Gaming Features
Search warrant reveals VA Tech killer had no video games
By Casey Lynch Apr 20, 2007, 14:37 GMT
And Also
Latest Headlines in Gaming
- 1. The Who's Super Bowl performance comes to Rock Band
- 2. 'Fallout: New Vegas' announced, trailer released
- 3. 'Madden NFL 10' predicts New Orleans Saints victory at Super Bowl XLIV
- 4. Sony announces PlayStation exclusive reality-series, 'The Tester'
- 5. 'Battlefield: Bad Company 2' demo for Xbox 360 now available
Older Talkback
page: 1
It is ignorant to lay the blame entirely on video games, but you can't really blame Jack for his comments. While he is ignorant, egotistical and somewhat of a social vigilante, he is as much of product of our society as Cho was. He feels that someone should pay for the loss of life which he has seen in today's world. Video games are what he happens to put the blame on, because he is ignorant of what they really are, which is why he has no problem blaming them. For we, as humans, have always feared the unknown. That thing which goes bump in the night. If we knew what it was, we wouldn't be afraid. But we don't know, and all of those scary stories come back to us, when we are alone in the night. Video games are Jack Thompson's boogey-man. Pity him, because while his intentions are good, he is weakened by his fear of what he doesn't know.
Also, Cho may have played video games(Maybe even *violent* ones, god forbid, oh noes), but that didn't create what he was. From what I know, he was a reclusive person, who felt that the rich kids had it easy,(please, forgive me if I am misinformed) which had nothing to do with video games. His hate, and his passion against the other students was formed and tempered by the actions of individuals, even if they didn't mean to hurt him. It was a tragic event, and a production of a society which is beginning to decay.
But I have one final question. I noted that the President offered his condolences to the families of Virginia Tech, which was a thoughtful gesture. But why did he offer condolences for the 33 deaths of the students, (please don't take me wrong, I'm not trying to trivialize their deaths, only prove a point) and not see it fit to offer his condolences at the Station fire, where over a hundred people died? Was it because he wasn't so desperate to move up in the public opinion? Are his condolences just an assumed pose, to gain face with the general public? I'm sure he feels something, but perhaps his appearance was motivated by political reasons? If so, I am quickly losing faith in our government's morality.
Games do not make people violent, a bad upbringing, trauma and stress cause violence. If i walked up to you and put a gun in you hand what would you do? would you drop it? would you give it back to me? or would you kill me? What you decide to do with the gun is based on what your previous experiences have taught you not the fact i have just handed a gun to you. By giving you the gun i have given you the opportunity to do something bad weather or not you do it is up to you.
I play (and make) violent video games (oh no!) almost every day. I have no form of destructive behavior. I don't hate people, life, animals, society, anything. In fact I have a very hard time ending the life of an ant crawling across my kitchen floor.
I'm sorry, but solely blaming games for such a tragedy is wrong. There are many many more important factors involved.
Why is it so difficult for people to blame him?
After all he pulled the trigger, not some software designer or highschool bully.
The real problem here is that personal responsability is gone in this country because you can bet that all of those who are reaching for someone other than the shooter to blame are the first to find someone else to blame for their own problems.
excuse me wtf but you're not exactly creating a good argument for yourself there .... lol
I have completely lost interest in Dr. Phil's show now.
Jack Thompson, meanwhile, he's just trying to gather attention. Most of my friends are almost normal, and they play video games/watch violent television every day. I don't see Thompson trying to say that television is the cause of this, no. He just assumes this because apparently 'interactivity stirs emotions.'
If you're going to slander video games, THEN SAY SO IN A VIDEO GAME, IT MIGHT 'STIR' MORE EMOTION!
Idiot.
It's sad, but true. People can't accept responsibility for their own actions anymore, and thus do not expect other people to be responsible for theirs. It's always someone else's fault.
The facts are simple: Cho thought up the event. Cho bought the guns. Cho bought the ammunition. Cho walked around the school and pulled the triggers. Cho killed these people.
Blaming video games, blaming guns, blaming their creators... it's all a way to deflect the facts. This man, for whatever reason, went crazy and decided to kill people. The rest doesn't matter. Any sane individual could play violent games and own guns without ever going so far as to slaughtering innocent people. In fact, an overwhelming majority of them do just that. Why are we so obsessed with the minority here? Obviously, something is wrong with those people, that's why they kill others.
How hard is that to understand? How hard is it to place the blame where it is due?
Video games prevent crimes of all kinds. Boredom is a major factor in the level of crime in society. By giving people a vicarious outlet for boredom or unresolved negative emotions, and teaching players repeatedly that there is a consequence for errors in judgement, you're promoting a safe society. We see this kind of vicarious outlet taught in psychology as well, where it is commonly suggested someone who is angry should focus thier frustrations on inanimate objects such as a pillow, or counting to 10. As an avid gamer for years, and having seen the research on how crime has dropped the more popular video games have become, I have see every reason to find contention with the FBI and Dr. Phil, who probably only want to see video games taxed in a way not unlike cigarettes or gambling.
page: 1






Your Talkback on this Story