www.electricpig.co.uk/2009/03/12/german-...unter-strike-player/



Does it not occur to these people that maybe this type of personality is prone to playing fps games like CS on a computer as opposed to CS producing this type of personality :/

oh wait, it's got the word TERRORIST in the game ......

They don't know shit about what they are talking about. I hate when someone blame the computers virtual world instead of the mental crazines inside the killers head!


I may agree that some games like Postal etc MIGHT affect people with fragile and unstable minds, but that doesn't give them right to blame the "virtual world".

I think in this case, as his parents had a crapload of guns inhouse, they should go to jail for homicide, not also they did not parent their son into "its only a game" thing, but also had a collection of guns and ammo for them at easy reach, I saw the news, and at a glance on a window, there was the ammo count, was above 90 bullets, thats another crapload of ammo... arrest his parents.

I agree, not the games fault, it's the mental stability of the player mixed with the temptation of 'I bet I have a good aim in real life too'...

I admit I can get a bit over-reactant on cs:s, but I don't play it and think 'It's alright, they'll respawn next round' or 'OMG they've turned into zombies! SHOOT TO KILL! SHOOT, TO, KILL!!' or anythiung along those lines, parents that know their child has a low mental stability should keep them away from gmes like cs:s and not try to get the point across that it's jsut a game, cus that could well make it worse! The parents shouldn't just be locked up for the poor handling of a firearm, they should be arrested for conspiracy of creating a killer!

It seriously pisses me off when I read of ignorant do gooders blaming the media and in particualar video games for voilent behaviour. They are completely inductive in their accusations i.e. they have no evidence whatsoever. There is no scientific or psychological research evidence saying that playing violent video games makes you more likely to commit violent behaviour. Infact, the evidence suggests that there is no link at all.

I play violent video games all the time. Infact, I am awaiting delivery of Resident Evil 5 at the moment. And you all know how long I've played the Counter-Strike games for. The fact that I'm sometimes refered to as the 'BFG' (Big Friendly Giant) in school and that I've never been in a fight in my entire life, provides evidence against the statement that violent video games make you more likely to commit violent behaviour.

In my opinion, the reason he shot himself was because he was ridiculed by others and he even said he couldn't take it anymore. Also, in my opinion, the reason he shot others as well, was because he wanted vengeance. Now how can we expect someone to differentiate between right and wrong when all they have experienced, it seems anyway, is wrong? Of course, I am only predicting what happened as there is no possible way we can know for sure what he was thinking.

The problem here is not video games. The problem in my view is the lack of care, support and attention given to this boy throughout his life by all parties involved i.e. his parents, social care, the education system etc.

What also really pisses me off is that the father of Damiola Taylor, the schoolboy who was stabbed, is part of a Government group on tackling youth and knife crime. One of his idiotic proposals is that violent video games should be taxed in the same way alcohol and tobacco products are to help cut down on knife crime(as apparently making things more expensive is meant to cut down on the problems they cause - I'm pretty sure more people are smoking and binge drinking now than ever before). Now Mr. Taylor, sorry about your boy and all that, but where is your evidence that violent video games corruptes minds and turns people into violent and aggresive individuals? Oh, is that the sound of silence I hear? I thought so.

It also leads to the problem of censorship. Why do the Governments of the world censor products? Is it because they can 'corrupt the minds of citizens'? Well if that is the case, does that not logically mean that the censor's minds are corrupted? Why is it up to them to deem what is and isn't appropriate - surely it is our freedom to decide what we feel is right and wrong.

Anyway, as you may have noticed, I have strong views on this subject and I don't want to turn this into a dissertation on social psychology, developmental psychology, politics, corruption and freedom. This is a short, toned down version of my argument (I really want to swear a lot more) which you are free to disagree with. But I'd prefer it if you don't. I can't really be bothered to argue anymore after writing this.

Che ken wrote:


No, no they shouldn't. That's just as large of an over-exaggeration as saying that video games and films cause kids to go kill people. (no offense)

This simple point here is gun control...

This young man of 17 fired 100 bullets during his time in the school, then killed an employee and a customer at a car showroom attempting an escape. When he finally killed himself he was still in possession of 'OVER' 130 extra rounds of ammunition. The obvious issue is allowing people to stockpile such vast quantities of weaponry, each single bullets has the capacity to kill, yet this man deemed it fit to have over 230 rounds of ammunition apparently readily available in his household. This is the cause of such killings, the kid in this case had allegedly had his amorous advances spurned and was temporarily upset. Had these weapons not been available to him at this time, no-one need have been harmed. I think everyone understands anger, I would readily admit that at times anger gets the best of me and who knows what would happen if these weapons were around. Please don't misunderstand me tho, I have no such intention and never have, I'm simply stating that anger can cloud otherwise solid judgment.
Apologies for going on a bit but I really despise those who point the finger so readily at, so often a culture which they have no understanding or experience of.

HBW wrote:


None taken, just had english and was too used to writing that way at the time lol

I heard that ACTIVISION are preparing to create a game based on this very thing.




P.S. Not really.

niLdesperandum wrote:


I can see it now:

'The terrorist is a young teenager, he's holding several people hostage in a school just off the boarders of germany, your job is to enter there and stop harm from coming to these people. Good luck agent Johnson!'

After all these incidents every discussion lacks one subject in media and thats how he got his guns so easy. To avoid that subject they focus on what he did in his spare time that involved violence. He played videogames and watched movies containing violence..hey wait a second..so does a lot of ppl!! So what would these kids/people have done before the videogames and movies wheren't around. They would probably do the same but practiced outdoors instead cause they still had easy access to guns. Imo most cases would have been discovered earlier if parents stoped using the computers and TV as babysitters.

I worked at a daycare place with children the age of 7-9 and none of the parents understood why their kids played the games and just couldnt abandon it whenever the parents wanted them too cause they never bothered to understand why the kid played the game or how the game worked. I blame parents for lack of intrest in their kids life. Parents need to slow down and see the world from the kids point of view. Our society is going to fast forward so no one cares anymore. So we act surprised and since we dont wanna change we take the easy way out and blame everyone else. Todays society lacks communication cause its so hectic..