A boy looks at guns during the NRA’s annual meeting in Atlanta. CREDIT: Kira Lerner.
How many words are there to express disgust, loathing, and contempt? Consider every single one of them applied to the absolute fucking drivel to follow. According to a self-described Professor of Killology, all the parents are raising horrible, sick, demented monsters, not children. And the only way to deal with this generation of sick, horrible, demented monsters? Why, more guns of course! Everyone should rush out and buy, buy, buy, buy more guns, because that will make everything better.
Dave Grossman, a self-described professor of “killology” who published a book in November called Assassination Generation, claimed that violent video games and movies are turning children into monsters capable of committing worse mass shootings than those we have seen in recent decades.
“Can anyone deny that we’ve raised the most vicious generation of killers the world has ever seen?” he asked the NRA audience. “They’ve given us crimes that children have never dreamed of. They’ll give us crimes as adults in our darkest nightmares we never imagined.”
Like other speakers throughout the NRA’s three-day convention, Grossman refused to recognize the link between the high number of guns and gun deaths in the United States. Instead, he tried to use outside forces to explain the violence, to drive fear and paranoia, and to convince people to purchase more firearms.
“The one factor the killers have in common: every one of them dropped out of life and immersed themselves in the sickest movies and the sickest video games,” he said. “The guns have always been there. The sick movies and the sick video games are creating sick, sick kids.”
[…]
He also focused on mass school shootings, occurrences that are rare and make up a tiny percentage of all gun deaths. An average of 12,000 people are killed each year by guns, but more than half are suicides and most of the others occur during domestic disputes. In an average month, 50 women are shot to death by an intimate partner.
Grossman made no mention of the dangers of having a gun in the home. Instead, he focused on children and deranged “lone jackals” being the problem.
Oh yes, the refuge of every obsessed gun fondler: the lone wolf. Of course guns having nothing to do with gun deaths, no, no, it was, it was, gimme a minute, I’ll pull something out of my ass. The one thing this fucked up mess of a country does not need is more guns.
Violent video games are nothing new; let’s say back to DOOM in 1996. Assume gaming psychological corruption starts at 10, then the 10-year-olds of 1996 are 30 today. There would be a big balloon of murders starting around 2010 and peaking right about now. Oops. Sorry, Grossman, you’re wrong.
He’s also ignoring the impact of other things, like maybe the Vietnam War and the Gulf Wars. You’d kind of think there would have been a great big ballooning of violence after all those kill-happy veterans came home. But surprisingly, they seem sick of killing. Thinking: how does it work?
I’m surprised he didn’t argue that Adam W. Purinton was a gamer, not a drunken racist. Or maybe Purinton played too much “World of Drunken Racist Gun-toting Impulsive Assholes Online” He is a veteran. I wonder if he’s an NRA member?
“I believe the spark is already lit. So let’s pour gunpowder all over it!”
I admit; I’m rather impressed. Simply getting causes wrong or missing the root cause of a problem is easy. But getting the wrong cause, wrong solution and wrong problem and assembling this requires some genuinely creative thinking. Either that or a gun-bias so massive it could deorbit passing satellites.
I’m also curious how his theory handles cops. Is that the explanation for why cops are violent cowardly goons? Did they learn that playing video games, or in cop school? Does he think cops need more guns or better fire control?
I’d love to see his explanation for why Canada, with its strong cultural similarities to the US, has a per capita fraction of the mass shootings the US does. And a lower per capita murder rate overall. His explanation will of course ignore that a major difference is that handguns are far less common in Canada than the US, and that no jurisdiction allows easily obtainable concealed carry.
Hmmm…
So glad to live in Japan where there are no violent video games, horror movies or comics or styalised violence.
Even the cops prefer to use weighty sticks rather than shooting people.
Sure, there are many ways to kill folks without using guns, but mass murder is soooo much easier if you have the right tools for the job.
It is really hard to know how to approach the US -- evidence, experience and logic seem to have no value. Where will reality come from?
I think he underestimates how cruel people could be long before video games or movies of any kind. Lots of people view the past with rose-colored glasses.
I would also think that if guns were the best guarantee against violence, then the US would be a much less violent place than most other developed countries. Instead, the reverse is true.
https://www.ojjdp.gov/ojstatbb/crime/JAR_Display.asp?ID=qa05201
WWI and WWII do not count as “violence” in assholia, or wherever that guy came from.
Does the American Civil War still have the highest body-count?
Yeah, games* make kids killers. Taking them on a shooting range from a very young age and giving them real weapons to shoot at human shaped targets has no effects.
*Folks, can we please not do this? You cannot ignore effects of the media just because you like them. Either misogyny is a problem in video games and so is violence or both have no effect whatsoever.
@Giliell
Neither are a problem. At all.
Ah, ok. Ideas appear magically inside of heads and culture doesn’t exist.
No study exists which links violent video game playing with increased criminality.
In the thousands of hours I’ve spent playing video games (usually mainstream AAA titles), the vast majority of “people” I’ve “killed” have been men. Easily upwards of 95%. So, no, I don’t think misogyny is a huge issue in games.
To think that violence portrayed in art and media translates directly into violence in real life is a simplistic (and incorrect) understanding of culture.
One might argue that to think that violence portrayed in art and media has no effect on people whatsoever is also a simplistic (and incorrect) understanding of culture.
Art reflects the culture and as such also communicates the culture to the next generation. Obviously, that’s going to have some effect. Equally obviously, it’s not a 1:1 correlation. We’re dealing with people’s minds and their understanding of the world. Simple answers are not to be had.
Good thing nobody made that claim.
@Giliell
Then what are you even talking about? If, as you just conceded, violent video games aren’t associated with real life violence, why are they a problem?
@Lyke
“translates directly into violence in real life” =/= “has no effect on people whatsoever”
I did what?
No one said “translates directly”, this does not mean they have no effect. Giliell conceded nothing; instead, as LykeX says, it’s more complicated than just “translates directly into real life” or “has no effect whatsoever”.
Then please identify the specific effect, tell me why it’s a problem, and show me the data which backs up your claim.
Violent video games are a problem because ____.
Are you claiming that media consumption has no effect whatsoever on people’s opinions or actions? If not, then what’s your disagreement with my comment at #15?
Jessie Foster @ 21:
Hi. I’m Caine, the blog owner. I have one rule: Don’t be an asshole. Being deliberately obtuse and demanding others do your homework for you is right under the asshole umbrella. Stop that shit, right now. Any more of it, and you will not be able to argue here.
As for your fucking idiocy, of course violence in art and games has an effect. It always has, and it always will. One can argue over the degree and type of effects, but there is a definite influence. One difference I can point to immediately from days of long ago to now is how much people are shocked. People aren’t easily shocked these days, we have become that inured to violence.
The original claim was that violence in video games is a problem, not that violence in video games has “an effect.”
Obviously an effect exists for playing video games. An effect exists for every single thing you interact with. I NEVER said that video games have no effect at all on people.
In moderation, due to an inability to listen to the fucking blog owner. Idiot. -Caine
JESSIE FOSTER: what you have said is right here, people can see it, and what you have said, outside of insulting people, is a whole lot of nothing wrapped in shit. I suggest you pay attention, and stop, right fucking now. I am not PZ, and I will not tolerate your fucking idiocy or assholishness.
The effect of violence in video games is a problem in and of itself, I should think there is little to no good that can come of glorifying and normalizing violence and the overt sexualization of women (as common trends, not defining characteristics of all video games). I don’t see how this is even an issue. It doesn’t have to result in increased criminality in order to be a problem. But combine that with white entitlement, toxic masculinity, and freezepreaching, and I just can’t see anything positive coming out of that mix. Studies? Facts? Proof? Not really, but look who got the presidency and treats it like a game that needs winning, not a job that needs doing. Negatives all-round.
And I never said you said that. I was simply asking for clarification because, at this point, I have no fucking idea what you’re on about anymore. I literally don’t know what position you’re trying to defend.
LykeX, they aren’t, they are just being an asshole at the moment. Jessie Foster has been placed in moderation, and will stay there until they figure out they are really irritating the fuck outta me right now.
I see the trouble with video games as one of reinforcement of attitudes. That’s why, in well run studies, violence doesn’t seem to be much of a factor. All the violent video games seem to do is increase aggression for a short period pf time. Competitive sports have a similar effect. The reason it doesn’t seem to be a major problem is the vast majority of people aren’t homicidal maniacs. So pretending to be a homicidal maniac in a game as part of escapism doesn’t magically turn people into viscous mass killers in real life.
But other social ills are more widespread. Things which have been mentioned here like white entitlement and toxic masculinity. When playing game after game which reinforces such behavior the result should be the same as similar situations in real life. Hang out in frats and such anti-social behavior becomes reinforced. Hang out in video games and such anti-social behavior becomes reinforced.
Add online gaming communities with similar minded people, and the problems are magnified again. The video games aren’t turning people into misogynistic entitled assholes, the games are reinforcing and normalizing that behavior in people who already had a tendency to such behavior.
There’s a focus on violence when reporting on this in part because it makes for titillating headlines and a convenient explanation for the extremely rare mass killings rather than looking seriously at gun control. Or looking seriously at privileged entitlement and toxic masculinity.
Part of the solution must be changing our culture which is, of course, very difficult and slow. But part of the solution can certainly be raising awareness of such issues in the gaming world and asking producers to create better games. And that’s what people like Anita Sarkeesian are doing. And the assholes who don’t want their toxic world changed are scared and fighting such action.
Kengi:
And that, in turn, ripples out into a chilling, silencing effect on those who don’t like such behaviour, but don’t have the social support to stand against their peers.
JESSIE FUCKING FOSTER: IF YOU DON’T STOP TRYING TO COMMENT IN THIS THREAD, YOU WILL BE BANNED. YOU ARE IRRITATING THE FUCK OUT OF ME, AND RUINING MY PREVIOUSLY GOOD MOOD.
STOP. FUCKING. TRYING. TO. COMMENT.
Word.
In the very unlikely scenario of me having children, I would not let them touch video games with violence until at least 10 years of age at all, and after that only with heavy moderation. Just like my parents forbade me to watch too much TV (and certain types of movies completely) when I was a kid. I was angry at that time, but I am grateful for that now, because instead of wasting my time in front of a screen, I have learned to actually use my brain and my hands for something usefull.
However my nephews grew up with video games and apart from having two left hands and not being really good with computer either (apart from playing a game), they did not grow up into killing monsters.
I think this is because violence in pretend-worlds for children was alwayss there. The books of old fairy tales that our grand-grand-grand parents told their children are full of it. What matters is not only the raw content, but also how it is delivered and the overall message it sends. And together with societal upbringing -- at least mostly -- the message sent to children is that violence in real world is a bad thing and that impulses have to be held in check. Whilst sexism in old tales (and games) is often sold as a part of a package to reinforce preexisting societal roles, violence is mostly presented as bad thing.
The problem of gun violence in US is multilayered and multi-faceted, and trying to simplify it into an easy sound bites is idiotic. Proposing that the problem would be solved by more guns is so stupid, that the word idiotic is sadly insufficient descriptor and hast to be ammended. Like “bigly idiotic”.
But what really woke my inner nitpicker is this: “The guns have always been there.”
Guns are pretty recent inventions. Pistols are mere 600 years old from their first appearance in hussite wars, reilable repeating pistols only about 150 years and fully automatic guns only about 100 years. And most of that time, they were weapons of war, not available to general populace in any meaningful numbers. And with the exception of US of (NRA) America, they still are not available to general populace in any meaningful numbers.
The only thing that always has been there are stones and clubs.
Charly:
Excellent point, Charly. It’s not as though gun fondlers would give it notice, but there’s not talking with them anyway.
To get back on topic, here’s some research* on the effects of superhero culture on kids. It’s not positive. In short, adults often think superheroes are good role models because they defend the weak when, in reality, kids like them because they can beat the shit out of others.
When people like Jessie Foster argue against cultural criticism, they always demand a 1:1 cause and effect instead of dealing with cumulative effects, with cultural discourses.
Nobody here says playing GTA V makes you a violent criminal any more than saying playing GTA V makes you a woman murdering rapist. It’s just one more factor.
And yes, when it comes to violence we not only have a plethora of games, movies, books, toys, songs that celebrate violence as the ultimate solution to each and any problem, but also a lot of lone wolf hero narratives, which also turn up in mass shootings a lot. Usually combined with a sense of entitlement and semi-real or imagined grievances.
*I notice it’s BYU, but nothing in what I’ve seen suggests that the research is flawed
I see that Caine has (understandably) stopped the point missing “games are not the problem” apologist from posting more of their drivel… Still, it did make me think a bit…
Firstly whether or not current games are part of the culture that contributes to attitudes normalising violence (spoiler -- they almost certainly are), making the possesion of real guns easier is not a solution but will only exacerbate the problem. It seems to me that it is possible (and probably a good idea) to address both issues.
Secondly, I am not sure that business of 95% of characters killed in video games are apparently male actually equates to a lack of misogeny. I have to admit to a limited knowledge of the theory here, but I did find Anita Sarkeesian’s videos very educational in this regard. If you ignore the propoganda and listen to what she actually says.
Finally, the business of most people playing games/ watching films/ TV shows glorifying violence don’t end up as violent criminals seems to be something of a strawman at best. I doubt that anyone seriously suggests that these media are some sort of Dr Jeckyl serum, metamorphosing mild mannered individuals into depraved killing machines on consumption. I think of it more as a combination of stretching the window of things to which we are senstitized so that there is a normalization of behaviour to which we ought to be shocked. As well as reinforcing inherently misoginistic behaviour, I suspect that there is also an inherent racial stereotyping that has similar effects.
Bottom line -- Pressuring media producers away from socially harmful themes and developing a greater balance in the entertainment sphere would be a good thing. But, without defending any of the media mentioned (and while games were picked out in this thread, seems to me the other media also have responsibility here), adding more guns to the mix is a bad idea. But sticking our fingers in our ears and yelling $myFavouriteMedia is not a problem adresses neither. Nor (and this is important) is it any kind of debate.
Just noticed Giliell’s comment above -- pretty much what I was trying to say plus research to support it. I typed the comment prior to catching up on the later posts!
Also, posting prompted me to go over to the feminist frequency channel on YouTube, where the review of Dishonored 2 covers my second point brilliantly (especially the point about women changing from passive victims in the first game to active participants in the second game world). Actually, they provide seriously good game reviews as well as intelligent commentary.