GOP trying to overtax "Violent gaming companies" with the new Tax Reform bill.

So reading gamepolitics got me this article to attack. Basically, the GOP is trying to make it so R&D tax credit does not get given to "Violent Gaming Companies", another ill planned attempt to kill off the industry in 5-10 years, like the Oklahoma Tax Bill that would have made it legal to tax people who stored, played, and otherwise consumed violent games 1% Of all the property they bought in the state, (which would be 100's of dollars per storage, use, etc for me, more for others). Since no one could afford such a tax no one would even buy violent games and the industry would go bankrupt, provided the bill spread to other states like the filthy virus it was. Good thing it was struck down in court.

But the current Tax Reform bill has absolutely nothing to do with tax reform in a positive way when you factor in the future consequences the industry will have. I have no clue how high the current Tax Credit is for R and D for the gaming industry but it must be quite significant. Make it so this tax credit goes out the window and gaming companies will eventually (not right away but eventually) stop even trying to make new engines for their games because they can't afford it. So they use old engines, and since old engines = shit graphics to most of the gaming community, the game will get shitty reviews and won't even sell. Once this happens to 75 percent or more of the industry you have only the big corporations even being able to afford the tax credit and all others use old engines and eventually the new games with the old engines get panned as obsolete and they don't make anymore money off of them, therefore they go out of business because they can't afford to make new engines for their games.

I for one hate this. It's not entirely the GOP's fault, because to me Graphics =/= better game, Gameplay is far more important and so is story. But to modern consolitis infected morons graphics are everything and because of that this whole idea will eventually kill the industry. Someone has to stop this kind of thing now, because I don't see the trend of better graphics = better game changing soon.

Write your representatives and tell them you think this tax is a ludicrous example of censoring an industry that the public thinks put out trash for games (which is the most common example of an opinion on violent games, unfortunately). Tell them the government should not be putting there noses into the gaming industry for a sick minded attempt to kill it off, which is what this really is!

My youtube video goes into this more:

Assholes from Connecticu(n)t won't let the Violent Video Games BS Lis Die down after Sandy Hook,,,,,

After checking Gamepolitics.com, like I do multiple times a day, I came across this link from a shoutbox post, talking about a sandy hook recreation game and the nonsense the public figures in Conneticu(n)t are saying about it.  The article linked is viewable here. Some of this crap is really not needed now and I am here to trash it like it deserves to be.

"The perpetrator of the worst grade-school shooting in U.S. history is getting posthumous, and, many say, unwarranted recognition from the very source of his blood lust -- a video game."

So now a violent game caused sandy hook? What the hell does this writer think he is, a nonbiased source? It seems very likely that this guy is an anti-gamer and wants to make games look bad. So he posts a piece where he says that it is not an opinion, but a fact that Sandy hook was caused by video game violence, that's right, Caused, not contributed. To him there are no factors.  It's all Mass Effects fault, with all of it's nonexistent child rape scenes FAUX news tried to claim it had. Sure....

But it gets worse. folks...

 "The only positive that can possibly come from this is if the repulsive reactions that it causes serve as common ground for extreme gun-rights people to instead of pointing out how something so vile is protected under the Constitution, or looking the other way, they join the masses in condemning it," said Dave Ackert, a spokesman for the Newtown Action Alliance, a local grassroots organization supportive of gun control reform. "Same goes for the NRA leadership, all of their A-rated lawmakers, executives and board members at gun manufacturers, gaming and other entertainment companies."

So now the video game companies need to be sued, for making games that shooters did not play, such as the few thousands of games Lanza probably never touched. Are we really this moronic as a nation now? And notice how he said "other" entertainment companies should be sued. Who is this moron? It seems after "gamer triggered" tragedies like this, morons from the town in question become gamer haters and this is proof of this at it's worst.  Do we really need a massive lawsuit targeting other forms of entertainment now. Mark my words.... if This is what this guy is proposing, we don't need shit like this now, like class action lawsuits against the Mass Effect and COD manufacturers..... It's a stupid idea.  It's painfully obvious Adam lanza had SERIOUS mental illness issues. Why single out "violent" entertainment? Why? Because these people singling it out are fucking morons. Put them in jail. This 20 year long moral panic into violent games has gone on TOO long. Don't let fucktards like this bring it back into people's minds again, again, and again, and again, and again, and again. They want violent games banned, and they know if they keep prodding the issue in the ass they will eventually get it passed. We can't let this crap happen.... First crap in MA, and then More BS from Conneticu(n)t. It makes me sick.

UK Deputy Prime Minister Stereotypes Gamers as "hermetically sealed".

Well.. Reading gamepolitics.com lately has not gotten me much to work with, story wise. But this article has me scratching my head... Basically the Deputy UK prime minister is saying GTA (and probably games like that) turn people into addicts who live in their bedroom or living room and don't talk to people, becoming "hermetically sealed"..... This is the last time we need more of this BS! You know why?

Whether Nick Clegg knows it or not, he is helping to perpetuate the stereotype that all gamers are sociopaths. Sociopaths that only play violent games, aren't social, don't talk to anyone, and just play all day, isolated from others. Stuff like this re enforces the nonsense that gamers are sociopaths, cretins, low lifes, etc. I know most gamers are NOT sociopaths. The ones that do do not make a majority. Saying all gamers live in their bedroom reminds people of Adam Lanza, who was reported by the Tabloids to have lived in his basement. To their mind now, Clegg is making gamers look like criminals.  It's pathetic and it has to stop. I play only 2 hours of Video games per day, I am a social person. I don't need nonsense like this to be spread. It's bad for all of us... The more people stereotype us as living in isolation, or any stereotype really, the worse it will get..

What really gets me is how Nick Clegg decides to complain about how he can't limit gamers gaming type through any law or edict near the bottom. Because people like him love to regulate us as much s possible, but since the unfortunate fact that his Country is a Free Country, he unfortunately cannot do that. Anyone like this should not be in office. Who elected him? People who don't like violent games? It makes me wonder. Do we really have world leaders complaining about Freedoms that get in the way of controlling people because they view those people all as sociopaths and school shooters?

Faux News is at it again! (More Anti-Gaming Trash!!)

It seems this country has to keep spewing nonsense over and over again about a non-existent link between video games and real life violence...  They wait till everyone is not thinking about it and use crap like this to attempt to start another video games moral panic. Sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn't.... But it's fucking stupid and it must stop...

A murder in Australia,  has been associated with violent games.. The police have supposedly searched the killers twitter posts to find out he played call of duty...  Like call of duty may have impacted the killers decision to shoot 3 people for the sheer fun factor of it...  Well.. When you go to the shoutbox on gamepolitics.com (where I found the article), you get an article linked in it which links to another article by an Australian News site mentioning gangs... Gangs aren't even mentioned in the fox article linked in the shoutbox. It seems Faux news has no problem with leaving out information that proves games had nothing to do with the killings when they want to pin games as the SOLE REASON... For moral panic reasons!!!!

To make things worse, there is a video in the article which part of the Faux news "medical team" rambles on about his completely bogus theory that every big mass killer since 1999 is addicted to violent games... That's mentioned in the first article I linked... This idea is preposterous, there is no proof to back it up, whatsoever. Sure Klebold and Harris among others played violent games. But the proof for V-TECH, and others is a media Fabrication coming from newspapers like this. Lanza's call of duty articles all cited one article by an english tabloid which failed to even prove he played call of duty and used that as proof that he did!  The one person linking V-TECH to Counterstrike said an article which used HIS evidence was the proof. He basically cited himself saying that there was a link when there wasn't.  In fact there is NO evidence to suggest the following people besides Harris and Klebold and Lanza were addicted to violent games...


(Eric Harris, Dylan Khebold, Seung Hui Cho, Jared Loughner, Anders Brevik, James Holmes, the eight-year-old who accidently shot his grandmother recently and the three teens who murdered an Australian tourist too)

Anders brejik was a TERRORIST who mentioned video games make great training tools. There has been no evidence to suggest he was addicted, same for James Holmes, or the rest of the list as well. None but Harris and Klebold have ANY link to video game addiction, it's bullshit.Anders played World of Warcraft, far from your average Violent Game.  James Holmes played Guitar Hero. Is that their latest "Violent" game to attack now? Really... This is stupid....

To make things worse, the medical "Expert" claims that the medical industry has found "proof" that there is a link between real life violence and video games, and has gone out to say that link exists, even though NO study has found a causation link between violent video game exposure and real life violence. The ones that attempt to find a link between violent games and aggression are extremely flawed and biased... My YouTube censoring life radio show goes into the studies a lot more... This "trusted source" then went on claiming that violent games were drugs and we need warning labels put on them, like that's gonna do anything...


This pisses me off. The last thing we need is a "trusted source" (who isn't) starting a moral panic on video game violence after it has cooled off!!! This kind of stuff is what was rampant on news stations after columbine and  the moral panic skyrocketed after that... It's frankly, disgusting....

I have set up a facebook group to broadcast this blogs messages and my youtube videos... Check it out!!!

Regularly, I do blog posts on this blog attacking nonsense spread about violent games. I do youtube videos once a Night during a time when I am thinking a lot about this stuff, or during a gaming related moral panic. I need a place to broadcast this stuff, hopefully to a bigger audience. That's why I created a facebook group to host this stuff, it's called "Gamers Against Moral Panics". Any and all news in this whole category will be broadcasted on this page... Check it out here... If you like what this blog posts, please like the page on facebook. Thank you...

Enjoy...

Massachussets Apparently trying to Ban Violent Games, to adults as well.....

So after going to gamepolitics.com last night, I looked in the legislation tab to see if any state had drafted Anti-Violent Game Legislation. Surprisingly, My own state of Massachusetts, was among those states, that drafted draconian anti-video game bills within the last 6 years. Back in 2007, HB 1423 was drafted, it would apparently "restrict violent games to minors", but that's not all... No No... That's not all..

The Bill is so ridiculously draconian that is scares me just as much as the Bill that California Drafted that got Defeated for Unconstitutionality in Brown VS EMA. Like that bill, this one uses the greatly subjective obscenity clause to determine what games would be restricted.... Basically, if the game is offensive to the public, and the judges of the content find it lacks scientific, educational, or literary value, it would be restricted. The problem is if a game is so offensive that it offends the Judges (it seems any violent game with gore would do this, hell even guns in a game offended a co-worker years ago, Doom none the less), they would be so offended that they would say it lacks those values anyway, and therefore would use it against the game and then restrict it to minors.

The real issue is not this but the fact that it uses the restrict word in the wrong way, or in an unclear way. Restrict means to " to confine or keep within certain often specified limits or selected bounds" according to an online dictionary, so if you use this definition,  the bill makes it illegal to sell games to adults now.... Even worse, the bill fails to even mention the punishments, who will judge the games, punishment (if any) for false judgement based on faked evidence or incorrect evidence or abuse of the judging process. Even if these issues are my imagination, it still uses a subjective system to determine what games are restricted and what ones aren't.  How would the stores know which ones not to sell.... Like Brown VS EMA, they might end up taking all games off the shelves to prevent losses or lawsuits coming from violations of the law. So therefore this bill would create an effective ban because since stores don't know what games get restricted till to late, they then end up having to take ALL violent games off the shelves to prevent damages, especially if the bill is abused..


Text of the Bill in question for people wanting to read it In case it gets deleted later for any reason. (a lot of the stuff like this gets deleted suddenly, as of late anyway, such as the Brown vs EMA Amicus Brief, etc)



As of now the Bill is in the House Committee being stalled, but who knows for how long?  This could come to bite my state and my freedom of choices  in the Ass later. I am an Adult! I have the right to choose WHAT GAMES I Buy. I don't want this bill to backfire and make retailers get rid of violent games in fear like it could.  And since I use online retailers mostly now, who knows how it will effect online retailers in MA, or the gaming industry here. This could be, in theory, Disastrous for gaming in my state.....


This is MY STATE we are talking about here... We don't do shit like this, uber save the children conservative nonsense here. Not till one of the hack psychologists crazy unproven theories invaded the minds of people like our Mayor,  did this nonsense start, with the Banning of GTA ads on subway systems that don't have kids in them anyway (from my experience, their too dangerous for kids)...  IF our Mayor ends up allowing this to pass, I will fight it tooth and nail with regular emails to ALL the Representatives and Senators in my State.... I won't let this go quietly and with out opportunity. I will start a campaign to get people to write EVERYONE in office in MA to oppose this and hopefully it will flood their Mailboxes so bad that they find it unconstitutional.


As of now, the bill is in committee, and who knows if it will be taken out for a vote anytime soon. But still I urge ALL Gamers in Massachusetts to email the Rep's about this. This is danger waiting to happen for Gaming here... Don't let this pass, gamers, spread the message, email your Rep's, send the message below to them to make them see that this is WRONG!!!


Text to email (please us this, don't write your own)


"As your constituent and as an avid Video Game fan, and also as an anti-censorship person, I oppose HB 1423  due to it's vague use of the phrase "restricting" in it's text, and other issues. I know this is an old  bill, but according to gamepolitics.com, it's still being worked on, and hasn't completely died, according to  them.It claims to be a bill that will restrict Sales of certain violent video games to adults, but when I didgoogle searches for similar bills in other states, only a few were restrict to adults type bills. Many were  ills to restrict violent games to children... Since I oppose any form of Censorship, I immediately looked  at the Bill's text, and compared it to others in other states. When looking up the definition of Restrict  online, It seems this bill is actually designed to Restrict sales of violent games to adults, as in a ban  of violent games to adults only. Since the bill's text is so vague, there is no part that clearly states "stores must not sell games to minors", so which way is it? Banning games from being sold to minors, or  to Adults.... Based on other bills, it looks like the writer of such a bill Purposely left it out to abuse it for such a purpose, to make it illegal for stores to even sell games to adults.... Thus killing the video game industry in this state.


Other issues I have with it, are how it uses an incredibly biased Obscenity clause that states that if thegame is lacks scientific, literary, or educational value for minors, it is harmful to minors and can't besold, but since the the people who are deciding this (which it does not state), could simply use theirstandards of what offends them, they can simply say that the game offends them, so therefore it lacks those  standards, and ban it to adults or children.... I feel Indecency and obscenity clauses are to vague and  subjective to use as a test of what should be restricted, banned or both... It's too easy for someone  else to abuse this, and IMHO, that's why the author wrote this bill to get an "effective ban" in MA  passed... I just wanted to share my concerns..."

Another Pro-Censorship Moron spews Nonsense About Violent Games.... UGH....

So I thought this Moral Panic on violent entertainment causing Sandy Hook was done. Apparently not... Lo and Behold, Senator Grassley, a Repooplican from Iowa starts ranting on how the Gaming Industry's Voluntary Rating system isn't good enough, how it "lets these violent games get to kids". What violent  games are these, "ones that glorify killing of innocent people". Sure... I quote:

"There are too many video games that celebrate the mass killing of innocent people — games that despite attempts at industry self-regulation find their way into the hands of children," 



Talk about a moronic claim.... Number 1, the "attempts at industry self-regulation" (like they are a complete failure, despite the FTC study that says that the ESRB ratings are better than the MPAA ones, enforcement wise), have nothing to do with why these "violent games that glorify the mass killing of innocents" fall into the hands of children. Number 1, the Industry itself isn't to blame if the Stores refuse to card the people buying the games, or the 2/3's of parents who refuse to read the ESRB ratings in the first place, right? Apparently to this moron, the parents aren't to blame and somehow the industry made the parents not read the ratings or the stores are being all run by the industry and purposely start selling GTA games to kids.... This whole claim is bunk, and he knows NOTHING about violent games, the industry or the "attempts at industry self-regulation". He just blindly believes all the nonsense being spread that violent games are marketed to kids because "oh noes, the kids can buy games..." BLAH BLAH BLAH

To make things worse his claim of how their are too many games that "celebrate the mass killing of innocent people" is a bogus claim too. I regularly debunk crap like this. It's just a blanket statement, used to demean the industry based on shitty games, ones that do allow the "mass killing of innocent people", which are few and far between. Using a list of all released FPS games on wikipedia, I calculated that the sheer lack of "uber violent games" is astounding, despite what scaremongering is being said by people like Grassley.

This list spans all the way back to the 1970's with Sega titles such as "Jet Rocket", long before the dawn of PC gaming, so it does count everything.... No picking and choosing, no editing of the total data to show a point, pure unadulterated Facts.... Something anti-gamers almost never provide, it's almost always rhetoric, false data, or misinterpretation.

When You look at the spreadsheet, look at the column "gms kill inno". This is how many games out of 650 allow you to kill "innocent civilians", where innocent civilians are defined as characters who can't fight back. I have 2 rows, one with all 650 games in the FPS category, and another with all FPS games + Postal + all GTA games.  That one is the second row, the lower one with 658 total games. The top row with 650 games is just FPS games. "gms rwd inno" is how many games that reward killing of innocent people.  "gms nrwd ino" are games that punish killing innocent civilian characters. Look at the % with and without GTA and Postal applied, tiny %, less than 10 in each case...  There have only been 19 FPS games EVER released that allow the killing of innocent characters. Only 4 of these reward it. Tiny numbers when you factor in the 650 total FPS games ever made. 8 Punish the killing of innocents.  IF you count in GTA  games and Postal 1 you get 27 total games in this list that allow the player to kill innocent characters, and only 8 reward it. 15 Punish the killing of innocents!!! You see a pattern, equal amount of FPS games punish the killing of innocents, and in the case when you add in GTA, more punish than reward. Apparently Grassley can't stand the fact that there are 8 games since 1970(!) (when the list started) that reward killing innocents. But he mentioned mass slaughter of innocents!!!




Grassley's complaint about "too many games that celebrate the mass killing of the innocent" is a nonsense claim. Because this suggests that there are games where you are rewarded for mowing down big rooms of innocent civilians in such a game. Here's the thing. No ESRB Game like this Exists! In any game with civilians, that reward it, it's never been huge numbers killed at once. People might say "GTA!" but GTA, despite the nonsense claim about it, does NOT reward  the killing of innocent civilians. It punishes it. You get the police after you for doing stuff like this, get arrested, etc... That's punishment, not rewarding. The last game to reward mass killing of innocents, the only one was before the ESRB, so the esrb has nothing to do with it, that was Carmageddon! In 1997! The only game I know where it :"rewards" the mass killing of innocents..... Under the ESRB, the "voluntary rating system" there have been 0 games that "glorify the mass killing of innocents!!!". NONE! Zip! Zero!! Zilch!!! Grassley is a liar... Surprise!!


So Grassley is making up crap, just like a lot of morons who attack games do. It's stupid. It has to stop. He is also hinting at regulation of the industry by the government and using biased claims and utter lies to support it??? I thought this country was beyond it. IF they do decide to regulate the games like this, what's to stop them from setting up a system where they purposely rate any game that is only slightly violent or above, to their equivalent of Adult Only, so the stores won't sell them.. Hmmm... Because thats what I think people like this want, just to get rid of all the violent games so no one can buy them, no adults can too, no gaming companies can sell them so the industry just goes out of business. These people shouldn't be in office if they use nonsense like this to fuel censorship, and make no difference it is. The gaming industry does not need to be regulated!! Just the Congress!!! Seriously...

Gamers! Mail your Rep's about the video game nonsense. They are trying to regulate them again...

Checking Gamepolitics today I learned the truth about Obama's Violent game's conference between the ECA and the Senators, hosted by Joe Biden. According to the ECA, the whole thing didn't go down well and the senators still blindly believe "Video games cause violence". I quote:

"Senators are convinced that there’s a connection between video games and violence. One has even said that a proposed study is simply “laying the groundwork for new regulations on video games.” We know that’s not true - so write to them today.

Yes, even when presented with the facts that violent crimes have decreased since 1980, while video game sales have increased, and that other nations that consume more video games than the United States don’t see the same level of violence, those we talked to pressed forward with the need to legislate video games and waste money to find a connection between games and violence we know doesn’t exist. These Senators believe that playing games leads to real world violence. They have even gone so far to say in private discussions they disagree with the Supreme Court’s decision that video games are free speech.

We’re not going to take these insults and lies. Video games don’t lead to violence and are protected free speech. That’s reality. We need gamers to speak up and tell Congress this.Write to your elected officials and then spread this action everywhere you can.

This year is going to be a rough one. No matter how many facts we present, folks seem to want to stick to their fantasy that we gamers are time bombs waiting to go off. It’s insulting to me, it’s insulting to you, it’s insulting to us and just not true. Take action now.

Keep on gaming,"

 This is, Frankly Disgusting... Number 1) None of these senators even care that people don't want video games regulated,  As gamers we have to stop this mess NOW. We can do it. We need to mail our Rep's and Our Senators, but their message refuses to show the real issues, the media fabrications, the nonsense, the real reason behind school shootings.  The Representatives will assume the default message is  just Industry Rhetoric. Why would they listen to it? You must send them a much more detailed message like the one I have put below. One that shows the scapegoating by the media and how violent games have nothing to do with real crime. This is really important.  My message is a lot longer than theirs but covers a lot of stuff that very few people know about but is all true and people simply are not talking about it. If people want to use this message, go ahead. Edit it and choose the parts you agree or disagree with if you want, but make sure to tell them that A) Violent media studies never have proven violent crime is a result, and that B) Special interest groups in the CDC Study will try to hijack it with hoaxes, for extremist groups did that before at the Supreme Court, quoting the "Doom will Become Reality Hoax", which was actually not on Harris's real site but a fake site made after Columbine.
This is really important. This could be like the columbine moral panic on "Doom" times 5 if you don't act... Seriously.










Title : "Regulating Violent games solves nothing!"


"As your Constituent, I would like you to know that I am not happy about all the scapegoating happening surrounding violent games by the Government, and if you don't know this already, the scapegoating has been going on for over 10 years (since Paducah!), and it continues without anything to legally stop it.

Most comes from the media who are fueled by right wing extremist groups who are pro censorship such as the The Eagle Forum, the Parents Television Councel and others. For years they have been sending people on to talk shows especially right after school shootings, to make up utter lies about violent games such as the "fact" violent games make kids violent, the "fact" violent games break down the inhibition to kill, and the "fact" that violent games are military training tools. None of these are true.


The truth is that, video games don't make anyone violent, no study has ever been done even linking video games to violence, the aggression studies have been misquoted by people with anti-video game agendas on talk shows as proof they cause violence, without proving which studies they are talking about. One was a guy who was trying to sell a book. The other guy is a Defense Attorney for Murderers who gets them all to say "Video games made me do it" and is trying to get people to believe it, so he can win as much cases as possible. In fact no study has ever linked video games to Violence at all. Why do we need a study to link them now?

The Link between Adam Lanza and the Video game "Call of Duty" was based on 1 UK Tabloid basically saying "This kid lived in the basement (a video gamer stereotype), and had a computer. He had posters of lots of tanks and old fashioned Military Weapons. Since Call of Duty Players can name a lot of old fashioned weapons, he must be a Call of Duty Fan!".  This all came from a "plumber" who visited the house. This article doesn't prove he played call of duty, but then 25 newspapers all Quoted this plumbers words as proof he was obsessed with Call of Duty and some even said Call of Duty made him commit the Massacre. See the nonsense the Media Spreads? Millions of people now believe, that Call of Duty caused Sandy Hook. But it's not true.

The same thing Happened after Columbine. Some unknown party made a fake Eric Harris Aol Site with a page that said "The fires will go off in the 21'st, Eric harris Hates you all, Doom will become reality!".  This spread around to people and then the media quoted the "Doom will Become Reality" part and immediately everyone thought Doom Triggered the Massacre. Only Problem is that Harris never wrote these words, the site was made on April 21'st. It was proven by he FBI. But no one listened. One News article verifying that it was a fake Aol Site was taken down to cover it up by someone.... The media makes up bogus claims right and left about violent games. FOX News hired a fake hack psychologist to say "Bulletstorm causes rape because Rape is a violent crime, and since Bulletstorm is a violent game, it has caused rape!". Millions Believed this.  A preacher recently said at a public function of some sort, that "Pornography releases Endorphins, it's like a cocaine High, the more you view pornography the more you need that high, till Heterosexual Porn doesn't satisfy you anymore, you then jump to Homosexual Porn, then to Bestiality or then to Pedophilia. Look at all the Rapists and Child Molesters who said they were addicted to Porn. These Violent Video games are the same way". He basically said it in a way to make some people think Violent games lead to child molestation.   In the Columbine case, the Hoaxed page was used as evidence in the Supreme court case EMA Vs Brown. It was submitted by a Right wing pro-family Group who is anti-violent games. I fear some similar group will use this or other bogus claims (imagine if they use the Child Molestation one.....), in the upcoming CDC study as evidence... This must not happen. It's not true and things like this could lead to Regulation when no evidence of a problem exists...



  Legislating violent games will not cause Tragic School Shootings to stop. Doom didn't have anything to even do with Columbine. The CHS Massacre was a revenge crime against the police in Colorado, and according to a freedom of information act request for documents the FBI was keeping secret,
Eric Harris was Raped by the Police in an arrest in 1998. This triggered the revenge crime, Not Doom.

We still don't know why Adam Lanza killed 26 people. Why jump to conclusions till a real investigation gets done?

Thank you for your time and consideration."

Obama's plan to study video game violence ready to be Hijacked just like the EMA vs Brown Decion could have been...

Apparently the Obama Admin. is setting up even more  (possibly) biased studies to be done by the Centers for Disease Control, to see if there is a link between Gun Violence and Violent Media. The problem I have with it is that to, my knowledge, there has not been a single non-biased study done about the subject, and evidence surrounding the funding of brain-scan studies by the "Center for Successful Parenting", shows that they are nothing but a group trying to force the government and others to try to get rid of violent entertainment, really biased... Read their mission statement with my interpretations in the image below:

The first thing I think about this whole plan that Obama is setting up is that the CDC is hardly an unbiased source, and no matter who does these studies, they still have idiots trying to sway them. In 2010 during  the Brown VS EMA Supreme court, an extremist Right wing Pro-family, anti-violent games group sent an Amicus Brief to the court that cited known lies and hoaxes such as the "Doom Will Become reality Hoax" (debunked here), the Claim Eric Carneal got better at firing a real gun just by playing Doom (debunked here), and that the Military uses FPS games to break down the inhibition to kill (debunked here, by someone in the military). There is always someone trying to get their agenda through, and this attempt by this group from the midwest was clearly an attempt to Hijack the Supreme Court with bogus crap to try to make them vote the other way, which would have lead to an effective ban of violent games not just to minors, but to adults too. (Read up on articles I wrote about Brown Vs EMA to understand why).


The CDC are hardly in a qualified position to know what is true and what is faked in the "evidence" department. They handle "infectious diseases" not fact checking about violent games.  In fact 99% of the nonsense spread about violent games is fake. There are literally hundreds of news article making up crap about violent games that very few people have looked through them to see that they are false. And after School shootings, especially Columbine, Fabricated Evidence was used to demonize games, in the form of hoaxes including the doom will become reality hoax, but there was a far more sinister hoax in place involving 3 articles, one from Denverpost.com, one from Rocky Mountain News, and another from Times Magazine all claiming Harris customized doom to be used to simulate the Massacre with (with begging students). This version supposedly had features doom could not do at that time, including a second shooter (friendly AI, Impossible to create for Doom mods in 1999). It also supposedly had  begging students that scream quotes, but the quotes said varied from article to article, and so did how they begging students said the quote (one said screaming, the other said begging). And it also supposedly had the ability for either student to die when running out of bullets (impossible to program in doom then, no source code to actually do this, it would be needed to do it right), and no other way of doing it as well, no editing program then allowed you to do this, dehacked didn't, editing tools did't, etc. The thing is that each article mentioned some of these but only one mentioned the last, the first printed one, the one from Times Magazine. The next mentions the begging students and the second shooter, and then the third mentions the begging students only. It's like 3 different newspapers all conspired to fake evidence to make doom like it contributed to the shooting, using ideas that would be in a school shooting simulator, as the supposed modified versions features,  when the game couldn't have allowed the modder to make such a mod in the first place...

Now it's possible, but only because of the source code (released after columbine), allowed source ports that support extensive scripting languages to code this thing into mods. Back then no source port even had scripting language support. How do I know all of this? I have edited doom since 1994. I am an ACS wiz, I know how to program, I have spend my free time since 1996 learning how to mod the game and make levels for it as well. My Point is that someone will try to slip bogus information to the CDC. Who is  there to see through it? Something needs to be done... I just don't know what yet...

If they allow people to persuade them that all of this info I have debunked is true (and there are hundreds of websites saying it is), we would have a situation where special interest groups who are biased against violent games decide the outcome of a study using false data, leading to more legislation... This could be disastrous. If you think they will only use this stuff, then you are wrong. What nonsense will they make up for this? These falsifications are very deceiving, there is very little data to prove that they are engineered, and none of the people looking at them in the CDC are Video game players, who know that the Doom hoax with the three articles can't be true. Who is there to balance this out? No one... That's why it's scary.

All this takes is some false data being brought to the attention of the CDC, something they cannot debunk, and it spirals out of control. Enough false data that is set up to make it look like School Shooters train on violent games or are influenced by them would lead to the CDC saying that there is a link between gun crimes and violent games. Then comes the legislation of morality causing violent games to be in the cross hairs of the groups who aren't satisfied with a mere restriction to adults, they want the industry GONE by any means necessary. So that means bans of violent games to adults as well... Then comes the idiots who think that gamers are the cause of school shootings and they would be targeted next. It's already happening, Leland Yee said some crappy remarks about gamers recently, like we only care about "our lust for violence", and we need to "shut up". This is a nightmare waiting to happen...

Just in case the people who have been shutting down sites (like the second one that proved the doom will become reality hoax was just that, a hoax) that debunk this nonsense here are screenshots proving the debunking still exists once they get shut down:

First the Post on the Design Synthesis blog debunking the claim that the military uses Violent FPS games to break down the inhibition to kill.

Now the image of the supposed "Eric Harris" Aol Site that says "On April 21'st Doom Will Become Reality" (not April 20'th....)

And now a screenshot ofthe site dedicated to all things related to the Columbine Massacre that Debunks this hoax (acolumbinesite.com/ericpage.html):

Just incase the video gets taken down or people want a quick explanation. According to Reports, Micheal Carneal fired 8 individual but quick shots with a semi automatic pistol. He shot 8 students, all in the head or the chest, and People in the extremist right wing groups quoting the nonsense that he learned this from Doom are idiots, for Doom has the thing where you fire the guns in the game, holding down  the fire button makes every gun, even a single fire gun like a shotgun fire multiple shots as the fire button on the mouse is held down... This is how doom "trains" fans to react..... (Trains is a bad word, but just go with me on this one)...

Carneal did not do this, because it said he brought 2 rifles, a shotgun, and a semiautomatic pistol into the school. None of those weapons are Full Auto the kind needed to replicate the way doom makes it so when you hold down the fire button more shots keep on firing. Semi automatic merely means that the clip for the gun holds more than one shot and the weapon can fire multiple shots before reloading... Nothing to do with this behavior, that only a full auto weapon can do, like a military grade assault rifle. Also Doom cannot simulate recoil, which all weapons had, so if he tried the "methods" doom "train" you to do in real life he would be aiming at the wrong place and would miss over and over again in the best case, or the gun would spiral out of control at the worst case, depending if he used a pistol (best case) or a full auto rifle (worst case).

Video Game BS Youtube video Blog Series...

Recently, I have been re watching by Video Game Violence BS video's, that I did back last year in the summer to debunk nonsense spread about violent games I have heard over the year.  A lot of points I brought up were unique in that Me and my blogging of them have been the only people online to discuss them. So I decided to do a post with links to these videos, in light of the scapegoating that is going on right now because of the Sandy Hook School Shooting the media is scapegoating the Industry for causing and worse... (Child Molestation? WTF!?), yes violent games have been linked to that now, seriously...

A lot of points are brought up, including debunking the following myths:

-Video games cause real life violence
-Video games are used to break down the inhibition to kill in the Military
-Video games train school shooters
-School shooters became better shooters because of Doom (WTF!)

Also a lot of fake nonsense spread about the Columbine massacre by the media are brought up and debunked such as:

- Eric Harris said "On april 20'th, Doom will become reality" on his webpage
- Eric Harris modified to train the massacre with begging students, infinite ammo/weapons, a second shooter programmed in.

A lot about EMA vs Brown is brought up about how nonsense above was used in Amicus Brief by a right wing pro-censorship, pro-family, anti-freedom group from the midwest, in an attempt to Hijack the Supreme court in the Ema Vs Brown decision with Bogus info.


Anyway, here are the videos, enjoy...

Brand New:

Video Game Violence BS II: Part 1

Sandy Hook Nonsense:

I: Adam Lanza did not play Violent Games

II: Violent Gaming Companies and the players of such games being "Child Molestors"

III: The Rediculous Missouri Tax on Buying, Playing, Using, And Storing Violent games.

Recorded last year:

Part I:  Video Game Myths debunked...

Part II:  Faked News Articles after Columbine and their Debunking

Part III: Panic over Video Game Ads and the "fact" that violent games are marketed to kids Debunked.

Part IV: Religious Right wing groups and their attempt to Hijack the Supreme Court during EMA vs Brown

Part V: My personal experiences with anti-violence-in games trolls and the "Tornado of Bullshit" that fuels censorship

Part VI: New Nonsense about violent games debunked from a new attack site I found...

BEHOLD! More Anti-gaming nonsense (and media Lies!!!!) From CCFC.

Lo and behold, The nonsense surrounding violent games causing violence, has not ended!!!! After the newtown shooting which EVERYONE in the media seemed to blame on violent games. Enter the newest peice of nonsense by the Campaign for a Commercial free Childhood, or what I think they are really trying to be, campaign for censoring for kids...  This article written by a moron from this group on times.com spreads complete nonsense about violent games, without shame, without any recourse, shocking!!!!

So these idiots want a "dialogue" about the "effects" of violent games on kids (to them "effects" are making kids directly want to shoot up a school, nothing less... They want that result, that's why the mentioned the link as being "almost as great" as the link from smoking cigarrates to cancer. A bullshit excuse everyone uses). Lets begin the debunking of this nonsense:

"Research repeatedly demonstrates that, for children, exposure to violent video games, movies and television programs is a risk factor for becoming desensitized to violence, lack of sympathy for victims and aggressive behavior. Proponents for allowing purveyors of violent media unfettered access to children dismiss the research because it is correlational and not causal."

I went through such research in another post on wordpress and many of the studies are so flawed that it becomes doubtful that they were done for any other purpose to fraudulently find a link between violent games and aggression so the hack psychologists could use them to claim "violent games cause kids to become violent", which they repeatedly did, misinterpreting the studies. I saw evidence that the study creators purposely hid certain facts from the public, like the fact that they use Electroshock therapy to increase aggression in the violent game playing kids, only to find that the PDF that proved this "disappeared" off the internet a few days after I exposed their nonsense.  Brainscan studies done by certain groups were all funded by one group, the "center" for successful parenting" who's goal is to  get the medical community, the government and others "change culture" to get rid of violence in entertainment, aka ban violent games and worse, with many of these studies which are all quite fraudulent.  Now the stakes are higher because morons like Nader and Boykin are saying indirectly that they lead to child molestation, or urges of paedophilia, to cause a moral panic.  With such studies linking one thing (violent games) to another (aggression) and dozens of groups saying that it proves something completely different (violent games make kids violent), and then the bombshell that these studies are fraudulent and were funded by groups who want to get rid of all violence in entertainment, It's hard to even say this claim from the article is even true, it's just rhetoric designed to "change" culture. The discussion will be about banning violent games, it will come up, and so will paedophilia and child molestation as the next "crime" associated with games and gamers. We gamers are already lowlifes, morons, "gamer shitheads" , people who "should have been aborted", druggies and even school shooters in the minds of the wackjob anti-gamers out there, what's to stop them from adding child molestation, rape, and worse to the "effects" of violent games we "exhibit".



"But public health policy is often based on correlation between behavior and harm, and the correlation between media violence and aggression is almost as strong as the link between smoking cigarettes and lung cancer — and stronger than other acknowledged public health threats such as the links between not using a condom and sexually transmitted H.I.V., and early exposure to lead and lower I.Q. scores."

The claim that the "correlation"  between violent games and harm (notice they said "harm" like in violence here, not aggression (like becoming angry here). is as strong as the link between smoking and cancer, is complete nonsense not even proven by a single study, it's something anti-gamers like this writer have said over and over again in articles attacking games, but not once has any one else even said it's true. The proof that the studies are all fraudulent and funded by people who want to "change" culture to get rid of violent entertainment, makes them all flawed and not trustworthy in my mind. Any negative bias in the study makes it flawed.  Bias = BAD.


"Regardless of the role violent media played or didn’t play in the tragic Newtown shootings, children are harmed by frequent exposure to movies, video games, music and TV programs that glorify violence. We shouldn’t let the National Rifle Association’s smoke and mirrors, or the urgent need for gun control and effective, readily available mental health services, distract from the problem of media violence."

A little contradictory. Isn't it. this group CCFC is clearly using the tragedy to push their agenda of "stopping" media violence, and this paragraph proves it.  If the the Newtown Shooting did NOT have any contributing  factors from violent games, there is no way that this witch hunt over the violence in games being "examined" by more studies is even needed. But according to them they are still not sure that games caused Newtown. But do they care?

Returning to the quotes from the article on the New York times:


"We need to stop allowing children to be targets for marketing violent media,"

"Violent Media" targets kids? A peice on my other blog debunking 5 big anti-violent games myths completely debunks this claim, which is claim 4 in the peice. Quoting my explaination of how this is a myth:



"This myth is less drastic than the first one, but is still constantly spread around. The truth is this one has been used in many different ways, all claiming violent games are marketed to kids for different reasons. There isn’t one common reason why this is true… But My article on this (here) basically says that the ESRB ratings are often misconstrued as GOVT enforced by people who do the same thing with MPAA ratings.. They are both voluntary ratings and if a store doesn’t enforce them they don’t get in Legal trouble, unlike what the common belief is.  So when you get a biased study like the PTC ‘secret shopper survey’ that says stores sell M rated games to kids 80% of the time, you get people thinking that the industry is marketing games to kids.

The truth is that a recent FTC study says ESRB ratings are even better than MPAA ratings and enforcement in stores… but that doesn’t really disprove the myth…. What does, however is the target demographic of the industry is 18-35 year olds, according to this page. I have heard this on many articles in gaming sites, so I trust it….  If it were 5-9 year olds like all the anti-gamers keep saying then I wouldn’t even try to debunk this… But I have never heard any kind of evidence to support the biased claim that violent games are marketed to kids that isn’t something ridiculous like “violent game ads in our subway”, or “kids in a game store that sells violent  games that could be seen by a kid”, or recently someone on a forum said this great claim “Look at all the Lego games, proof violent games are marketed to kids” after saying that since there were violent game ads ‘everywhere’ the claim must be true. Basically it’s a lie."

Complete idiocy and fearmongering and fake evidence/media lie spreading won't help to fix the issues that caused Newtown. In fact no one has even done any actual medical testing to see what issues Adam Lanza even had (mental illnesses ,etc). It's all scapegoating and nonsense spreading.... It's sick and it needs to stop. The country does NOT need to have an Open Discussion on how violent games "Corrupt" kids by making them violent or want to rape babies. We DONT need more scapegoating!

Whitehouse.gov petition on media violence... Make sure to sign!!!

There has been a whitehouse.gov "we the people" petition petitioning the Obama Admin to admit Violent games do not cause violent crimes. It's really important that people who are against this media violence scapegoating bs (gamers,etc) sign this... The petition against SOPA caused the government to get involved to block it. We also need to be vigilant here.... I would suggest all gamers and people who are against bans of violent games and the endless nonsense BS scapegoating, media lies and crappy legislation against video games like the above mentioned video game tax, to sign this.... I can't state the importance of this any more... The petition is linked here...

Surveys about violent games not to be trusted (old post)

(this is an old post from my wordpress blog that got deleted there by accident a long time ago, after it was published in 2011 or 2010. I thought it was important that I republish it here)

So the anti-gamers are at it again.... A new 'phone survey' says that 67% of adults surveyed want violent games restricted to adults. No suprise there... But the real issue, is that the survey also says that 39% of adults surveyed think that violent game makers should be held liable when "it can be proven that a violent game causes a real life crime to happen".

You might think this is some honest survey, but trust me it is not .Here is the wording of the study, according to the gamepolitics article I got it from (look in the comments):

"For those wondering, here is the wording and order of the questions in their survey:

1* How concerned are you about the level of violence in many video games today?

2* Do violent video games lead to more violence in our society?

3* Should states be allowed to prohibit the sale or rental of violent video games to minors?

4* Who is more responsible for limiting the amount of sex and violence children are exposed to in video games – video game makers, the government or parents?

5* Should the makers of violent video games be held liable in court if it can be shown that their games led to someone committing a violent act?"

Question 1, makes the viewers think about the violent games link to violence, and question 2, makes them think about their opinions on whether violent games cause real-life violence, biasing their answers after that.  Question 4 then uses that bias to incite a yes response! This is especially troubling, because what it does is that it makes certain people want to sue, or advocate lawsuits against, violent game makers. If question 1 and 2 were never asked, the chance is greater that question 4 would have had less people who say "yes, sue the assholes marketing violent trash to my 2 year old!"



This is another sly tactic to win viewers over, to make them believe the nonsense that violent games make kids violent, when the only people who said that were biased talk show guests misrepresenting studies that were biased in themselves, that seemed to prove violent games make kids more aggressive. It's mind control, plain and simple... In a sense...


Take the amount of people who thought violent games should be outright banned or sued (11% of 44 comments, 38% of all comments wanting legal action performed (banning, suing, restricting to adults) to all age groups on my study of comments (here), and you see more people want game makers sued than ever before. It seems it's a new fad, "sue ID software,etc" after a school shooting. More people are believing these lies spread around, even in an Amicus Brief for SCOTUS (whose lies were debunked here), and it's scary..

Another issue I would  like to bring up, is that the sample size of the survey is a mere 1000 people (probably 1000 people who are in right wing conservative communities that believe the nonsense about violent games that the above amicus brief used to try to sway the SCOTUS decision), out of 300 million. That is 3% of the population of america surveyed, less than a population of one state! In fact that 1000 people surveyed, although it seems big to people who don't look at this stuff, is a mere 1/200000 of the population of one state of the US on average... It's tiny. According to true knowledge, the population of Boston, MA was found to be 618,231 in 2011. That's 618 times as much as the survey sample size. So basically the sample size they used skipped 97% of the population! It's just to small! I'm not saying the survey would have to encompass an entire state or the entire US, but 1000 people, is way to small. I think they chose 1000 poeple who were anti violent games being sold..... Just my opinion. They never asked "Do you think violent games should be banned to all age groups?", to anyone, but since so many people wanted violent game makers sued out of the sample size, it makes me think that they wanted them banned too. Usually people who want lawsuits would also not want games they think cause violence, sold to anyone... No matter how old.  Just My opinion...

So basically they are saying the 390 or so people want violent game makers sued out of 1000. That 390 is 39% of 1000, but on the scale of all the people living in an area the same population as Boston in 2011, that's only 0.6% of the population of that area! In contrast, the 67% of the 1000 who wanted violent games restricted to adults (roughly 670 out of 1000) is 1% of that area with the same population of Boston in 2011. That's bigger than the 0.6% but is still tiny..... These survey's don't mean much when 1% of the population of a boston populated area want violent games restricted to adults. There are probably more people in that area who think President Obama should be Impeached.



Speaking of surveys.... I am planning an experiment to see how far the anti-gamers will go. Stay tuned...

ANOTHER Site Spreading BS about violent games... WHEN WILL IT END?

So I was browsing the net looking for a certain candidates views on violent game bans that I was writing about last week, when I  came across this lovely right wing Conservative site that is spreading utter BS about violent games to people, claiming to be a trustworthy source. Now I will add a disclaimer,  the site may not be Intentionally doing this, but many of the PRO side points are quite suspicious at best, and down right fabrications or bad misinterpretations at worst... Anyone looking at this will believe the points debunked below, because most people believe what they hear: Here is the site I am talking about.

http://videogames.procon.org/

Now on  to the debunking, shall we.. After all, this IS what I do here, debunk BS spread about violent games by ANYONE!

"97% of 12-17 year olds in the US played video games in 2008, thus fueling an $11.7 billion domestic video game industry. In 2008, 10 of the top 20 best-selling video games in the US contained violence." Really, 97% of 12-17 year olds played video games? Shocker. Notice it said video games, not Violent ones...  It then tries to claim that this is the reason that the gaming industry made so much money. Then it immediately tried to assume this 12-17 year olds must have played  the violent ones!!! So  "10 of the top 20 best-selling video games in the US contained violence" Shocker!!! Let me tell you one thing. Most violent games aren't even played by such "young kids"... The target demographic is 18-35, according to the ESA. They also say that the average age of gamers are 30 years old... They even did a study proving this, unlike the article linked above, which tries to imply that 12-17 year olds are playing "violent" games. Now Let me define violent game. A game with Combat in it, and killing. Not neccisarily a Uber Violent one like GTA where you run over old ladies, or games where you decapitate people, BLAH BLAH BLAH. The media for years has been using examples of rare tastelessly violent games as a way to say most games are like this, but it's more than wrong because, according to a study I did using a wikipedia list of 605 FPS games released since 1986 on my other blog, only 4% or so were what I think most people would  consider "tastelessly" violent. That's 21 out of 605. Not even 1/10! The real number of tastelessly violent games is actually lower than this because FPS games make up only 1/5 of total violent games and tastlessly violent games, at least to me, seem quite rare... Now on to the more severe lies...

"Increasing reports of bullying can be partially attributed to the popularity of violent video games. The 2008 study Grand Theft Childhood reported that 60% of middle school boys who played at least one Mature-rated game hit or beat up someone, compared to 39% of boys that did not play Mature-rated games."

The sample size is not mentioned here, 60% of anything less than  5000 people means nothing... A lot of studies  that try  to prove this stuff use small sample sizes to make it look like it's an serious issue, and by possibly manipulating the results to show high percentages of people pre-chosen to show the result they want they can fudge the study. Recently a study was done saying that 1000 people all supported violent game legislation. 1000 people may seem like a lot to the untrained eye, but 1000 is Tiny, like in 625 times smaller than the Population of Boston, MA in 2011, 625,000 or so. So finding 1000 people who support legislation ignores the other Millions who do not. It's statistically insignificant, and the fact that such studies, more than likely pick and chose 1000 people who support it anyway, means that they should not be trusted. Not saying the study above isn't trust worthy or the one mentioned in the article but you have to learn how to critically examine such studies...



"Video games often reward players for simulating violence, and thus enhance the learning of violent behaviors. "

Most violent games don't even do this at all. Ones that do are things like GTA, Sure, and uber violent games like blood, but many games don't even make dead enemies drop items at all these days. Very few actually force players  to even kill any enemies, notable exceptions are quake 2, and serious sam type games. So much for rewarding violent behavior. Yes, killing is part of many games, but to kill, in order to survive hostile opponents trying to kill you, isn't really rewarding anything but survival. Very Few FPS games that I have played (and I have played 100's), really give you substantial rewards for killing... The whole realism thing in modern shooters (a BIG thing today) prevents significant rewards because realism requires minimal rewards per kill... A lot of these games focus on puzzles and missions to accomplish as well. Killing enemies is secondary. You can beat 90% of shooters without killing enemies. Just because killing is part of these games doesn't mean they reward "simulating violence". Also the claim that games that "reward simulation of violence" enhance the learning of violent behaviors is crazy. Most people who play violent games won't go out and kill people because they have been rewarded in a game to do so in the game, not in real life... These points mentioned completely ignore that real life violence is different than simulated violence in a game, on purpose many times, to make it look like people who play violent games will want to kill for real... 



"Violent video games desensitize players to real-life violence. It is common for victims in video games to disappear off screen when they are killed or for players to have multiple lives."

There is actually no real evidence to support the idea that violent games desensitize people to real life violence. Define Real life violence, then look at what desensization really means. It means that people who consume violent entertainment get more used to the violence in it. Real life violence is Completely separate from  this, Period!  There is evidence to suggest that consuming said violence entertainment, or anything really, will make a person more used to it. That's all the evidence is really saying. Saying it proves that people get used to a completely separate, different thing (real life violence), is a willful, stupid, and deceitful misinterpretation of studies that prove something different. If there is any study that says violent games desensitize people to real life violence, then I seriously doubt that it isn't flawed like all the other video game "aggression" studies being linked as proof of violent games causing real life violence by anti-gaming morons everywhere for 10 years. 

Now on to the claims that there are lots of games that have multiple lives, and disappearing characters. Where the hell did they get this from? Only Extremely KIDDIE games like Super Noah's Ark 3D have Disappearing characters that completely disappear. Only one recent game series features this, that's serious sam. Most games have corpses that NEVER disappear. Making Dissapearing characters is way to make a game seem LESS violent to kids, and is only done in KID type games to prevent the game from showing off VIOLENT DEATHS... HELLO!  And the idea that people in games have multiple lives. I can name all the popular games in FPS history that conform to this. Wolf3d, Descent Series, and Serious sam. THATS IT. Most FPS games ditched the whole lives thing because it made it too easy. The change was made in 1993 for gods sake, with Doom, which revolutionized  the idea that players who die don't get to come back without restarting the level or loading a save game. Lives in FPS games are almost non-existent.




"A 2000 FBI report (187 KB)  includes playing violent video games in a list of behaviors associated with school shootings."

Ok... So there is this study that lists risk factors for school shootings, and it listed being obsessed with violent entertainment. So a bunch of anti-gamer DickNozzles starting purposely interpreting it as proof that playing violent games is the risk factor, not being obsessed with any form of violent entertainment. Since I couldn't actually quote the study, I screenshotted it below. Lo and Behold, this proves it again. The people who made this site committed this crime.

Nowhere here does it A) Single out violent games B) Make it so simply playing them is a risk factor like the article linking to it says.  The article above is Purposely misinterpreting the facts to create a moral panic. Plain and simple.   The FBI study finds that "themes of hatried, violence, weapons and mass destruction Recur in virtually all his activities, hobbies, and past times". So simply playing violent games will make this happen? WTF! Sounds like these people who posted the article Don't know people who play violent games mostly Do NOT obsess over real life violence. The study also says "The student spends inordinate amounts of time playing games with violent themes and seems to be more interested in violent images than the game itself". Where does this equate simply playing violent games with school shootings. NOWHERE.   Then it says "On the internet the student regularly searches for web sites involving violence, weapons, and other disturbing subjects. There is evidence the student downloaded and kept material from these sites". Where does this equate playing Violent games, with school shootings? NOWHERE. It equates being Obsessed with Real violence, Hatred, And wanting to commit real violence, as a risk factor. This whole paragraph DOES NOT simply link playing violent games with school shootings. It links OBSESSION WITH VIOLENCE IN GENERAL. These people are making up BS about this.... The FBI wouldn't actually link simply playing violent games at all. They aren't pro family enough to do  that... Only right wing nutjobs who want violent games banned do that..




"Violent video games cause players to associate pleasure and happiness with the ability to cause pain in others."

Looking at  the source of this proved that it came from one of the "hack psychologists" going around on talk shows in April 1999 claiming the military uses violent games to break down the inhibition to kill, all while selling his book, a big batch of lies... If a blog run by an actual person who was in the armed forces debunks the claim, then this claim sounds suspicious as well.. I know for a fact that even though I played wolf3d for the first time at age 13, duke3d at age 16, etc, I did not "associate pleasure and happiness with the ability to cause pain in others". The whole idea that this happens, is using the same analogy as people misinterpreting desensitizing studies to prove that violent games desensitize people to real life violence, not the fake video game violence. This makes it look like games that make people want to cause pain in a virtual environment make people want to do it in real life. It's BS... Just trust me on that... If it were true, you would have a LOT more cases of gamers hurting real people. I don't see that, or any evidence that that is actually happening... So this is more than likely bunk too, IMHO.

"A 1998 study found that 21% of games sampled involved violence against women (165 KB) . Exposure to sexual violence in video games is linked to increases in violence towards women and false attitudes about rape (47 KB)  such as that women incite men to rape or that women secretly desire rape."

Number 1, the (probably) flawed study was done in 1998! More than 10 years ago! Number 2, since then most FPS or violent games, don't even have women to kill in them. And if they do, that's not saying they do this on purpose to single violence against women on purpose. Then the thing makes up the claim about sexual violence. Like all the other claims of "rape simulators" in violent games, this is also BS, because the last time a game actually had a scene where there was a controllable rape scene where a woman was a victim and the player was a perpetrator was, Custer's Revenge, in 1989, an ADULT only game not sold in normal stores!!!! Since then only 3 games have even had rape in them, Phantasmogoria, which features the player being raped in a cutscene, and Fear 2, which ends with the evil chick villian Alma, Raping you in arguably  the most fucked up ending any game has ever had, but get this, it is most likely a dream sequence....  Not once has there been a game that had virtual rape in it where a women was a victim, and if a guy was a victim, well, I have never heard of it. And the claim  that violent games lead to "increases in rape" came straight out of a moron Fox news put on their "bullshitting" on Bulletstorm 3 years ago, which they tried to say bulletstorm causes real life rape, with this analogy "Since Rape is a violent crime and violent games cause violence, then violent games have caused rape"... It's Fucking bullshit. The person saying this had NO proof that violent games caused real life rape, just said they did without actual evidence.



"Violent video games can train youth to be killers. The US Marine Corps licensed Doom II in 1996 to createMarine Doom in order to train soldiers. In 2002, the US Army released first-person shooter America's Army to recruit soldiers and prepare recruits for the battlefield. "

Nowhere here, did they mention that the first was a training for group tactics, and was a Modification of the game not the game itself, with HEAVY REALISTIC changes to gameplay, and graphics, almost nothing from Doom in it at all. They want to make it look like the military uses real games like Doom 2 to train soldiers to kill on, but the blog ran by the military dude linked above "design synthesis" disproved that, didn't it?  Now the thing about americas army is true, it WAS a recruitment tool. But it's the only game that ever was a recruitment tool, period. That's out of THOUSANDS of violent games, most of which aren't tastelessly violent..



"California passed a law in 2005 that would have required violent video games to include an "18" label and criminalized the sale of these games to minors. On June 27, 2011, the US Supreme Court ruled 7-2 in Brown vs. Entertainment Merchants Association (485 KB) that the law violated free speech rights."

What they don't say is that this law would have used a really subjective Obscenity clause like language to determine what games would be fined, by saying that games that are morbidly violent and "lack literary, scientific and educational value" are targeted for fines. This would allow them to fine any game they got offended by, period, causing many tame games to be fined, causing stores to pull any game that could be fined under the law off  the shelves, causing most violent games not to be sold in stores, causing the companies that make lesser known games go out of business at the least. That's what the BS article REFUSES to tell people...  It claims to be a trusted source on the points made by the experts...  All it is is spreading plainly debunkable lies to fuel censorship... It's stinks, like most of the polished turds that get released by the anti-gamers...