We Are Training Our Kids to be Killers

[mifdeath]

Edited by [user="129242"] @ [time="1209765369"]

So just a quick history lesson.

Pop-guns taught children to be ruthless aboriginal murderers due to cowboy and indians play time.

During every modern war and outside of wartimes children played with mock-ups of common weapons.

Ages ago children played with mock swords and shields.

Teaching our children to play war or killing is as much a part of our history and method of child-rearing as potty training.

For that matter if you went to any school yard within the last 100 years, you would have and will see young boys running around with their hands in gun poses shooting and being shot. Feigning death and gory injury as they happily play death games.

Now should my 7 year old be playing an ultra-violence oriented video game?

No, he does not have the cognitive capability or a firm enough grasp on reality to comprehend the difference between the game and real life.

Should my 14 or 17 year old be playing it?

If my 14 or 17 year old is incapable of telling the difference between real life and a game he/she has;

1. A severe learning or mental disability.

2. Parents who didnt do their job by teaching him/her morals and simple life guidelines.

3. Violent tendencies and may need counselling.

We are a warlike violent species, the fact that our games reflect that is nothing surprising. It is up to the parent not the government how children are raised.

[ukHazard]

Official DOJ figures show that violent crime has declined per capita hugely since the early 90s. Doom was released at that point.

[ph03nix(k)]

is there a checkbox to block news items under the category "Zips annoying biased rants"?

[azz0r]

I actually agree with him.



Anyone under 18 shouldn't play GTA4 really, thats a fair thing for the news to broadcast.



Essentially the game and the culture we're in (rap music, violent movies) is breeding a generation of possibly violent, disrespectful youths.



The answer to this is put in place good age barriers for such things and stick to them.

[Zom-B]

ukHazard wrote..

Official DOJ figures show that violent crime has declined per capita hugely since the early 90s. Doom was released at that point.

And in Doom, you need to become a more efficient killer to proceed through the game!



Ahh, it's all useless banter. The game still came out, and adults are playing it.

[pwnedbyIbanez]

While I believe that GTA4 or any video game would never actually train someone not impaired in thinking/judgment to kill others, I would rather not have anyone under 17 playing the game. Seriously, the only thing I've seen in GTA4 is a development team creating an amazing amount of detail and graphics style found in the game.

[chiselite]

"Zips, as a former Games Apologist myself I understand your defensive stance but the fact is that this game IS vile, antisocial, perverse and offensive. But that's exactly what it's SUPPOSED to be."



Oh come on. Just because you can buy a game which gives YOU the choice to kill people doesn't mean the game is vile, antisocial and perverse. You can't judge the tones of a game just from the things it lets YOU do. The most accurate way to judge GTA IV is through it's missions because you get to learn about Niko from those missions. You don't learn about Niko from goofing about and dying a million times doing car stunts. Furthermore, by playing through missions you also learn the story and like all stories, you can look for the themes in them. It is these themes which proves that GTA IV is not perverted, antisocial, vile and offensive as some hateful people may think. Go read all the dialogue in The Witcher game. Themes include the conflict and morality of good and evil and how it isn't black and white anymore but different shades of grey. This is true, especially since themes are based on real life views given government corruption and loopholes in laws etc.



What may be vile is the reflection of people today, depicted by NPCs regardless of whether they are part of the main story. There are hookers in GTA IV and you say the game is vile, perverse, antisocial and offensive? I guess the world (particularly Hamsterdam) must be all of those things because there are hookers in it? And I guess the world must be vile and perverse because if you can brutally kill many people and get away with it in GTA IV, you can do it in the real world (My Lai anyone?). The game isn't vile. It has some things in it that will make people cringe but face it, it is mainly vile because of the player or what you've seen other players do.



People who are usually offended about this kind of thing are people who either don't have the bullocks to look the world in a objective point of view or aren't pessimistic. The world isn't always a nice place where there is not violence in cities and where womens farts smell like flowers. GTA IV depicts (or attempts to) a part of the world (cities, particularly New York) the way they are or can be. I'm not saying that GTA IV shows people the real world but it can certainly snap people out of their one-way view of the world, something which some people don't like or can't handle.



"In a perfect world with nothing but sane, rational and healthy people that's fine but with the ever increasing number of nutballs on the loose, not to mention their ever increasing levels of nuttiness, it does border on the irresponsible to even MAKE this kind of content, regardless of how it's marketed."



Personally, what I believe is irresponsible is how GTA is distributed to kids. However, it isn't the stores or Take Two who are at fault, it is the children's guardians. If an underage kids buys GTA IV from a store, sure the store is breaking the law and is at fault to that law only. If a kid plays GTA IV and starts shooting up a school a few days later, don't you think that the parents are irresponsible for not checking on their kid every once in a while, especially if s/he is mentally unstable? How can you be a decent parent if you aren't involved in their life? Plus, it is all about context. I loved GTA because I could climb stuff and do stunts in motorbikes, plus I love stories.

====



As for the video, GTA IV doesn't train kids how to kill. It can teach them how to be one but seriously, GTA IV isn't the only offender. Look at movies. Action movies have guns. If a kids watches an action movie, they can piece things together and realise if you point a gun at someone and pull something, they will get hurt or die. If a kid goes to high school and studies human biology, that kid learn how to kill someone since the syllabus will go through learning about the digestive system or cardiovascular system. Hell, adults who enjoy watching boxing or UFC or Pride will learn how to kill someone.



What makes these people not kill? Mediation and filtering of information which highlights the significance of better parenting. I'd let my kid play GTA 6. I would even buy the game for myself and let him play it if s/he is good enough even if s/he is underage. I wouldn't supervise her/him all the time but I will force her/him to not screw around and do some missions and have a talk about games and real life.

[magicalpoop]

Here , I'll keep my post simple.



Does GTA really "Train you" the player , to be a killer? No, but it's a giant sandbox game and when in the hands of minors and even people who are not mature enough (dispite coming of age), you start to "explore" like any natural human being.



"Hey I can..pick up whores..and then kill them so I don't have to pay them?" for example, or get a 5 star rating and then go on top of a rooftop and fire off a few rocket rounds at the police officers below,etc, go into a crowd and unload your AK. Video games appeal to men for one reason alone, that our brains thrive on the work/reward system. We become addicted to it. When "troubled" people play this and feel such a sense of "relief" and "addictive joy" killing/etc, and their real lives suck. Why not transpose what you do on your 360 to that jerk in your gym class?



Look GTA4 isn't the culprit here, it's the bad parenting (that's the root). But at the sametime, is Rockstar completely innocent? Putting billboard and advertisements that span the entire sides of buildings? IMO they subjected an almost adult product to the masses (This includes minors). Come on, bus stops and other mass public displays? They're basically shoving it down on the youth. GTA 4, lollipop licking whores and guns. Fuck yeah.



Anyways my bottom line to sum my ultimate thoughts- They need to reform the ESRB ratings and change Mature to 18+ and make it a law to ID anyone who appears under 25 when purchasing the games. And yes , market the game as an adult product. Or keep it 17 but put ID in check.

I don't see a problem with an enforced 17 age check on M+ games.

[Kotae]

A lot of stores don't check ID ~ I know walmart used to, but I pretty much walked in there when I was 16/17 and they didn't question my age when I bought Silent Hill 3. Since then, I've had one person ask me my age when purchasing something - it was a movie, and not a game.



The rules that are in place need to be enforced, really.



All I have to say about the "Training kids to be killers" is this: Games don't make killers, movies don't make killers. But they sure can influence - just like your parents or friends influence.

[-:Nighthawk:-]

Edited by [user="26841"] @ [time="1209932501"]

I've got really mixed feelings on this one.



I've read a lot of the studies quoted in these clips. A lot of info was taken from Lt. Col. Dave Grossman's book On Killing, where he researched firing rates and training soldiers to overcome their aversion to killing other humans. All of us who've taken even the most basic of psychology classes are familiar with classical and operant conditioning, and humans on a subconscious level will react in set ways when conditioned to do so.



Can repeating an act of violence over and over train you to respond to a stimulus with that response? Absolutely. There's no arguing that point, it's long been established by psychological studies.



What does this really mean though? Unfortunately there are people who confuse the act of pressing a button on a controller with the act of grabbing a baseball bat and beating another human being down with it.



Depending on the quality of the audiovisual experience you've been training on, you can be more or less desensitized to the human reaction to your actions, which helps enable you for the real-life act. However, very few people who show no compunction against pressing X button will similarly be okay with swinging a bat at someone's head.



Every violent or otherwise anti-social act we imagine, watch, participate in or vicariously perform through a video game does fundamentally affect us. The more developed your sense of conscience and ethics is when taking in these experiences, the more you can properly filter them into the creative realm that you do not carry into your real life.



Honestly, most of us are reaching the same conclusion here: because psychological studies have proven that younger, developing minds are dramatically influenced by all of the ideas they're exposed to and participate in, their thoughts and actions will be affected. Most kids still won't become killers, but the general devaluing of human life is something we all see in society.



One last point. A decline in violent crime since the 90's was quoted, but this is a common misconception based on political surveys put out by agencies in charge of enforcement. Statistics for assault and attempted murder have continued to increase according to hospital records, but advances in medical technology and training have been compensating for the continual trend towards more violence that indeed has been increasing since the post WWII era.



In the end, I enjoy some violent media and don't believe in censorship of titles such as GTA IV, but the results that come from younger and/or unstable individuals consuming violent or otherwise anti-social media (of any kind) will always be negative.

[Thortok2000]

I watched the clips and you missed some of the major points.



1 - As far as 'training to kill'. The correct phrasing would be 'training to be willing to kill should it prove necessary'.



I, personally, can say that I have definitely thought about major violence...against someone who earned it. I would shoot someone that tried to shoot me. I could agree that it's possible that video games have trained me into a state where I'm ready to commit such acts, but because of my maturity and mental health, I know when to do them and when not to do them. However, regardless of the fact that I don't actually do them, I am more ready to, because of violence in media, then I was without.



That's the point they're making. Before World War I, people hesitated when they go to kill. There's not any more or less killings, directly, just less hesitation. Now, in children in particular, less hesitation means the act is actually committed instead of just attempted. I've always laughed at Jack Thompson, but I respect Glen Beck, and I see where he's going on it. I see his point as far as 'training to kill' goes.



2: Mature rating instead of Adults-Only rating.



This is definitely something I agree with. The game needs an adults-only rating if it's going to have that kind of content. That it is simply Mature is stupid.



3: The point of the show was to educate parents.



"What you need to know." What you need to know is not to let your kid play this game. If a parent was watching that, they should have gotten that from the show. That's the most important thing. Especially in light of it being Mature and sold in places like Walmart and Best Buy without a real amount of security to prevent minors from buying it... Stores should be held accountable to the full extent of the law, and parents need to know. Glen Beck was informing parents about this game.



To that extent, I think it was a good clip, even if he had to call on Jack Thompson, ugh.

[mifdeath]

Our governments do not exist to write policy on how we are not spending enough time with our children to notice aberrant behavior. Or extended policy on our personal behavior because we as parents are so personally uneducated, and in this information age cannot inform ourselves on correct choices for our children.



At some point however our children have to leave the house and do things on their own. At that stage we should have the logical reasoning to understand, that whatever we instilled in those children up until that point will protect them from danger or harm. At that point you see, we no longer can control everything that they may come into contact with.



We all know that this sort of media and political attention on such a (in reality) trivial matter is "busy work" for the masses. Or to put it another way, misdirection.



Look over here! At this! Think of the children! Oh won’t somebody please think of the children!

[Zips]

Damn Thortok, you missed the point of these videos entirely. They're using lowbrow scare tactics to misinform everyone about this game.



How do you, or he, know that there was "hesitation" pre-WWI but absolutely none now? Exactly.



And no, games did not train you to defend yourself if someone was about to shoot you. This is normal human instinct. Do you think the Neanderthals just sat back and took a beating from their fellow 'man'? Say you ignore that too, and I can see you doing it. But then, Neanderthals just attacked others without much provocation. I guess they trained on videogames.



FYI: The difference between an AO rating and a M rating is one year. If someone isn't ready to play the game at 17, I seriously doubt a single year will make any difference to those who have pre-existing mental instability issues.



The points you made were just as bad and full of holes as Beck's and Thompson's.

[ALT+F4]

Thortok2000 wrote..

.

I, personally, can say that I have definitely thought about major violence...against someone who earned it. I would shoot someone that tried to shoot me.

Just curious. Are you a gun owner? Have you ever held a loaded firearm in your hand and felt its awesome and irrevocable destructive potential?



It's easy to blather about being willing to shoot someone when you're just talking out of your ass; a little more thought goes into a statement like that when you truly understand the moral, legal and psychological implications.



If that's the case, then my apologies. If not, then STFU.



And Zips, your arguments are immature and embarrassing. This game is indefensible. It exists precisely to be -- as one man put it -- vile, antisocial and offensive. That's its purpose. That's its selling point. Rockstar is depending on the predictable badmouthing to increase interest and sales. Defending it as though it weren't is delusional and disingenuous.



Which is not to say that it can't be entertaining and fun. But let's not fool ourselves into thinking it's art.

[Zips]

ALT+F4 wrote..

And Zips, your arguments are immature and embarrassing. This game is indefensible. It exists precisely to be — as one man put it — vile, antisocial and offensive. That's its purpose. That's its selling point. Rockstar is depending on the predictable badmouthing to increase interest and sales. Defending it as though it weren't is delusional and disingenuous.



Which is not to say that it can't be entertaining and fun. But let's not fool ourselves into thinking it's art.

The game is indefensible? Are you kidding? You surely must be. For if something can come under attack, there is surely a way to defend it from such outlandish badmouthing for the sake of garnishing a few more viewers to your bandwagon jumping show.



Furthermore, that was never the point I was making. Period. I've always said from the start that if you are not mentally capable of playing a game and differentiating between reality and virtual reality, you shouldn't be playing this game. I've also constantly said that this game, and other violent titles will not turn a perfectly normal kid into a sociopathic, uncaring, unfeeling killer. If the kid is already gone to begin with, then a game, or ANY form of media would be enough to push them further. Like I said, look back to music, movies, etc. I never said there weren't any offensive pieces in this series, far from it. So do not try and put words into my mouth on that matter.



I also highly doubt Rockstar was depending on anything in the realm of badmouthing to generate sales, when sales forecasts by outside parties had this title breaking all sorts of records in the entertainment field, even coming close to matching the leader in films.



With forecasts of sales being near 9 million just for this title, and with maybe a few crimes (ever) being placed on the shoulders of any game as the reason why someone did something, no matter how BS that reason is, I'd say the side of arguing that games do not result in violent behavior far outweigh the side that says this game teaches persons to become killers.