NP - It's not the video games

[Bekah]

Confessions - my favorite games these days are in the  Avernum series by Spiderweb Software.  In the olden days  I loved the Marathon Trilogy for Mac by Bungie Software.   They both have some violence - Marathon has more than Avernum (the thinking woman's Doom).     

I know that gaming doesn't kill people - people kill people.  I'm NOT opposed to video games - I love mine.    My point was that a combination of a lot of guns and a certain pre-disposition or "mentality"  can turn a person from borderline to "snapping."    (I'm mellowing my stance having seen Dr. Gupta on CNN.)   

Btw,  I had a hard time finishing my latest David Baldacci book today. 

Bekah


On Dec 18, 2012, at 5:32 PM, John Bailey <sundayjb at gmail.com> wrote:

> Games are usually compulsion loops, playing on risk/reward stuff in
> your brain. A problem pops up - zombie, speed-hump, descending puzzle
> block - and you solve it - shoot, swerve, rotate - and the problem
> goes away and that feels good. Maybe you get a gold star. That's
> nothing to do with the mimetic content of a game. In recent years I
> have become a bit wary of those problems being realistic-looking
> people in real-world, contemporary locations and the solution to be
> constant carnage. It's probably as much about lazy writing etc though.
> 
> 
> On Wed, Dec 19, 2012 at 12:23 PM, Ian Livingston
> <igrlivingston at gmail.com> wrote:
>> I like a good shoot-em-up and I cringe when I accidentally kill an ant or a
>> mosquito. Not sure but what it's a whole other neuronal twist when you're in
>> gameland.
>> 
>> 
>> On Tue, Dec 18, 2012 at 5:17 PM, John Bailey <sundayjb at gmail.com> wrote:
>>> 
>>> Meaningless statistical analysis, given that "video game spending per
>>> capita" doesn't tell us anything about what games are being played
>>> where, by whom, in what way, etc. Most surveys now include video games
>>> such as Angry Birds and FarmVille alongside realistic US military
>>> shooters. That said, the argument against any correlation may be
>>> correct. I just wrinkle my nose at the evidence offered.
>>> 
>>> On Wed, Dec 19, 2012 at 12:06 PM, Bekah <bekah0176 at sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>>>> Is a comparison of the murder rates when readily available assault
>>>> rifles  are combined with violent movies and video games valid if the other
>>>> countries don't have easily available assault rifles (or handguns)?   What
>>>> if they only have the games and not the guns - how can there be much of a
>>>> murder-by-gunshot rate at all?   We have both.
>>>> 
>>>> Bekah
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> On Dec 18, 2012, at 9:53 AM, David Morris <fqmorris at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/worldviews/wp/2012/12/17/ten-country-comparison-suggests-theres-little-or-no-link-between-video-games-and-gun-murders/
>>>>> 
>>>>> But it turns out that the data just doesn’t support this [video game]
>>>>> connection. Looking at the world’s 10 largest video game markets yields no
>>>>> evident, statistical correlation between video game consumption and
>>>>> gun-related killings.
>>>>> 
>>>>> It’s true that Americans spend billions of dollars on video games every
>>>>> year and that the United States has the highest firearm murder rate in the
>>>>> developed world. But other countries where video games are popular have much
>>>>> lower firearm-related murder rates. In fact, countries where video game
>>>>> consumption is highest tend to be some of the safest countries in the world,
>>>>> likely a product of the fact that developed or rich countries, where
>>>>> consumers can afford expensive games, have on average much less violent
>>>>> crime...
>>>> 
>> 
>>