Ban the violent games?

[Rich86]

Germany is considering a crackdown on paintball after a teenager killed 15 people in March. But is it harmful to dress up in overalls and run around the woods covering each other in goo?

In the aftermath of the murders, it was reported that the German government planned to ban paintball - among a raft of anti-firearms measures - because the activity encouraged violence.
This is anathema to Steve Bull, owner of Powerplay Skirmish Wakefield and spokesman for the UK Paintball Sports Federation.

"I've never really known these militaristic people. We made a conscious effort in the mid 1990s to distance ourselves from the gun culture.
"It is not all Rambos in the woods for the weekend. It's just good fun. It is a leisure industry. It isn't an aggressive sport."

Even the distinctive paintball gun, with its long barrel, "hopper" on top and gas canister at the back, is not a gun.
"We call them markers," says Jim Sennett, co-owner of Campaign Paintball in Cobham, Surrey. "The word gun tends to give the wrong impression."

But the German authorities clearly think there may be something more sinister in it. Paintball for many years did not enjoy a clear legal status in Germany, says Mr Bull, and was primarily played on US military bases. And when it did start to gain ground, players generally shunned military fatigues.

But some in the governing parties in Germany say it is a malign influence because it "simulates killing" and trivialises violence. But unlike the issue of a link between computer games and violence there seems to be a lack of research into any correlation between paintball and bloodshed.
"It has never been popular in Germany," says Mr Sennett. "You are shooting a projectile at someone else. But you compare that to shooting real guns and it's just not the same. You ask anyone who has played paintball and the last thing you want to do is to go to war. It makes you realise how easy it is to get shot."

(BBC NEWS)

--------------------

So what do you think? Should games like Paintballing be banned? Would banning it have any positive effect? Do you think 'violent' games like this make for violent people?

[Junius]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/magazine/8067908.stm

Obviously, since I play video games, often violent ones, I do not think that they have an effect on healthy people. They would certainly not motivate someone to go on a shooting spree such as this. With the rise of violent, graphically advanced video games, we are not seeing a rise in the amount of these kind of shootings. I think there other, more obscure, problems with society which lead to behavior such as this. A program last night on the BBC dealt with this directly. 'Going Postal' interviewed many victims, survivors and relatives of people who commit these kinds of crimes. One example told of how a more intensive, or profit driven, firm, there was a change in ownership, led to stress, pressure and at last that told when an employee went 'postal'. It linked it directly to social conditions, brought on by the 'trickle down' effect advocated by Reagen. Social conditions have more of an impact on people that the kinds of media they consume.

Violent video games are an easy target to pick on. To the layman, who has not done any 'research' into it, it would seem like an obvious link. Violence played out in a virtual world would certainly make player mimic it in the real world. Strangely, with every new media that finds an audience among young people, there is a scare raised about it. Movies, comic books, rock music, to name a few. Personally, I think it is politicians going after strawmen to seem as if they are doing some proactive to stop these kinds of things from happening. It is a cheap policy, both in monetary terms and in pay off, which, in the end, is easier to justify and enact that any far reaching social changes which could actually prevent something like this happening again.

[Imperator Romani]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/magazine/8067908.stm

Obviously, since I play video games, often violent ones, I do not think that they have an effect on healthy people. They would certainly not motivate someone to go on a shooting spree such as this. With the rise of violent, graphically advanced video games, we are not seeing a rise in the amount of these kind of shootings. I think there other, more obscure, problems with society which lead to behavior such as this. A program last night on the BBC dealt with this directly. 'Going Postal' interviewed many victims, survivors and relatives of people who commit these kinds of crimes. One example told of how a more intensive, or profit driven, firm, there was a change in ownership, led to stress, pressure and at last that told when an employee went 'postal'. It linked it directly to social conditions, brought on by the 'trickle down' effect advocated by Reagen. Social conditions have more of an impact on people that the kinds of media they consume.

Violent video games are an easy target to pick on. To the layman, who has not done any 'research' into it, it would seem like an obvious link. Violence played out in a virtual world would certainly make player mimic it in the real world. Strangely, with every new media that finds an audience among young people, there is a scare raised about it. Movies, comic books, rock music, to name a few. Personally, I think it is politicians going after strawmen to seem as if they are doing some proactive to stop these kinds of things from happening. It is a cheap policy, both in monetary terms and in pay off, which, in the end, is easier to justify and enact that any far reaching social changes which could actually prevent something like this happening again.

Agree 100%

[wudang_clown]

I think Bundestag likes such radical "solutions".
In 2001, after a child was killed by amstaffs, Bundestag banned keeping pit bull terriers, american staffordshire terriers, staffordshire bullterriers and bullterriers, and it's crossbreeds.
A ban does not solve anything. It don't eradicate potentially violent individuals (btw, everybody is potentially violent). And if one is determined enough, he will learn in other way how to shoot.
And what next? Will they ban martial arts? It also simulates killing...

This is really stupid, there are more people dead in car accidents, that in some coincidental shootings.

[spanish_emperor]

I play violent games yet i don't go around killing everyone. take away the necessity for killing and provide another more beneficial solution and massacres will decrease dramatically. Mix this with good solid moral values and you have yourself a good individual. banning violent games won't do much, banning guns won't do much either. When there's a will there's a way...take away the will.

[Biggreenfellow]

I'm a boxer, but I don't go round beating people up outside of the ring. I play a ruthless dictator in TW, and I never leave any prisoner alive, but I'd never kill anyone IRL.

It's plain silly to say that violent games make for killers... A tiny, tiny percentage of gamers go on a killing spree, not because the game tells them to, but because they are mental.

Also, and it is only slightly off-topic.. Why are violent books/comics never threatened to be banned?

[wudang_clown]

Also, and it is only slightly off-topic.. Why are violent books/comics never threatened to be banned?

Because it is fictional violence.

[Biggreenfellow]

Because it is fictional violence.

And games are not fiction?

[Junius]

It is because when you are playing a violent game you are actively 'participating' in the violence, your avatar is doing it. Whereas, with books, comics and films, 'you' are not doing the violent acts, but merely a passive bystander to it.

[C-Rob]

Correlation does not equal causation. Have politicians learned NOTHING from school?
I paintball quite often and the only affect that I get from playing it for a full day is that after wards for a couple hours I see everything as cover.
For video games, I've played Postal, both manhunts, world war two shooters, violent RTS', resident evils, and yet the only thing I get from them, aside from a satisfaction that I spent time well, is a heightened sense of what makes good suspense and action.

Why are violent books/comics never threatened to be banned?

I say it's because they have been, but the politicians got tired of looking like complete idiots, and need something that not one hundred percent of the population is familiar with- paintball and to a lesser extent due to its growing appeal, video games.

[Denny Crane!]

This is just book burning in another form but this time rather than the fanatical christians and other moralists it is now fanatical risk reducers.

[IrishHitman]

This is just book burning in another form but this time rather than the fanatical christians and other moralists it is now fanatical risk reducers.

Well said.

[Who]

....but they're just so goddamned fun!

[LSJ]

There's always people to blame an event on something like a game or song.

If a person goes on a shooting spree, it is not the result of playing paintball. Anyone who does such a thing already has a problem and would be liable to commit the crime regardless of partaking in a game of paintball, because the actions could have been set off by any number of things, from getting pushed in a bus, to being insulted at school.

Shooting paintballs at others does not inspire violence in one who is not already predisposed to it.

[Who]

There's always people to blame an event on something like a game or song.

If a person goes on a shooting spree, it is not the result of playing paintball. Anyone who does such a thing already has a problem and would be liable to commit the crime regardless of partaking in a game of paintball, because the actions could have been set off by any number of things, from getting pushed in a bus, to being insulted at school.

Shooting paintballs at others does not inspire violence in one who is not already predisposed to it.

It is not the direct result, but perhaps paintball had something to do with it. Then again so may have seeing a boyfriend beating his girlfriend on the street when he was younger, and maybe even a teacher arguing with another teacher. The problem is that there is no black/white, this caused it, that didn't cause it, which is why video games cannot be blamed for such actions.

[wudang_clown]

It is not the direct result, but perhaps paintball had something to do with it.

As we all know, paintballers shoot to each other with paint-bullets. Paintballers aren't violent people, they care not to hurt other paintballers and themselves, that's why they use wide choice of protectors. Because it's a game. Game has it's rules. For example: we don't kill each other, because killing people is not a game, it's a murder (or self-defence). And killing hasn't got any rules. Argumentation that paintball is simulation of killing is based on far-fetched analogy.
To be consequent, politicians should ban some sport disciplines as well, like judo, karate, wrestling, boxing, any shooting competitions, along with field archery, next: hokey (it's violent full-contact game), fencing, baseball (you can kill someone with a bat using baseball techniques, and if you are able to hit the ball, you can also hit a human's head), footbal/rugby...
Above mentioned disciplines gives you ability/technique to kill. Now, do we ban boxing because some drunkard killed other with his fists?

I really don't see any reason to blame games for any violence. If the person has played violent games so much he can't tell the difference between real and game world, it is sick that he has played that much. Games don't kill people, people do.

That's right.

[Who]

As we all know, paintballers shoot to each other with paint-bullets. Paintballers aren't violent people, they care not to hurt other paintballers and themselves, that's why they use wide choice of protectors. Because it's a game. Game has it's rules. For example: we don't kill each other, because killing people is not a game, it's a murder (or self-defence). And killing hasn't got any rules. Argumentation that paintball is simulation of killing is based on far-fetched analogy.
To be consequent, politicians should ban some sport disciplines as well, like judo, karate, wrestling, boxing, any shooting competitions, along with field archery, next: hokey (it's violent full-contact game), fencing, baseball (you can kill someone with a bat using baseball techniques, and if you are able to hit the ball, you can also hit a human's head), footbal/rugby...
Above mentioned disciplines gives you ability/technique to kill. Now, do we ban boxing because some drunkard killed other with his fists?

The jist of my post was that every experience we have affects how we make choices in some slight way, I don't think you read my entire post... You're arguing and agreeing with me at the same time

[Daeger]

People have killed other people since people have existed. Crazy people have always existed. I really don't see any reason to blame games for any violence. If the person has played violent games so much he can't tell the difference between real and game world, it is sick that he has played that much. Games don't kill people, people do.

[black-dragon]

If a person goes on a shooting spree, it is not the result of playing paintball. Anyone who does such a thing already has a problem and would be liable to commit the crime regardless of partaking in a game of paintball, because the actions could have been set off by any number of things, from getting pushed in a bus, to being insulted at school.

Agreed. Doing martial arts and playing war games like Call of Duty actually puts me off real-life violence. People who want to ban violent games are just being intolerant of anybody that isn't like them.

[MaximiIian]

I think it's idiotic because:

1. Banning videogames of any stripe and type is unnecessary censorship.
2. As a gamer, I consider any actions that would hinder or limit the videogame industry as hostile.