Well it seems that the dead horse of the ucc shooting violent games moral panic has been resurrected by a greedy newspaper. They ran a fricking letter to the editor whining about violent games even though the shooter was proven to be a terrorist. The quotes by the person writing in are idiotic, they make up complete nonsense about violent games, that I will debunk. But it's leading to idiots spreading their nonsense in comments (more lies). And it's being spread ALL OVER twitter.
Lets get into debunking the nonsense that the letter says first:
"Friends, the real issue here, I believe, is the use of video games. Chris Harper-Mercer sat at home playing video games all
day long. Video games are more and more realistic these days, and many
of them are very violent. In many games, the participant is actively
killing people."
ONE Article mentions he played video games. NOT VIOLENT ONES! It never specifies. Read the article she links. It doesn't even mention playing all day long. She made up that claim, because the article doesn't even specify how long he played. She also tries to say video games today are "more realistic, very violent and involve actively killing people". This is BS...
Most games are NOT realistic these days. Realistic games that are so realistic they could be simulators are rare. She is pulling that out of her ass. Very violent is also nonsense. Most violent games are mildly violent, only a few are realistic.
I did a study on over 605 games based on a wikipedia article of all FPS games ever released. I found out just how many are are realistic and how many are uber violent. Not many games were realistic or uber violent.
"Claim 6 : Most FPS games are “Realistic”
Source : Same comment poster as Claim 3
The commenter who mentioned that games that reward “Deviant”
Behavior, also said that most were “realistic”. Visually graphic maybe,
but people think that just because FPS games are “Realistic” LOOKING
they are total realism simulators, with an 100% analogue to real life
Military Combat. Nothing could be farther from the truth. Visual
graphics have not been increased over the years at the same rate as
combat realism, what people think when they read these claims. The truth
is that combat realism is found only in 1 RARE kind of FPS games,
“EXTREME” Tactical shooters. These games are NOT uber violent. They are
Simulators of real life combat. And most aren’t even that popular
because they are Insanely difficult. They should be. 1 hit kills you. No
Health. Things like “marine Doom”. Most Tactical shooters are at most
75% realistic. They do bullet damage fine, and health not around every
corner, but things like mimicking real weapons, that almost always fail,
with few exceptions. Number 1, in these games, gunshot sounds are
quiet. Real gunshots are DEAFINGLY loud. Number 2, real guns jam,
break, and need to be repaired regularly. NO games do this accurately.
Because that’s stuff that the military teaches. Number 3, as a gun
degrades it fires worse. Accuracy and similar characteristics go down.
No game mimics these 100% accurately. Some might have weapon
degradation. Number 4. Armor in most FPS games, even some tactical
shooters is 100% resistant to bullets. or Very resistant. In real life
armor isn’t nearly that effective. There are armor piercing rounds that
go right through armor. Number 5. In Realistic scenarios like
Simulations, Getting shot anywhere can be deadly, not just the head and
chest. Shot in the leg. You can’t walk. Shot in the knee or elbow, or
fingers, you might be in so much pain that you cannot even move. Shot
in the neck, risk of paralysis. Very few, if no games simulate this.
Some games TRY to emulate real combat but most fail. The total of these
games that come close in some cases in certain areas (like weapon
physics, STALKER is a great example, or damage to the player (Far Cry))
are a small % of the total 605 FPS games ever made. MOST Fps games
realism level is ridiculously low. For the first 10+ years of FPS games
getting shot would just do minor damage most of the time. Not till Far
cry come out did this change. Guns had no recoil in most old FPS games.
Total % of TRUE “Semi-Realistic” games is 6.61% of all 605 FPS games
ever made. But very few of these are even popular. Only 4.94% of all 81
popular FPS games are like this. These “Popular Semi-Realistic FPS
games” are only 0.66% of all 605 FPS games ever made!"
As for many games being very violent, that's complete hogwash:
"Claim 9 : Most FPS games are Ultra-Violent
Source : MANY, Many articles saying this in many ways, basically all
saying most FPS games are uber violentbased on descriptions of one game
(good example is all the articles describing games like Postal 2 to
attack the Justices who voted against CA in EMA vs Brown)
Ok… This isn’t so much a claim but a pattern among articles “damning”
Violent video games. These articles use examples from 1 or 2 violent
games that are what I call “Uber Violent” games as proof that “most
games” are like them. Uber violent games are a rare thing. What’s the
definition of “Uber violent games”? Games that are so violent that most
people would find them tastlessly violent. Out of all 605 FPS games
ever made, only 4.46% are “Uber Violent” like this. Only 14.81% of all
81 Popular FPS games could be considered Uber Violent. These “Popular
Uber Violent” Fps games only make 1.98% of all FPS games ever released!
(605)"
As for many games allowing to kill people, that's the only true thing she even mentions...
"When he entered the classroom to start shooting,
Harper-Mercer said, "I've been waiting to do this for years." He
obviously spent a lot of time imagining what it would be like to kill
people. Where do thoughts like this come from? From watching violent,
bloody TV shows and participating in the killing of virtual people
through hours of video games. In these virtual worlds, there are no
consequences or ramifications, and it only reinforces a feeling of
powerfulness."
More bullshit. She claims that that video games lead to this. Anything could lead to him wanting to kill for years. Terrorism could, being a sick person could. This is yet another baseless claim with no evidence.
"Please, let's turn the conversation toward the topic of the harmful
effects of video games, and let's think about what we can do to bring
about change for the better in our society."
No, Lets not, you idiot. Enough Scapegoating. GO AFTER THE REAL CAUSE of the UCC Shooting, Terrorism!
It's quite shoddy "journalism" for a newspaper to run this letter, filled with complete lies about violent games after a shooting that had nothing to do with violent games. They should be fined or sued, but no one will do that, because no one cares. Not even gamers or the gaming industry do! Which is pathetic.
But the stupidity doesn't end there. I found this commenter trying to say tons of studies prove violent games lead to aggression. I quote:
"The research at this point is a slam dunk on violence in the media:
it's having a very negative impact on young minds. There are now dozens
of studies showing that violent video games impact a teenagers mood,
level of aggression, shifts attitudes toward the more negative... etc"
This more BS. The studies that "prove" aggression are flawed on methodological grounds. REAL RESEARCH on them proves this. My post here goes into more detail on this.
Only time will tell if this nonsense leads to yet another moral panic on video game violence. All of this is the fault of the fucking zealot who tried to claim that the shooter was a gamer before it was confirmed to be Chris-Harper Mercer. That idiot (Xui Xes) is to blame for this nonsense... If the country tries to legislate morality by banning violent games, I will throw a fit, you fuck!
