Another Mall Shooting

[Ivor the Engineer]

Absolutely agree re films, games etc. Want to limit violent media? Evidence that it leads people to commit violent acts please. Otherwise it's just an appeal to emotion and an abstract form of vigilantism.

I did provide some evidence. Here it is again:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/e...ez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsPanel.Pubmed_RVDocSum

The influence of violent media on children and adolescents: a public-health approach.

There is continuing debate on the extent of the effects of media violence on children and young people, and how to investigate these effects. The aim of this review is to consider the research evidence from a public-health perspective. A search of published work revealed five meta-analytic reviews and one quasi-systematic review, all of which were from North America. There is consistent evidence that violent imagery in television, film and video, and computer games has substantial short-term effects on arousal, thoughts, and emotions, increasing the likelihood of aggressive or fearful behaviour in younger children, especially in boys. The evidence becomes inconsistent when considering older children and teenagers, and long-term outcomes for all ages. The multifactorial nature of aggression is emphasised, together with the methodological difficulties of showing causation. Nevertheless, a small but significant association is shown in the research, with an effect size that has a substantial effect on public health. By contrast, only weak evidence from correlation studies links media violence directly to crime.

And here's some more:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/e...med.Pubmed_ResultsPanel.Pubmed_RVAbstractPlus

The role of media violence in violent behavior.

Media violence poses a threat to public health inasmuch as it leads to an increase in real-world violence and aggression. Research shows that fictional television and film violence contribute to both a short-term and a long-term increase in aggression and violence in young viewers. Television news violence also contributes to increased violence, principally in the form of imitative suicides and acts of aggression. Video games are clearly capable of producing an increase in aggression and violence in the short term, although no long-term longitudinal studies capable of demonstrating long-term effects have been conducted. The relationship between media violence and real-world violence and aggression is moderated by the nature of the media content and characteristics of and social influences on the individual exposed to that content. Still, the average overall size of the effect is large enough to place it in the category of known threats to public health.

ETA: Please feel free to ignore this evidence, or dismiss it with an anecdote.

ETA2: Lifetime odds of being killed with a firearm in the US: 1 in 325

 

[Lonewulf]

ETA: Please feel free to ignore this evidence, or dismiss it with an anecdote.

Same link, but not with your pre-disposed opinion:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/e...med.Pubmed_ResultsPanel.Pubmed_RVAbstractPlus

Contrary to media headlines and public perceptions, there is little evidence of a substantial link between exposure to violent interactive games and serious real-life violence or crime.

Aw, what's that? I'm sorry, I thought you said it was proven, with evidence behind it. Guess not.

But then, I guess one study is okay, but the other isn't, as long as you already believe in it.

And yes, anecdotes are fun. I would like to know how, with a lifetime of watching violent films and playing violent games, why I haven't gone out and killed someone. It's supposed to be like brain control, right? I don't have control over myself when watching movies, right? So why haven't I killed someone yet? Why haven't I gone Columbine? Why haven't I even felt tempted to do so?

 

[Lonewulf]

Of course the primary purpose of a handgun is shooting people. What else is it for? I'm still waiting for your answer on that one.

Uh, target shooting.

You yourself mentioned target shooting. Get your memory checked, or else there is little need to communicate any longer.

I just love the cognitive dissonance here.

There are highly accurate target pistols designed specifically for high-end precision shooting... and you can also shoot a person with them, although that is not its primary purpose.

Of course the primary purpose of a handgun is shooting people. What else is it for?

Get your claims straight, then we'll talk.

 

[Ivor the Engineer]

This is an interesting page:

Myth 6. There are no studies linking violent video game play to serious aggression.
Facts: High levels of violent video game exposure have been linked to delinquency, fighting at school and during free play periods, and violent criminal behavior (e.g., self-reported assault, robbery).

Myth 7. Violent video games affect only a small fraction of players.
Facts: Though there are good theoretical reasons to expect some populations to be more susceptible to violent video game effects than others, the research literature has not yet substantiated this. That is, there is not consistent evidence for the claim that younger children are more negatively affected than adolescents or young adults or that males are more affected than females. There is some evidence that highly aggressive individuals are more affected than nonaggressive individuals, but this finding does not consistently occur. Even nonaggressive individuals are consistently affected by brief exposures. Further research will likely find some significant moderators of violent video game effects, because the much larger research literature on television violence has found such effects and the underlying processes are the same. However, even that larger literature has not identified a sizeable population that is totally immune to negative effects of media violence.

Myth 8. Unrealistic video game violence is completely safe for adolescents and older youths.
Facts: Cartoonish and fantasy violence is often perceived (incorrectly) by parents and public policy makers as safe even for children. However, experimental studies with college students have consistently found increased aggression after exposure to clearly unrealistic and fantasy violent video games. Indeed, at least one recent study found significant increases in aggression by college students after playing E-rated (suitable for everyone) violent video games.

Myth 9. The effects of violent video games are trivially small.
Facts: Meta-analyses reveal that violent video game effect sizes are larger than the effect of second hand tobacco smoke on lung cancer, the effect of lead exposure to I.Q. scores in children, and calcium intake on bone mass. Furthermore, the fact that so many youths are exposed to such high levels of video game violence further increases the societal costs of this risk factor (Rosenthal, 1986).

 

[Lonewulf]

Then why has violence gone down, including school violence? Why isn't it going up, Ivor?

C'mon, you're the expert.

 

[Morrigan]

Tycho and Gabe are no more rich than you or me.

Actually, I'll wager that they are. These guys got so rich with their website that they don't even need day jobs anymore. Bastards.

I think it would depend on how absurd the violence is and the context it is presented in. I used Hollywood as an example, but I think RPG’s could probably come under a similar taxation scheme. I’m not familiar with the comic books you mentioned. A college student's violent short story is unlikely to be marketed to a huge audience, or the content easily confused with socially acceptable behaviour.

WTF. Who would be the judge of this "level of absurdity" and whether or not the "content is easily confused with socially accepted behaviour", anyway?

Taxing violent fiction.... complete and utter insanity.

Many parents don’t seem to be particularly bothered about their children’s viewing or other pastimes. How do you propose to make parents accept this job?

By letting the government do their job for them by taxing citizens, probably. Right?

 

[Lonewulf]

Actually, I'll wager that they are. These guys got so rich with their website that they don't even need day jobs anymore. Bastards.

It seems that a lot of that money goes into charity more than anything else, though. They're the ones that sponsored a charity to give children in hospitals videogames as presents.

I'm sure it's all to promote the eeeeevil violent agenda, natch.

 

[Ivor the Engineer]

From the same page:

Myth 11. If violent video games cause increases in aggression, violent crime rates in the U.S. would be increasing instead of decreasing.

Facts: Three assumptions must all be true for this myth to be valid: (a) exposure to violent media (including video games) is increasing; (b) youth violent crime rates are decreasing; (c) video game violence is the only (or the primary) factor contributing to societal violence. The first assumption is probably true. The second is not true, as reported by the 2001 Report of the Surgeon General on Youth Violence (Figure 2-7, p. 25). The third is clearly untrue. Media violence is only one of many factors that contribute to societal violence and is certainly not the most important one. Media violence researchers have repeatedly noted this.

 

[Lonewulf]

Hm... apparently, BBC disagrees with the evidence.

Andrew Caldecott, representing the BBFC in the appeal, admitted that there is no evidence to suggest that violent computer games promote actual violence in those who play them.

http://www.vnunet.com/vnunet/news/2204549/evidence-video-games-cause

Those silly BBC people. Don't they know that the evidence is all out there?

"The research certainly achieves the objective of establishing that research does not demonstrate that there is a causal link. But what it certainly does not establish is that there is not [a link]," he said, according to Eurogamer.

"There isn't a causal link, but there can still be a link!"

Another study: http://www.joystiq.com/2007/02/19/study-evidence-low-that-video-games-cause-violence/

A Texas A&M researcher sent GamePolitics a study he recently completed showing little evidence linking violent video games and violent behavior. Christopher Ferguson, a Ph.D faculty member at the university's department of behavioral, applied sciences and criminal justice, conducted a "meta-analysis" of studies associating violent video game exposure with aggressive behaviors. A look at the overall result of studies in the field showed violent video games increase people's aggressive thoughts, not necessarily action.

Hmm, intriguing.

Seems to not go the direction of "videogames cause violence". Next, Ivor?

That's like if you watch a comedy it increases funny thoughts, or after watching a melodrama it increases Japanese RPG thoughts.

So watching a comedy will turn you into a comedian in the same way that violent videogames will turn you into a murderer... in short, it probably won't.

 

[Lonewulf]

Myth 11. If violent video games cause increases in aggression, violent crime rates in the U.S. would be increasing instead of decreasing.

Facts: Three assumptions must all be true for this myth to be valid: (a) exposure to violent media (including video games) is increasing

OH CRAP! Totally got me there, that is entirely an unrealistic assumption!

I mean, there aren't millions of people out there playing World of Warcraft, Starcraft, Everquest II, Counterstrike, Half-Life 2, etc. etc. etc. all over the world! When I lived in Korea, I couldn't just walk into any PC place and see people playing violent games all over the place! You totally caught me on this one!

Wait, no.

(b) youth violent crime rates are decreasing

According to the studies, yes, they are.

The second is not true, as reported by the 2001 Report of the Surgeon General on Youth Violence (Figure 2-7, p. 25).

That's... a hell of a claim. It also goes against every other method of research I've ever seen in the past.

http://www.ncpa.org/studies/s229/s229.html

Serious crime in the United States continued to fall in 1998. Whether measured as a rate (number of crimes per capita) or in absolute terms, every category of violent crime and burglary decreased from 1997.

* The overall rate of serious crime fell to a 25-year low.

* The murder rate dropped by 8 percent from 1997 and finally slumped to the rates of the late 1960s, even falling below the average murder rate during this entire century.

* The rates for rape and aggravated assault fell by 5 percent each, for robbery by 11 percent and for burglary by 7 percent.

* The actual number of murders reported in 1998 was the lowest in more than two decades.

The third is clearly untrue. Media violence is only one of many factors that contribute to societal violence and is certainly not the most important one. Media violence researchers have repeatedly noted this.

Media violence is "only one" of the many factors... so it isn't a significant enough of a factor to even cause a spike. But yet, we're all supposed to rally behind your call to tax game makers out of your arbitrary desire to control people.

LOL. Okay.

 

[Lonewulf]

I'm reading the 2001 Report by the Surgeon General.

This is what I'm seeing:

Myth: A new violent breed of young superpredators threatens the United States.

Fact: There is no evidence that young people involved in violence during the peak years of the early 1990s were more frequent or more vicious offenders than youths in earlier years. The increased lethality resulted from gun use, which has since decreased dramatically. There is no scientific evidence to document the claim of increased seriousness or callousness (see Chapter 3).

Myth: In the 1990s, school violence affected mostly white students or students who attended suburban or rural schools.

Fact: African American and Hispanic males attending large inner-city schools that serve very poor neighborhoods faced—and still face—the greatest risk of becoming victims or perpetrators of a violent act at school. This is true despite recent shootings in suburban, middle-class, predominantly white schools (see Chapter 2).

Myth: Weapons-related injuries in schools have increased dramatically in the last 5 years.

Fact: Weapons-related injuries have not changed significantly in the past 20 years. Compared to neighborhoods and homes, schools are relatively safe places for young people (see Chapter 2).

http://www.surgeongeneral.gov/library/youthviolence/chapter1/sec2.html#youth_violence

I'm not sure if it's the 2001 report to be precise, but it doesn't seem to be suggesting an increase in youth violence.

 

[Ivor the Engineer]

<snip>

WTF. Who would be the judge of this "level of absurdity" and whether or not the "content is easily confused with socially accepted behaviour", anyway?

Taxing violent fiction.... complete and utter insanity.

I thought it was a more feasible and liberal approach than banning it. I think a panel of psychologists could assess the impact of a particular film’s violence.

By letting the government do their job for them by taxing citizens, probably. Right?

I don't think there are any easy solutions to the seemingly ever increasing number of parents who don't care about their kids' education or social adjustment.

 

[JoeEllison]

Uh, target shooting.

You yourself mentioned target shooting. Get your memory checked, or else there is little need to communicate any longer.

I just love the cognitive dissonance here.





Get your claims straight, then we'll talk.

I didn't realize that you were not only lying, but playing at being incapable of basic reading comprehension. When you're done playing at being ignorant and dishonest, email me so I can take you off ignore.

 

[Lonewulf]

Ah, I seem to have been wrong about the report.

Here we go:

Myth: The epidemic of violent behavior that marked the early 1990s is over, and young people—as well as the rest of U.S. society—are much safer today.

Fact: Although such key indicators of violence as arrest and victimization data clearly show significant reductions in violence since the peak of the epidemic in 1993, an equally important indicator warns against concluding that the problem is solved. Self-reports by youths reveal that involvement in some violent behaviors remains at 1993 levels (see Chapter 2).

So there are significant reductions in violence. Intriguing.

"Some violent behaviors remains at 1993 levels"... I'm not sure what that means. I'll look into it.

 

[Big Les]

In any case, those links (and there's certainly some correlation/causation disentangling to be done there) refer to the influence of violent media on children. Why should adults have their leisure time affected by parents irresponsible enough to let little Jimmy play GTA?

If the car analogy was at all relevant to the gun control issue, it's screamingly obvious here; cars directly kill many times more than guns, video games or movies. If we are seeking to protect people from harm, why do we persist in allowing such high levels of car ownership and use? The high levels of tax are applied due to environmental and maintenance concerns, not because of their lethal consequences.

 

[Lonewulf]

I didn't realize that you were not only lying, but playing at being incapable of basic reading comprehension. When you're done playing at being ignorant and dishonest, email me so I can take you off ignore.

Lying? Heh, okay, whatever you say.

I don't care if I'm on your ignore list anyways. But go ahead and tell me, it makes your e-penis size look bigger.

 

[Lonewulf]

Hm, interesting.

According to the Surgeon Report:

# Despite the present decline in gun use and in lethal violence, the self-reported proportion of young people involved in nonfatal violence has not declined from the peak years of the epidemic, nor has the proportion of students injured with a weapon at school declined.
# The proportion of schools in which gangs are present continued to increase after 1994 and has only recently (1999) declined. However, evidence shows that the number of youths involved with gangs has not declined and remains near the peak levels of 1996.

http://www.surgeongeneral.gov/library/youthviolence/chapter1/sec3.html#chap2

So... it seems like there's still violence, and there's still gangs.

Correlation/causation tells me that the gangs are more of a problem than the games.

 

[Ivor the Engineer]

Here's figure 2-7 from the report:

 

[Lonewulf]

Perhaps you can explain why their findings are so different than other sources? For instance, it seems to conflict with the Bureau of Justice:

http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/glance/tables/4meastab.htm

Total violent crime:
The estimated number of homicides of persons age 12 and older recorded by police plus the number of rapes, robberies, and aggravated assaults from the victimization survey whether or not they were reported to the police. From NCVS + homicide from the UCR.

Seems like "NCVS Actual" is entirely lower today than it was a few decades ago. Can you explain that?

Here's a graph to help you understand:

 

[Lonewulf]

Hmmm, I think I see where the discrepancy comes from.

From here:

http://bjsdata.ojp.usdoj.gov/dataonline/Search/Crime/State/RunCrimeStatebyState.cfm

This seems to demonstrate that crime levels have been going up... along with population size.

There were far more crimes in 1960 per 10,000 people than there are today, it seems.

Seems like that's a pretty big thing to miss, though. I kinda doubt that anyone would be that n00bish with stats to make a mistake that bad... unless they were trying to intentionally distort the facts to suit their own side, natch.