• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Aaron Alexis: Washington navy yard gunman obsessed with violent video games.

Generally individuals with mental problems that carry out insane acts of violence be it mass shootings or a serial killer act out the fantasies in their heads well before they carry out the act. It's seems to be a reach to claim that someone completely gets lost in a video game and starts to act it out because of some reality/fantasy blur. I'm sure if the guy was still alive like almost every serial killer caught he would talk about fantasies he had as a child that involved killing people.

Mass shooters generally die at the end of their shooting spree's but every serial killer we've caught mentions fantasies in their head since an early age that involved the killing of people.
.

when you are able to repeatedly kill in a video game with out any repercussions other then a high score in the insane it will loosen the inhabitations of what ever is left of their constituents that tells them it is wrong to do so in real life

Impulse and muscle memory are different than a planned mass murder. Sure, if train yourself to fire on someone that lifts a gun you'll get quicker and react faster but it's different than a blur between fantasy and reality.

so they it will become instinct to kill without thinking right from wrong. the make them numb to the fact when I pull they trigger some one will die they don't want them to hesitate about taking a life when you do some thing repeatedly you are able to do so without thought
 
Last edited:
I'm not sure why. If there was no violent video games they would play out their sicko fantasies in other ways including just fantasizing about the acts in their head. Unless video games are causing people to act violently I'm not sure how you would make the case for limiting them.


I'm not sure how.

In one case you're pointing as something that causes an event in the other it's the means with which an event is carried out. No one claims law abiding Joe Schmo because homicidal mass shooter because he owns a gun. They claim that homicidal potential mass shooter has no problems getting guns/bullet proof vests/smoke canisters or whatever he needs to live out his murder fantasy.

Guns of all types have been around for quite some time. Yet, it would seem the suggestion is the violence is escallating. Why weren't these events as prevelent decades ago? What is different today, that wasn't around before?

It seems fingers are pointing to violent video games, wouldn't that be fair to say, since there is a growing correlation between these wack jobs, and their obsession with these war game video scenarios?
 
Correlation doesn't equal causation. It's just or more likely that violent individuals gravitate towards violent media as a way to act out their aggression.

I'm not sure how the idea that violent games cause violent action meshes with the fact that juvenile violent crime is at a 30 year low.




Maybe acting out their aggression with the violent games relieves pressure and keeps them from doing it in their real life?
 
Not that this had anything to do with anything.

Exclusive: The Washington Navy Yard gunman Aaron Alexis played violent video games including Call of Duty for up to 16 hours at a time and friends believe it could have pushed him towards becoming a mass murderer.

Aaron Alexis: Washington navy yard gunman 'obsessed with violent video games' - Telegraph

Correct. One idiot doing something is not indicative to anything but himself.

Call Of Duty: Black Ops 2 sold 7.5 million copies on its opening day alone[/b]. Last I checked, we do not have a horde of millions running about slaughtering the innocent due to that "violent" video game.

No one is singularly "pushed" to murder because they played a video game. Suggesting such is ridiculous.
 
And there are millions who own guns who don't go on a mass shooting spree.

However, there is a common connection to these mass murders, and the murderers who commit them.

The connection is becoming quite obvious and difficult to refute.

What is that connection exactly?

That they all read books?

That they all watch TV shows?

That they wall listen to music?
 
It has come to light that Aaron Alexis was mentally ill. The mentally ill have a hard time disguising reality from fantasy. You add the 16 hour a day violent video games to the mix who are you to say that the fantasy world of the video game didn't cross over to reality in the minds of the mentally ill

Ditto if they're spending 16 hours a day reading "violent" books, watching "violent television", being preached "violent" religious history, or hell just using their "violent" imaginations.

Notice the issue here isn't any of those things, the issue is the mental illnes.

It's astounding that some will sit there and make an argument against gun control based on the notion that those who want to kill will just find another way to do it, but yet foolishly seem to act as if removing "violent video games" will stop a person who desires violent tinged pass times from finding some other way to satisfy that desire.

Take a gun away from someone and he'll find a way to make a bomb. Take a video game away from someone and he'll become a model citizen. Because **** logic, that's why!
 
I haven't seen where a single person has called for banning anything. But one does wonder why the MORBID fascination with such violence.

The same "morbid" fascination that causes children to play Cops and Robbers or Cowboys and Indians and other such things. The same "morbid" fascination people have with reading and watching and listening to historical accounts of war. The same "morbid" fascination that people have with watching police footage of chase scenes. The same "morbid" fascination people have with watching boxing or the UFC or football. The same "morbid" fascination that people have with playing paintball or shooting at more realistic target pictures at a range. The same reason people have a "Morbid" fascination with reading books with the main character depicting someone in the military, law enforcement, etc.

Shockingly, those type of things aren't typically focused on nearly as much because the Paster at the local fundamentalist church doesn't think it's destroying the souls of our children and older people everywhere look down their nose at it with disdain as being somehow significantly different than other forms of media.
 
If violent people tend to be attracted to violent games, shouldn't we limit the violent games, since there is a growing correlation?

Isn't this the same argument used by those calling for limiting guns?

A few things with this...

First, while I'm not in favor of most gun limitations, there's a distinct difference between limiting someone access to something with which they can easily kill, and limiting someone access to something that may inspire them to try and access something else that can allow them to easily kill. Attempting to correlate "if it's okay for guns, it's okay for video games" is a bit ridiculous because of that notion.

Save for trying to break the DVD and stab someone with it, no one is perpetrating the murder of another person using their Starcraft CD as the means of doing it.

Second, if you're against banning of guns based on constitutional grounds...please explain to me what constitutional ability you believe the government should have to ban private citizens from purchasing a legal product that does not pose a DIRECT threat to themselves or others?

Third, the statement wasn't that violent people are attracted singularly to violent games but rather they're attracted to violent things. Shall we be looking to ban books, television, movies, plays, songs, paintings, and other forms of media and art from access by "violent" individuals?

Fourth, you and others ignorantly assume correlation in any way equals causation. Some of the highest scoring players in the NBA also commit the most fouls. OBVIOUSLY, NBA coaches should tell their best players to go out there and start fouling people because that will lead to points because there's a correlation there!

Fifth, almost everything regarding video games and mass shooters that comes out is generally speculative stuff stated by those around him. Someone sits and watches 8 hours of TV and people shrug because individuals young and old have done that. People sit and play 8 hours of video game and suddenly it's a "binge". Someone who goes home each night and watches a movie on Netflix is shrugged at, someone who goes home each night and plays a couple ours of Gears of War is "obsessed". Without some actual hard evidence, and specifically some actual context as to what the individual was spending his time on overall, the statements are rather worthless. I guarantee you almost every mass killer of recent memory talked on a phone, used a computer, watched a television, listened to a radio, and read something. OMG! There's now a correlation between those things and killers! WE MUST TAKE ACTION!
 
It's the perfect storm of multiple problems. As pointed out, millions of people play violent games and do not turn violent. Millions of people own guns or have access to purchase guns but do not go on a shooting spree. Millions of people live with mental / behavioral issues and also do not become violent.
The issue to me is mental health and how it is vastly lagging behind physical health. People who are or have had incidents of mental health issues in the past need to be assessed psychologically. For example, if a person is already a manic depressive who functions with prescription drugs - who wants to go out and buy an AR-15 and violent video games, would that be a good idea? Shouldn't the psychologist flag this person as "no guns, no violent video games" which would make it more difficult for that person to legally purchase and use both guns and violent games? I'm starting to think the database needed for certain individuals should, for the sake of their own health and the safety of others around them, limit their access to both guns and these games. The issue really is, the mental health system in America is crap and would need to be strengthened possibly by new laws that are passed which puts temporary / permanent restrictions on those with certain types of mental illness so this perfect storm does not easily exist.
I guess my issue in terms of video games is why stop there? What's the ulterior motive here that it seems they're the ONLY type of violent media being talked about. Shall we force them to install V-Chip like devices to their Televisions to block out any television show with the designation of V for Violence or FV for Fantasy Violence? Ban the sell of PG-13 and Rated R movies to them that have some form of voilence as a reason for their rating? Shall we ban them from purchasing books that have violent scenes or topics? Shall we be sure they aren't able to buy violent songs, like for example one talking about lighting up the sky with bombs and putting boots up peoples asses?

People keep talking about "correlation". Almost every abortion clinic bombing or murder of workers in such clinics has occured by someone whose religious. Shall we also be banning the Bible from mentally handicapped as well?
 
Last edited:
What is that connection exactly?

That they all read books?

That they all watch TV shows?

That they wall listen to music?

It would seem the reports are finding a common thread in violent video games.
 
A few things with this...

First, while I'm not in favor of most gun limitations, there's a distinct difference between limiting someone access to something with which they can easily kill, and limiting someone access to something that may inspire them to try and access something else that can allow them to easily kill. Attempting to correlate "if it's okay for guns, it's okay for video games" is a bit ridiculous because of that notion.

Save for trying to break the DVD and stab someone with it, no one is perpetrating the murder of another person using their Starcraft CD as the means of doing it.

Second, if you're against banning of guns based on constitutional grounds...please explain to me what constitutional ability you believe the government should have to ban private citizens from purchasing a legal product that does not pose a DIRECT threat to themselves or others?

Third, the statement wasn't that violent people are attracted singularly to violent games but rather they're attracted to violent things. Shall we be looking to ban books, television, movies, plays, songs, paintings, and other forms of media and art from access by "violent" individuals?

Fourth, you and others ignorantly assume correlation in any way equals causation. Some of the highest scoring players in the NBA also commit the most fouls. OBVIOUSLY, NBA coaches should tell their best players to go out there and start fouling people because that will lead to points because there's a correlation there!

Fifth, almost everything regarding video games and mass shooters that comes out is generally speculative stuff stated by those around him. Someone sits and watches 8 hours of TV and people shrug because individuals young and old have done that. People sit and play 8 hours of video game and suddenly it's a "binge". Someone who goes home each night and watches a movie on Netflix is shrugged at, someone who goes home each night and plays a couple ours of Gears of War is "obsessed". Without some actual hard evidence, and specifically some actual context as to what the individual was spending his time on overall, the statements are rather worthless. I guarantee you almost every mass killer of recent memory talked on a phone, used a computer, watched a television, listened to a radio, and read something. OMG! There's now a correlation between those things and killers! WE MUST TAKE ACTION!

First, I don't ignorantly assume anything.

I appreciate your views require you to dismiss those things that fly against your beliefs. However, I reject your argument.

Fact, millions of people own and use guns and have never committed mass murder.

Fact, millions of people own and use violent video games and have never committed mass murder.

Fact, a tiny sliver of a percentage of people own and use guns, and have committed mass murder.

Fact, it is becoming apparent an alarming percetage of people own and use violent video games and have committed mass murder.

Explain.
 
they may be, but the difference (and I personally think it's significant), is the sensory input of games vs music. With games you have visual and auditory input, which I suspect is more influential.

I think the simple fact that an adult is playing video games for 16 hours a day, on a regular basis, is reason for alarm. I don't care if the game is tetris...
 
First, I don't ignorantly assume anything.

Oh no, you ignorantly assumed quite a lot.

Fact, millions of people own and use guns and have never committed mass murder.

Correct

Fact, millions of people own and use violent video games and have never committed mass murder.

Correct

Fact, a tiny sliver of a percentage of people own and use guns, and have committed mass murder.

Correct

Fact, it is becoming apparent an alarming percetage of people own and use violent video games and have committed mass murder.

Incorrect. This is not a "Fact", this is an opinion. It's your OPINION that an alarming percentage of people have done this.

The fact would be thus:

Fact, a tiny sliver of a percentage of people who own and use video games, also have committed mass murder.

That's a fact. What you stated is an OPINION.

Now, in terms of the FACT you gave about gun owners and the FACT I gave about video games...let me give you some other facts.

Fact, a tiny sliver of a percentage of people own and used a TV, also have committed mass murder

Fact, a tiny sliver of a percentage of people who listen to music, also have committed mass murder

Fact, a tiny sliver of a percentage of people who own and read a bible, also have committed mass murder

Unlike you however I'm not going to ask you to "explain", as the evidenced that these instances are all tiny slivers suggests that there are more underlining reasons than the entities that people are attempting to levy blame upon. I would suggest it would be reasonable to look at a WIDE RANGE of possible factors and things as a society, but the repeated and continual focus on a very narrow sect suggests a distinct political or societal ulterior motive than a genuine belief of something needing "explaining".
 
Oh no, you ignorantly assumed quite a lot.



Correct



Correct



Correct



Incorrect. This is not a "Fact", this is an opinion. It's your OPINION that an alarming percentage of people have done this.

The fact would be thus:

Fact, a tiny sliver of a percentage of people who own and use video games, also have committed mass murder.

That's a fact. What you stated is an OPINION.

Now, in terms of the FACT you gave about gun owners and the FACT I gave about video games...let me give you some other facts.

Fact, a tiny sliver of a percentage of people own and used a TV, also have committed mass murder

Fact, a tiny sliver of a percentage of people who listen to music, also have committed mass murder

Fact, a tiny sliver of a percentage of people who own and read a bible, also have committed mass murder

Unlike you however I'm not going to ask you to "explain", as the evidenced that these instances are all tiny slivers suggests that there are more underlining reasons than the entities that people are attempting to levy blame upon. I would suggest it would be reasonable to look at a WIDE RANGE of possible factors and things as a society, but the repeated and continual focus on a very narrow sect suggests a distinct political or societal ulterior motive than a genuine belief of something needing "explaining".


Unfortunately I think your partisan slip is showing.

First, I didn't offer an opinion, I reported what is being offered in the media.

Second, your "facts" are ignoring the truth.

Fact, very few people commit mass murder.

Fact, a not insignificant percentage of these mass shooters have been seen to be heavy users of violent video games.

This is not opinion, it's a matter of public record.

It's unfortunate it's so difficult for you to see this factual connection reported by the authorities who have conducted searches of these murderers personal effects.
 
Fact, a not insignificant percentage of these mass shooters have been seen to be heavy users of violent video games.

I bet they ate at MacDonalds a lot, too.


It's the pink goo! I nailed it. What next? The economy? Give me a sec, I'll solve that one too.
 
Now listen up...this may be a shocker: Humans are humans. Along with communication and building stuff, we also excell at killing each other. Been doing it for millenia, with rocks, sticks, axs, swords, hammers, string....guns are just the next step. As soon as someone figures it out, we'll be doing it telepathically. What's the common denominator? Humans. Not rocks, not sticks, not guns.
 
I bet they ate at MacDonalds a lot, too.


It's the pink goo! I nailed it. What next? The economy? Give me a sec, I'll solve that one too.

Probably pee'd, and took regular breaths. Doesn't escape what appears to be a growing connection.

I know, must not dis the vaunted video games!!!
 
Unfortunately I think your partisan slip is showing.

Exactly how is what I'm saying indicating my "partisan slip" is showing?

First, I didn't offer an opinion, I reported what is being offered in the media.

Actually, you absolutely DID offer an opinion by claiming it was an "alarming percentage". That is an OPINION...unless you're suggesting to me that there is some sort of measurable metric to declare something "alarming".

Second, your "facts" are ignoring the truth.

What "Truth" is it ignoring?

Fact, very few people commit mass murder.

Correct

Fact, a not insignificant percentage of these mass shooters have been seen to be heavy users of violent video games.

Again, you're entering the realm of opinion. "Heavy User" is not some kind of defined term. What constitutes a "heavy user" as opposed to a "user"? Outside of a handful of news reports, what proof or evidence is there that those individuals are "heavy users".

However, for the sake of playing...sure, a significant percentage of mass shooters have reportedly played video games.

This is not opinion, it's a matter of public record.

I'm sorry, there's a "public record" defining "Heavy user"? And I didn't realize statements of OPINION by people who know an individual are somehow now considered "Facts".

So if I say (Mac, forgive me, you're the next poster I see so just using you as an example, I mean no offense) "Man, Mac is addicted to eating cheesburgers off the ass of fat asian men" that means it's a fact because I stated it and therefore it must be true?

Please, if there's been news reports with actual facts regarding logs taken from the computers/consoles of these guys stating the amount of total play time, or they've gotten data from their online accounts in terms of hours logged over a certain amount of time, and information relating that to whether or not that is above the average for video gamers in the country (Therefore a "heavy" user rather than an "average" user)....point me to it.

All that I've generally seen is random accusations and claims by people who know the person.

It's unfortunate it's so difficult for you to see this factual connection reported by the authorities who have conducted searches of these murderers personal effects.

Sure, I'm not going to say it's unlikely that many of these murderers played video games. Actually, I'm sure most of them did.

My disagreement with you, and others, is the attempted inference that somehow one leads to, or relates, to the other. You claim *My* partisan slip...whatever that is...is showing, how about your own? The fact you focus singularly on Video Games calls your own intentions massively into question. Simply because it sells papers and is more sensational to talk about Video Games then if a person has a TV in their home doesn't change that very real likelihood that a significant percentage of mass murders own a television...listen to music....have read a book....etc Video Games deserves no more scrutiny, or demand for "explanation", than any of those.
 
Probably pee'd, and took regular breaths. Doesn't escape what appears to be a growing connection.

I know, must not dis the vaunted video games!!!

You realize your "growing connection" is no more valid, worth while, intelligent, or necessitating further action than the things you just stated, right? The ignorant logic utilize to come to your conclusion about the "growing connection" to video games can be applied in the EXACT SAME MANNER to the things you just stated.
 
Not that this had anything to do with anything.



Exclusive: The Washington Navy Yard gunman Aaron Alexis played violent video games including Call of Duty for up to 16 hours at a time and friends believe it could have pushed him towards becoming a mass murderer.


Aaron Alexis: Washington navy yard gunman 'obsessed with violent video games' - Telegraph

16 hours and what happened was a mass shooting? My first reaction to the 16 hour part would have been "ow my head is aching!"
 
Exactly how is what I'm saying indicating my "partisan slip" is showing?



Actually, you absolutely DID offer an opinion by claiming it was an "alarming percentage". That is an OPINION...unless you're suggesting to me that there is some sort of measurable metric to declare something "alarming".



What "Truth" is it ignoring?



Correct



Again, you're entering the realm of opinion. "Heavy User" is not some kind of defined term. What constitutes a "heavy user" as opposed to a "user"? Outside of a handful of news reports, what proof or evidence is there that those individuals are "heavy users".

However, for the sake of playing...sure, a significant percentage of mass shooters have reportedly played video games.



I'm sorry, there's a "public record" defining "Heavy user"? And I didn't realize statements of OPINION by people who know an individual are somehow now considered "Facts".

So if I say (Mac, forgive me, you're the next poster I see so just using you as an example, I mean no offense) "Man, Mac is addicted to eating cheesburgers off the ass of fat asian men" that means it's a fact because I stated it and therefore it must be true?

Please, if there's been news reports with actual facts regarding logs taken from the computers/consoles of these guys stating the amount of total play time, or they've gotten data from their online accounts in terms of hours logged over a certain amount of time, and information relating that to whether or not that is above the average for video gamers in the country (Therefore a "heavy" user rather than an "average" user)....point me to it.

All that I've generally seen is random accusations and claims by people who know the person.



Sure, I'm not going to say it's unlikely that many of these murderers played video games. Actually, I'm sure most of them did.

My disagreement with you, and others, is the attempted inference that somehow one leads to, or relates, to the other. You claim *My* partisan slip...whatever that is...is showing, how about your own? The fact you focus singularly on Video Games calls your own intentions massively into question. Simply because it sells papers and is more sensational to talk about Video Games then if a person has a TV in their home doesn't change that very real likelihood that a significant percentage of mass murders own a television...listen to music....have read a book....etc Video Games deserves no more scrutiny, or demand for "explanation", than any of those.

I used terms contained in reports drawing attention to the correlation.

I appreciate that it is likely you are a user of video games, including violent ones. My son is also a fan.

I also understand you're going to reject any suggestion of a correlation and any attempt to regulate no matter what contribution is proven.
 
There was a time not so long ago when LP records by comedians were commonplace. There weren't random outbreaks of comedy on the streets at the time, or since.
 
You realize your "growing connection" is no more valid, worth while, intelligent, or necessitating further action than the things you just stated, right? The ignorant logic utilize to come to your conclusion about the "growing connection" to video games can be applied in the EXACT SAME MANNER to the things you just stated.

Why yes, of course I realize it can be applied in the EXACT SAME MANNER.

I suppose one would have to be ignorant to think I wouldn't realize that. :cool:
 
Probably pee'd, and took regular breaths. Doesn't escape what appears to be a growing connection.

I know, must not dis the vaunted video games!!!

Exactly. MacDonalds turns people into mass murderers! Down with MacDonalds!!!!1!1!1!1111111
 
I used terms contained in reports drawing attention to the correlation.

I appreciate that it is likely you are a user of video games, including violent ones. My son is also a fan.

I also understand you're going to reject any suggestion of a correlation and any attempt to regulate no matter what contribution is proven.

I don't reject there's a correlation.

What I reject the notion that such a correlation is necessitating any more concern, governmental action, or attention at this moment than the MULTITUDE of other things that correlate with mass murderers.

I reject the continued inference and suggestion that Correlation equals causation or even strongly suggests it to be such.
 
Back
Top Bottom