‘Active Shooter’ video game that allows players to be school gunman sparks backlash

The Mark said:

I am of the opinion that it is almost never or never the video games or movies that do so - rather, other factors cause the edge to be passed.

Thus far I haven't found conclusive evidence disproving my position.

Click to expand...

And you probably won't. I doubt if any studies on actually at-risk young men have ever been done. Other factors do play a role, but it is obvious from what we know of human psychology, that everything we're exposed to has some effect. Which means exposure to violence helps to de-sensitize a young man to violence. During WWII we made films that showed the Japanese as less than human; made it easier to kill them. Today the US Army uses very realistic interactive shooting video programs to de-sensitize young soldiers, making it easier for them to pull the trigger on an enemy. If all these things didn't work they would never have been developed and used. A long history of advertising and video use to effect behavior has already disproven your position.

AGENT J said:

1.) I have no problem with condemnation from people as long as its consistent and theres no false claims mad that THIS is something new or THIS makes kids shoot up schools.
Heck condemn away there are games like grand theft auto that have rape and assault in them right now.

Click to expand...

For what it's worth, I consider that those games are also in incredibly bad taste.

AGENT J said:

2.) define "accepting" i never said im accepting of this game I said i dont care about it. It has no impact on me, i see no "real" issue with it meaning there needs to be any laws or mechanism that doesn't allow them

Click to expand...

No, I don't think that we need any laws to prohibit them, simply not buying them and also letting anyone who either sells or plays them that you think that they are rectal openings should be sufficient.

AGENT J said:

3.) well you would be wrong because i would feel the same way :shrug:. again its not an acceptance its a not caring and i dont think it should be banned or laws against it. Its basically like many people feel about religion or gay marriage etc. an individual may not support a certain religion or marriage etc but they certainly dont want to stop others from doing so.

Click to expand...

In short, you don't really care if the games exist or not.

AGENT J said:

Thats how i feel about both games, the one the OP is about and the one you described. I have played all the grand theft autos and they never bothered me.

Click to expand...

They don't "bother" me either.

What they are symptomatic of is something else again.

The Mark said:

As far as I am aware, there is no conclusive evidence that shows any violence at all can be in part or in whole linked to video games.

Click to expand...

What evidence there is so far does not indicate any link between playing violent video games and the commission of violent crimes.

On the other hand, since US federal law prohibits any government money being used to study "gun crimes" and since what studies have been done so far have been along the lines of "Only 0.01% of the people who play violent video games go on to commit violent crimes." and there are no studies that would provide the "X" in "X% of the people who commit violent crimes play violent video games.".

However, even if that "X" were known it might not actually demonstrate anything other than commonality since it is a well known fact that 100% of all people who commit violent crimes have mothers and no one is dumb enough to conclude from that relationship that "Mothers cause violent crime".

The Mark said:

On another note, it's quite poor taste to slap together a shooter game and bank on the controversy of it's content to get you advertising.

Click to expand...

Unfortunately "good taste" is no longer relevant since we must all "respect expressions of unique individuality" whether those expressions consist of making a profit out of selling a video game involving the murdering of children or simply defecating on the cafeteria floor.

Waddy said:

And you probably won't. I doubt if any studies on actually at-risk young men have ever been done.

Click to expand...

Under current US federal law, it is prohibited to use any "government money" to study "gun violence". That has had a "slight" effect in reducing the number of studies into "gun violence".

I agree with the rest of your post

TU Curmudgeon said:

1.)For what it's worth, I consider that those games are also in incredibly bad taste.
2.) No, I don't think that we need any laws to prohibit them, simply not buying them and also letting anyone who either sells or plays them that you think that they are rectal openings should be sufficient.
3.) In short, you don't really care if the games exist or not.
4.)They don't "bother" me either.

What they are symptomatic of is something else again.

Click to expand...

1.) good, again you are free to do so and at least you are consistent and I have ZERO judgment of your feelings on those games. I to may think those probably arent the best things to have in a video game but at the same time, if the game is fun i would still play it and as long as its controlled like other media "Age rated" it doesnt really bother me.
2.) LMAO thats funny "rectal openings" again you are free to do so but you are talking millions, probably 100s of millions of people.
3.) nope again my only concern would be they should be rated like other media and in the states i believe video games are and they are called ESRB. Everyone to adult only i think.
4.) hmm thats probably an interesting subjective topic to discuss we probably wouldnt agree on it but interesting none the less and subjective topics like that arent meant to be agreed on ..

AGENT J said:

4.) hmm thats probably an interesting subjective topic to discuss we probably wouldnt agree on it but interesting none the less and subjective topics like that arent meant to be agreed on ..

Click to expand...

I agree, they probably are NOT intended to be "agreed on", but my position is that they ARE intended to expand the viewpoints of BOTH participants - and, once people stop thinking in the same old ruts they sometimes discover that the solution is actually on the ridge between the two parallel ruts.

TU Curmudgeon said:

I agree, they probably are NOT intended to be "agreed on", but my position is that they ARE intended to expand the viewpoints of BOTH participants - and, once people stop thinking in the same old ruts they sometimes discover that the solution is actually on the ridge between the two parallel ruts.

Click to expand...

compromise is usually a good avenue, something in between two ruts . . . as long as the two ruts are actual solutions or ruts or the exact problem and the main cause rut still exists elsewhere.

Maccabee said:

When I went through the academy, it was interactive live videos that we shoot with laser guns essentially.

Click to expand...

I had those in the army, except with shooting terrorists in active crowds while practicing zero to minimal civilian casualties. However when I was in the national guard many there were regular police officers, and they would talk about actual games to train on. They would use games similar to counter strike, but heavily modded to handle things like panic of civilian bystanders, have the areas in schools churched bus stations city halls etc, and hold a scenario of either a lone shooter or multiple shooters/terrorists usually done by another human player. In the military we called humans in any training exercise opfor, which meant opposing force, and having a human who could think and act was far better than a trainingsimulation with no variance.


Some of the police guys I dealt with still used the video with the laser point and shoot, while most had neither the video game nor the other and just had active shooter training slideshows, it varied based on budget and need, and the ones in larger cities usually got the fancier training.

beerftw said:

I had those in the army, except with shooting terrorists in active crowds while practicing zero to minimal civilian casualties. However when I was in the national guard many there were regular police officers, and they would talk about actual games to train on.

Click to expand...

As training aids for responders, I have absolutely no issues with such programs. I rather suspect that the number of responders who would take the "active shooter" role is VERY low.

As a commercial market item for the general public, I find them in incredibly bad taste.