Video Games- Do they Help or Hinder 2A?

[SSN Vet]

SSN vet.......am i wrong though?

In short, yes you are.

but thanks for confirming that I wasn't

 

[Charleo0192]

Basically for the majority of people games have little to no affect on how they act, but just like everything else there are the few who just don't fit that description.

 

[NJGarand]

I remember a few years back that the game Full Spectrum Warrior was developed because of the Army's interest in trying to use a game to assist in training younger generations that are used to electronic gaming.

From Wiki:

In 2000, the US Army Science & Technology community was curious to learn if commercial gaming platforms could be leveraged for training. Recognizing that a high percentage of incoming recruits had grown up using entertainment software products, there was interest in determining whether software game techniques and technology could complement and enhance established training methods.

Having established a US Army University Affiliated Research Center (the Institute for Creative Technologies – ICT) in 1999 for the purpose of advancing virtual simulation technology, work began in May 2000 on a project entitled C4 under ICT Creative Director James Korris with industry partners Sony Imageworks and their team-mate, Pandemic Studios, represented by co-founders Josh Resnick and Andrew Goldman.

At the time, there was a great deal of interest in leveraging the stability, low cost and computational/rendering power of the new generation of game consoles, chiefly Sony’s PlayStation 2 and Microsoft’s Xbox, for training applications. Legal restrictions on the PlayStation (using the platform for a military purpose) combined with the default Xbox configuration “persistence” (i.e. missions recorded on the embedded hard drive for after-action review) led to the final selection of the Xbox platform for development.

A commercial release of the game was required for Xbox platform access. The team, however, quickly concluded that a viable entertainment title might differ from a valid training tool. The exaggerated physics of entertainment software titles, it was believed, could produce a negative training effect in the Soldier audience. Accordingly, the team developed two versions of the game. The Army version was accessible through a static unlock code; the entertainment version played normally.

The most radical decision in the game’s development was to limit first-person actions to issuing orders and directions to virtual Fire Teams and Squad members (see Gameplay). Given the popularity of the first-person shooter genre, it was assumed that all tactical-level military gameplay necessarily involved individual combat action. The application defied conventional wisdom, winning both awards and commercial acceptance. The game’s working title evolved to C-Force (2001) and ultimately Full Spectrum Warrior (2003).
As work progressed on Full Spectrum Warrior, ICT developed another real-time tactical deicision-making game with Quicksilver Software entitled Full Spectrum Command for the US Army’s Infantry Captains Career Course, with the first-person perspective of a Company Commander. As the application was designed to play on a desktop PC (unlike the Xbox), no commercial release was necessary. Full Spectrum Command gave rise to a sequel developed for the US Army and Singapore Armed Forces (version 1.5). A related ICT/Quicksilver title, Full Spectrum Leader, simulates the first person perspective of a Platoon Leader.

Full Spectrum Warrior relates to the Army's program of training soldiers to be flexible and adaptable to a broad range of operational scenarios. The game’s origins are unusual: possibly unique.

 

[jon_in_wv]

Neither. Its a video game for cripes sake, nothing more.

 

[Skribs]

When I was real little, I liked both video games and action. I'm not sure which caused my love for guns, but I've wanted one since I was little and have always been fascinated with them. I played FPS games since middle school, and by talking on forums with people who have actually been there, I learned what is and isn't real. I actually learned the most about guns when I wanted to design an FPS game (I gave up on being a computer programmer after taking a computer programming class), and I did a lot of research. I wanted to make a game where you could choose to a great degree what kind of options your weapon had - e.g. the short or long barrel? Which sights? Which caliber is it chamber for? What type/weight of bullets will you use? And everything would have give or take to it, e.g. more power at the cost of more recoil, etc.

As a devil's advocate, one of the first pages someone said that video games don't desensitize you to what happens when you kill someone. Well, if you pull the trigger, you're not going to have to deal with that until after the bullet hit. I can see it easily possible that someone could do that, and only afterward realize how big of a mistake he made (or that he's a sociopath). Granted, you might get a few people who "want to try it out because they liked it", but video games aren't the problem there. It's just like the kid who murdered someone because of Dexter - it's a rarity amongst the millions of fans the show has.

Despite my love for video games, where you might have assumed I would go with a weapon from Counterstrike, America's Army, or Day of Defeat, my first pistol was an XDM (I've never seen an XD in a video game), and my first shotgun was a Supernova (despite it being an M3 and M4 in CS, a SPAS-12 in Half-Life, a Saiga in Firearms, and I would assume a Remington 870 in America's Army, accessible through cheats).

 

[Carl N. Brown]

It's just like the kid who murdered someone because of Dexter - it's a rarity amongst the millions of fans the show has.

The question should be, would that kid have murdered if he had not seen Dexter. The murdering and the seeing Dexter are not necessarily a causal relationship; or, the intent to murder attracted the kid to Dexter: the kid watched Dexter because of his homicidal tendancies.

 

[Skribs]

I should have phrased it "The kid who claimed Dexter was his inspiration to commit murder." I watch Dexter, and I don't feel the need to emulate him, except to ask for one of his shirts for christmas (to wear next halloween). Even Michael C. Hall said in an interview, when asked what are the similarities between him and Dexter, that "Obviously we have some differences, I mean I don't feel the need to dismember people." My watching Dexter hasn't changed that (that I don't feel any need to emulate him). My playing video games I don't think changed that either, in that I don't want to act out what I do in video games, unless of course it's something like paintball, airsoft, laser tag, nerf guns, etc.

 

[Hani Pasha]

I don't think I can give a general answer to this question. In a few cases I've seen, video games (and movies) have gotten teenagers and young adults seriously interested in firearms. A good few become responsible firearms owners and users.

Other times, however, I've seen people get "education" about firearms from video games, and that's never a good thing. These people tend to become anti-gun rights.

As far as me goes, I have a healthy interest in firearms and I do occasionally play video games. I don't see how these interests are exclusive or contradictory at all. Killing a bunch of al Qaeda members in MoH is a lot easier and a lot more doable than doing it in real life, unfortunately.

 

[Madcap_Magician]

I think it doesn't have much of an effect.

It does have quite an effect on people on the internet and gun boards, though, God only knows how many Counterstrike-playing trolls who've never fired a real gun feel free to spout off their gun expertise online...

 

[brandon_mcg]

in my opinion some of the games, especially the older medal of honor games and the WWII games are somewhat educational. I learned a lot about the type of guns used during those conflicts from playing video games. That being said, supplemental research needs to be conducted as well to learn the complete history of a firearm. As far as the SA i think there are bigger fires blazing at this point to let video games have much of an effect.

On second thought, there was a big stink about kobe bryant holding a ar in the call of duty back ops commercial. Why he was singled out, i'm not sure. jimmy kimble was in it as well

 

[omegaflame]

Both:

Hurt: They perpetuate negative myths about guns.

Help: They get more (generally young) people interested in firearms and learning about them.

 

[ChCx2744]

I like to see it as a coincidence, at least concerning me. I've been playing shooting games since early high school, yet I've grown up around guns since I was in elementary school. That being said, video games were definitely not what influenced my interest in guns, the people I grew up with were.

 

[Nushif]

It's a good question ... but I think we're missing a key issue here.

Do Flanel Sweaters support or hinder the 2A fight?! I find more and more exposure to flanel sweaters at ranges and a much larger variety of them among shooters at the range than I ever saw videogames. And if you think about it, have you ever been at a range where you didn't see a flanel sweater, or at least a jacket?! We are really missing out on key issues here.

You get my drift?

 

[larryh1108]

....its because youre a bad parent...period..

Not at all. If you raise 2 kids, 1 year apart and they live in the same house, same neighborhood, go to the same school and have the same circle of friends and you treat each child the same then you should end up with 2 similar children. You have nurturing and you have nature but the key element is the gene pool. I believe that some people are born with a "bad gene". These people are soulless. They have no conscience. In the example above, one kid could end up a prominent doctor and the other a serial killer. I believe it is as much, if not more, genetics than it is parenting.

How can a 5 or 6 year old kid who came from a "nice" family come to enjoy torturing cats and dogs? (A usual precursor to a serial killer). Not every kid who tortures animals ends up a serial killer but a serial killer probably had these sadistic tendencies. A good parent will pick up on these "different" actions but a child who is "born bad" is just that. He has a flawed gene.

I believe that the video games do not nurture sadistic or violent natures unless there is a genetic disposition to it to begin with. When I was growing up way back when, the 3 Stooges were supposed to turn us into slap-happy violent people. We all grew up watching John Wayne shooting Indian after Indian without a second thought, etc. We were supposed to be desensitized to violence from these old movies yet weren't unless we had a genetic disposition to enjoy violence as well as cruel and sadistic behavior. Parents can always blame themselves for a child gone bad but I feel the only thing they did that was "bad" was supply a bad gene from some distant relative we probably never knew about (because he was so bad). Yes, there are bad seeds and these kids grow up to shoot up schools, shopping malls or rob banks. If they were taught the business from their parents then that further shows what a bad seed and bad parenting can do to a child but what separates us from the most viscious animals is our conscience. Without a conscience we are no better than that shark in the water looking for his next meal. Nothing else matters... it is what they are. It's instinct.... it's genetic.

 

[ForumSurfer]

i honestly have a hard time believing that the parents of kids who go on mass shootings are parent of the year award material.

Most of the time this is true. I dated an aspiring defense attorney. Part of her courses dictated time spent...so she worked with "troubled (read:felonious)" youth. I had some real eye opening moments for myself when I worked with her. There were a few cases here and there where kids came from great homes, with involved parents...and yet the child struck out and committed felonious acts. It happens.

Back to the subject matter...

I'm the opposite. I started playing COD and others because I liked guns. I found out it was kind of fun. My bro-in-law, nephew and myself have a few showdowns every once in awhile. I also discovered that a game called Far Cry 2 let me play with several surplus rifles in an open, African enviroment. A great mindless shooter to pass a few spare moments and blow off some steam when I'm on the PC and studying, already. The weapons have the wrong names and they are accurate at way too far of a distance...but it's pretty good to pass a few minutes.

 

[XxR3M0V3RxX]

I love C.O.D. it allows me to own and shoot guns I would otherwise not be able to afford.

it allows me to run around and do stupid things without conciquence.

any sane person can see the difference between a conciquence free environment and real life.

violent people will do violent things. only someone who was already motivated to do so would use weapons in a criminal way, a video game won't change that.

the majority of people who play video games online do not become murderers. that's big evidance that debunks any game caused violance argument.

AS a side note the new COD black ops has a really nice sound on its sniper rifle (the L rifle) (sounds just like my mosin when I crank the bass on my subwoofer).

 

[RimfireChris]

I'm an avid gamer as well as a long time shooter, but for me it happened in reverse, as I didn't really pick up a controller until in my mid 20's, rather late in life in gamer terms. I think the people who've spoke of moderation are dead on. There's a proper place for everything. As far as do they hurt the 2A cause? I doubt it, at least very much anyway. If it wasn't games, it'd be something else, books movies, whatever.

I'm not a shrink, heck I'm not even a bartender, but from what I see, it seems like when someone commits a horrible act, people have a need to de-emphasize the human element, it had to be the book, movie, music, game, etc, because people are afraid to acknowledge that one person could do this to another, because if they could, what about my neighbor, son, brother, and so on? No, no, no, it had to be that evil outside influence that made them do it! If I don't partake of that influence and keep as many people as I can from that influence, then that could never happen in my little circle of the world!

Right?!

 

[One-Time]

Id say helps, a kid plays a certain gun in a game and often when he is old enough go buy an actual specimen or a semi auto copy

AIrsoft though seems to make them stupid and ill informed though LOL

 

[MTMilitiaman]

Okay so the first really popular FPS, and the one generally credited with creating or at least establishing the genre, is Wolfenstein and it was released in 1992. Shortly after, the early-to-mid-90s were riddled with DOOM, Duke Nukem, Half-Life, and Quake. Then you had the console games start taking over in the late-90s with games like GoldenEye, HALO, and Medal of Honor. And if you are among those that actually believe video games encourage or induce violent behavior among our youth, it's all been downhill from there folks. The games have just gotten more graphic and realistic.

Fortunately, as you can clearly see from the accompanying graph, violent crime among youths seems to follow rates of violent crime among adults, and has generally been going down since, get this, the early-90s:

Coincidence?

Probably. I don't think video games make much of a difference one way or another. I think genetics, esp as they apply to mental stability and health, parenting and upbringing, social class and economics, political atmosphere, and a bunch of other factors are probably more important. If video games influence someone one way or another, then they were probably already predisposed through genetics and upbringing, and I really believe that crime goes up across the board in times of civil unrest and in times of economic hardship. When people are poor and desperate, they make poor, desperate decisions. When people are angry, they are more prone to lash out in violence. I think it has very little to do with video games, movies, metal or hip hop, the Internet, or pretty much any other form of media.

You think cavemen sat around and debated whether drawing violent scenes on their cave walls was going to turn junior into a mass murderer?

Now for the OP, it's simple. The primary reason most antis give for infringing on our right to keep and bear arms is crime. With little to establish a link between video games and violent crime, there is likewise very little evidence to support FPS as being a hindrance to the 2nd Amendment.

 

[o Unforgiven o]

Let me start off by saying that I am 17 and play COD almost daily, that being said...

I think the only way that COD or the like would help would be to interest people who might otherwise have no experience with guns. That is all that it would do to help, and the huge number of "gun experts" on xbox live spreading false crap about the capabilities and legalities of the type of guns only furthers the stereotypes and rumors and is a negative thing.

 

[MTMilitiaman]

That's assuming people buy COD as reference material. I think most people, even most kids, understand that it is entertainment, not reference.

I can remember watching Commando as a kid and still being very much aware that I was watching a movie star pretend, not actually demonstrating the proper method to throw a tactical saw blade:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0B5xEBASwgE

Likewise, when I got into FPS, around the time Golden Eye and Rainbow Six came out for the N64, I never consulted Rare for advice on how to drive a tank.