = less crime

Less guns = advantage criminals/represssive governments

If there is one thing I hate is how the fact the gun control crowd like to scare people into thinking that the avaliablity of guns will somehow lead to high levels of crime. Truth is the avaliablity of does the opposite and its for this why I am against all forms of gun control e.g. bans on firearm types, ammo types, background checks, etc. The same goes for switchblade knives.

Last edited by A2K78 on 6/22/2011 1:19:10 AM

Agree with this comment 3 up, 4 down Disagree with this comment

Jawknee
Wednesday, June 22, 2011 @ 3:47:20 AM

I agree with most of what you say on this subject except on background checks. They are important in making sure nutters and criminals can't walk into their local Bass Pro Shop and buy a firearm.

Agree with this comment 6 up, 1 down Disagree with this comment

Underdog15
Wednesday, June 22, 2011 @ 10:43:00 AM

Availability does the opposite, *in the states*. In other countries with strict gun registry laws or complete unavailability, (where well established) statistically and dramatically reduces violent crime and murder rates. There are a number of countries that serve as proof of that. :p

What that gun control crowd forgets to acknowledge is the over-saturation of guns in existence in the US. It is pretty much impossible to register all guns, and at this point, would just leave good citizens in the US in high crime areas more vulnerable.

I believe no guns for civilians is ideal, but unrealistic in the states.

Last edited by Underdog15 on 6/22/2011 10:45:18 AM

Agree with this comment 3 up, 1 down Disagree with this comment

JMO_INDY
Wednesday, June 22, 2011 @ 2:02:55 AM
Reply

Hey you can't be running people over in a car in real life if you're busy doing that and skydiving on GTAIV. Makes sense to me.

Agree with this comment 1 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

___________
Wednesday, June 22, 2011 @ 4:04:12 AM
Reply

so........... 10 monkeys tell you one thing and another 10 tell you another thing.
which should you believe?
tis the problem with these so called "studies" there constantly contradicting each other.

Agree with this comment 1 up, 2 down Disagree with this comment

JMO_INDY
Wednesday, June 22, 2011 @ 7:00:58 AM

Hmmm... well this is strange... I agree with you. Well deserved thumb up my frienemy.

Agree with this comment 2 up, 3 down Disagree with this comment

AcHiLLiA
Wednesday, June 22, 2011 @ 7:37:02 AM
Reply

I remember in the past in the newspaper when GTA: Vice City was the hit game to get; a guy going out in the streets stabbing a person to death. All by getting stupid ideas from the game.

Agree with this comment 1 up, 1 down Disagree with this comment

gumbi
Wednesday, June 22, 2011 @ 10:12:40 AM

That is NOT GTA's fault. This guy was clearly unstable and was going to do something terrible regardless. It was just a matter of time and anything could have been his inspiration; Television, a movie, a game, a news story, a book, the internet...

He didn't stab a guy because GTA told him to, he did it because he's f***ed up in the head.

Video games don't make bad people, but they get blamed when bad people do the things they see in video games.

Television and Movies don't make stupid people, but they get blamed when stupid people do the dumb sh** they see on TV.

Agree with this comment 3 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

AcHiLLiA
Wednesday, June 22, 2011 @ 7:47:43 PM

of course it's not the game's fault. I should of put quotes so u didn't have to waste a reply comment but oh well.


Last edited by AcHiLLiA on 6/22/2011 7:50:34 PM

Agree with this comment 0 up, 1 down Disagree with this comment

gangan19
Wednesday, June 22, 2011 @ 9:15:21 AM
Reply

lawyers use these tatics in court everything is a lie

Agree with this comment 2 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

Underdog15
Wednesday, June 22, 2011 @ 10:47:49 AM

Nothing is true. Everything is permitted.

Agree with this comment 2 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

gumbi
Wednesday, June 22, 2011 @ 10:42:52 AM
Reply

I'm so sick of both sides of this argument.

Entertainment mediums like Television, Movies, Video Games, etc... do NOT make Bad or Good people.

A bad person is a bad person. Bad people do bad things. What made them bad? Who knows? Parents, living conditions, adverse circumstance, tragedy, genetics, or just plain old mental illness. The bad things they do and where they got the idea from is irrelevant because they were going to do something terrible, regardless. Chastising the entertainment industry and blaming it for the actions of bad people just makes no sense to me. I'm sorry, I don't get it, I think it's a stupid notion and a cop out for those not willing to take responsibility.

Good people are good people and they don't do the terrible things they see all over the place because they know better. What made them good? See the list above for bad people, same idea. It sure as hell wasn't the TV they watched or the video games they played...

This needs to be put to rest. Put the money wasted on all these 'studies' into something useful.

Agree with this comment 5 up, 1 down Disagree with this comment

Fane1024
Thursday, June 23, 2011 @ 5:42:57 AM

Complete nonsense.

Do the good people wear white hats and the bad people black hats?

Everyone is capable of evil (and probably good as well, but there's less evidence of that).

Get a "good person" angry enough or desperate enough and he'll do something heinous.

Hell, most "good people" commit small acts of evil on a daily basis.


Last edited by Fane1024 on 6/23/2011 5:51:18 AM

Agree with this comment 0 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

gumbi
Thursday, June 23, 2011 @ 8:27:22 AM

Hmm, think you missed my point. Not trying to paint a black and white picture here. The point is, a good man won't kill you for fun or for the paper in your pocket. Even if he saw it in a video game. If a good man is driven to do something terrible it's because of, and I'll paraphrase myself on this one, "Parents, living conditions, adverse circumstance, tragedy" etc... Not video games.

Maybe instead of bad people/good people I should say 'people who do bad things' and 'people who do good things'. Their actions, good or bad, are not the result of TV, movies, or video games.

Agree with this comment 1 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

Fane1024
Friday, June 24, 2011 @ 2:27:47 AM

I would have agreed with that formulation.

Agree with this comment 0 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

Highlander
Wednesday, June 22, 2011 @ 3:35:41 PM
Reply

I know that this will fall on deaf ears, but I'll go ahead and say it anyway.

there are very many subtle factors at work inside a person that result in their attitude, personality and actions. The recent study discussed here that indicated that games can cause an increase in aggression and a suggestion that desensitization is also a problem, is not contradicted by this research.

Violent crimes are not primarily caused by desensitization and small increases in aggression. So having a study on one hand that links increased aggression to violence in games, does not mean that on the other hand a study showing video games can help (in some fashion) reduce violent crime is contradicting the first study, or that they are incompatible results.

Video games are often used as a form of relaxation by people, this could explain why it has an impact to reduce violent crime - gamers that might otherwise commit a crime are too busy blowing away zombies.

This is a complex subject area, and I think we need to be really careful about jumping on a specific study because it appears in a broad way to support our personal opinions. It's quite possible for this study and Dr B's study to be equally valid and correct, as each deals with a different part of the subject.

Agree with this comment 4 up, 1 down Disagree with this comment

tes37
Wednesday, June 22, 2011 @ 5:10:37 PM

I agree. Just because a person might be more aggressive from playing violent games, doesn't mean they're more likely to turn that aggression into harming people.

One study does not contradict the other. Had the first study concluded that people harm others after playing, then there would be one.

Edited for a comment that could've been taken two ways.



Last edited by tes37 on 6/22/2011 5:16:13 PM

Agree with this comment 1 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

Ather
Friday, June 24, 2011 @ 1:41:42 PM
Reply

Well, it does explain why we're not all blood thirsty psychopaths. The people negatively effected by video games in such a manner is so low, it's barely even noticeable. I mean, did all that Grand Theft Auto translate into real life carjackings? No. Maybe people play video games to do what can't be done in real life. It's an outlet, not an enabler.

Agree with this comment 0 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

Leave a Comment

Please login or register to leave a comment.

Our Poll

The PS4 exclusive(s) reveal in December will be...
MEGATON! Biggest thing evah!
Pretty great, but not mind-blowing.
Something decent but that's it.
A waste of hype.

Previous Poll Results