If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(KHOU Houston)   Texas A&M shooter preferred violent video games over working; is this finally the time for reasonable limits on video game violence and background checks on purchasers?   (khou.com) divider line 47
    More: Obvious, College Station, violent video games, background checks  
•       •       •

4601 clicks; posted to Main » on 14 Aug 2012 at 10:44 AM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



Voting Results (Smartest)
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


Archived thread
2012-08-14 08:18:35 AM  
6 votes:
Given the number of people who play violent video games, I would say that violent video games have a pretty good murdering psycho to non-murdering psycho ratio.
2012-08-14 08:54:24 AM  
5 votes:

Aarontology: Absolutely.

Why should someone be able to just walk into a store and buy a murder simulator? The only point of those is to train people to be better killers. They desensitize them to killing, and make them better shots with guns. There should be a background check and waiting list before someone is allowed to purchase one.


Another awesome person who thinks TSA is a pretty good idea.

Here's the thing.

1) Murder rate has been dropping, as many have pointed out, during the same time span that videogames have gotten more violent and realistic.

2) A "murder simulator" as you so eloquently put it still requires a human being to commit a crime, murder, at the other end. Our justice system is based on moral choices, not on blindly following training.

3) 99.9999% of the owners / players of these games do not commit murder, yet you would penalize them in hopes your new background check thing would prevent someone somewhere (by what? proving they can't buy a game? They'd just download it, torrent it, steal someone's you name it).

To sum up: you are a dumbass, you have no idea what you're talking about, but you are willing to deprive non law breaking people the right to buy a videogame because you think in your little concerned heart that if you put in some sort of intrusive background check, it will prevent a psycho who wants to kill people from buying a game.

You cite no evidence your plan is going to help, and you cite no over all proof we need help, but you have this "feeling" that "we need to do something."

DO GOODERS ARE WORSE THAN THE PROBLEM THEY THINK THEY'RE ADDRESSING.

Do gooders punish the law abiding so their own paranoia may be satiated, and their own need to feel like they "made a difference" is met.

I would say "typical liberal douchebag" but there's plenty of do-gooders in all political walks of life. It seems to be endemic in society any time someone other than you does something legal that you don't agree with, you want to ban or impede it because ... extreme outlier example that got into the media.


I hate do gooders. You should be banned from posting, or required to take a year of logic and critical thinking, then take a test that you would be required to pass before you are allowed to participate in this part of a civilized society.

See what I did there? Applied my arbitrary morality to your dumb ass. Citing more justification for it than you did to want to ban or background check videogames. Proposing a wildly unenforcable solution based on nothing more than my own need to feel superior.

Worked too. I'm pretty awesome.
2012-08-14 08:35:39 AM  
5 votes:

czetie: Wait, background checks on purchasers of guns or purchasers of video games?

/I'm OK with either


You appear to be missing an "n".
2012-08-14 08:33:57 AM  
5 votes:
We had this discussion 13 years ago. The consensus then was that video games weren't the problem. Since then, video games have gotten more violent and more realistic and just as popular, if not more so, and the homicide rate has fallen from 6.05 per 100,000 in 1999 to 4.8 per 100,000 in 2010, a reduction of over 20%.

The evidence is pretty clear that it ain't the video games.
2012-08-14 09:52:19 AM  
3 votes:
Caffall's stepfather told KHOU 11 News Reporter Drew Karedes over the telephone that he was worried his stepson was going to snap and said it was only a matter of when. When asked if the family ever brought the concerns to authorities he answered no.

Maybe we should do something about the state of our mental health services.
2012-08-14 08:27:22 AM  
3 votes:

gopher321: I knew those video game manufacturers were putting mind-control programming in their products! This proves it!


Reminds me of the Bill Hicks bit about heavy metal bands sitting around and saying, "we're tired of all this money and pussy. Let's put subliminal messages in our music to make our fans kill themselves!".
2012-08-14 08:14:50 AM  
3 votes:
Texas A&M shooter preferred violent video games over working; is this finally the time for reasonable limits on video game violence and background checks on purchasers?

I prefer violent video games (hell, any video game really) to work and I haven't shot anyone, so I'd say no to both. Just because a few go off the deep end doesn't mean we all will.

Look into their background far enough and there will be another reason for their behavior, not just violent games.
2012-08-14 11:28:13 AM  
2 votes:
It's time to revisit our society's well-intentioned, but short-sighted and disatrous policy shift against involuntary commitment for the mentally ill. It's entirely possible that both James Holmes and this guy would have been getting the treatment that they so obviously needed.
2012-08-14 11:25:15 AM  
2 votes:

KidneyStone: There's a lot of evidence that violent media (not just video games) actually is a problem. Not for the strong minded players but for the weak or troubled.

And don't confuse falling homicide rates with anything other than advances in trauma care. Modify your statistics from "homicide" to "attempted homicde + homicode"


If advances in trauma care accounted for the difference, then can you please explain how the corresponding rates for aggravated assault also dropped by a corresponding percentage over the same amount of time:

1999 aggravated assault rate: 336.1 per 100,000.
2010 aggravated assault rate: 252.3 per 100,000.
(Source: FBI Uniform Crime Reports)

That's a ~25% drop, close enough to the 20+% drop in homicides. If improved trauma care were a major factor in reducing homicides, how do you explain the aggravated assault rate dropping roughly the same amount? Improved trauma care doesn't matter there, and in fact all else being the same, if the homicide rate were going down because we are saving more people, the aggravated assault rate should have gone up slightly, as people who would have died ended up living. Your talking point doesn't fly. Try again.
2012-08-14 11:22:48 AM  
2 votes:

Nem Wan: We have very few exceptions to the First Amendment right now and anybody who wants more exceptions to it should be beaten to death like in a video game that I played.


You need to go over there to the designated Free Speech Zone.
2012-08-14 11:19:54 AM  
2 votes:
It all comes to the very simple rule that Accountability is Un-American.

Take any kid who get's caught dealing drugs, raping nuns or shooting up a school and ask his parents what the problem was. They will blame his friends, blame his school, blame heavy metal, blame video games, blame the gays, blame whatever - but one thing you will never see is parents accepting any of the blame themselves. It's never their fault that their crotch spawn that they've spent the last fifteen years psychologically sculpting just happened to turn out to be a complete psycho case. Oh no, it could never be that, we're model parents. We have an American flag on our porch and everything!

This mentality sticks with kids, who then grow up into coke snorting lawyer types who totally understand that it's not really the defendant's fault that they stabbed a bunch of hookers and jacked-off on their dismembered corpses. Society is to blame, you see, or was it heavy metal? Or video games? Or lack of gun control? Their client is just an innocent lamb, utterly devoid of free will or self determination, who has merely led astray by all the wicked sins of the world, amen.

Everyone has an excuse, everyone wants to play "Pin the Blame on the News-Pipe Scare of the Week" and nobody is ever willing to accept that anything is ever actually their own dang fault and no one else.
2012-08-14 11:15:52 AM  
2 votes:
Weird, the only game I remember on his FB page saying he liked was Angry Birds, but I remember his likes for Glock, Kalashnikov, the Tea Party, and Glenn Beck.

Say, you're not just trying to divert us from the fact that this shooting is one of the many "isolated incidents" in which one of the less stable and intellectual followers of the right wing movement resorted to lethal violence, are you, subby?
2012-08-14 10:56:06 AM  
2 votes:
I just wish people took mental illness seriously. His own family knew he was a whackadoodle and did nothing.

Forget about video game control. We need to get real about dealing with the mentally ill among us.
2012-08-15 09:49:04 AM  
1 votes:

trickymoo: /words fail to describe my reaction right now.

Because I couldn't ID something? Or because I keep insisting that this is something that needs to be answered on a case to case basis, you tool.


You were tricked: Those were the same model of gun, a Ruger Mini-14. One is in the standard factory stock (the top one), and the bottom is in an after-market stock that doesn't have any effect on how the rifle itself functions: It's the same exact gun.

The point he was making was that almost all of those calling for a ban on assault weapons don't understand that there is zero functional difference between traditional semiautomatic sporting arms and so-called "assault weapons". You have to ban semiautomatics, and for that, you will incur the wrath of sportsman and hunters, not just guys who like the look of a military rifle.
2012-08-14 05:05:33 PM  
1 votes:

trickymoo: Carousel BeastIt's It's 100% irrational appeal to emotion with absolutely zero logical thought. The facts on actual gun ownership, the use (including non-use) of firearms in the prevention of crimes, etc are all completely ignored because ZOMG GUNS!!!

Okay, pick your irrationality:

Assault weapons are "tools" INCREDIBLY more lethal than other firearms and therefore require a deeper discussion.
-or-
ZOMG Video games!

But to be fair, please cite your 'facts on actual gun ownership in the prevention of crimes' or "Defensive Gun Uses" please.


Please explain why

upload.wikimedia.org

this firearm is "less lethal" than

cdn5.thefirearmsblog.com

this "assault weapon".
2012-08-14 01:00:19 PM  
1 votes:
Sure, just as long as I am the only person who gets to decide what "reasonable limits" are. I don't trust any of you other assholes to be sane.
2012-08-14 11:52:42 AM  
1 votes:
*sigh* again really? we have to go through this again?

Other activities that homicidal maniacs have in common and there should be banned.

1. eating a pickle
2. riding in or driving a car
3. owning, watching or knowing of the existence of TV
4. reading a book
5. attending a religious service at some point in their lives
6. breathing
7. taking a deuce.
8. being batshait crazy

see if you can figure out what spurred them on to kill a bunch of people

\large numbers. you can't explain that.
2012-08-14 11:52:12 AM  
1 votes:

Fish in a Barrel: axeeugene: I find it laughable that a 70 year old commie *bolt action* rifle could incite anything other than mild disinterest in even the most reactionary fear-mongers.

Can you imagine a rampage with one of those? You get off one shot, then you either spend the next five minutes trying to remove the case that laquered itself to the chamber, or you start using it as a pike.


Worked pretty well on JFK...

Anyway this guy's FB page is full of gun porn, Michelle Bachmann love and Tea Party ideology. Who wouldn't see this coming?
2012-08-14 11:49:08 AM  
1 votes:

HotIgneous Intruder: That may be the codified law, but there are plenty of archaic laws that are ignored in fact and practice.


It's not ignored. If you fit that profile (male between the ages of 17 and 45), you are liable to be called up in an emergency. Congress has the authority granted by the Militia Clauses in the Constitution to require you to appear, even against your will, and to require you to purchase your own arms and equipment.
2012-08-14 11:45:34 AM  
1 votes:

HotIgneous Intruder:

That may be the codified law, but there are plenty of archaic laws that are ignored in fact and practice.
That law has less than nothing to do with present realities.
In fact, I wouldn't want that gang of designated dopes to be armed and lurking in any organized way.




We get to pick and choose which laws to ignore or practice now?

Cool, that makes a lot of things much easier.
2012-08-14 11:33:43 AM  
1 votes:

kitsuneymg: I own no guns. I have kids. No money and I don't want to have to deal with keeping shiat locked up all the time. I worry enough as is.


This should freak you out then:

i48.tinypic.com

The littlebopper with his 8th birthday present.

I don't worry because I'm there to supervise whenever it comes out of the safe.
2012-08-14 11:28:38 AM  
1 votes:
Only if you require background checks on purchasers of alcohol.
2012-08-14 11:27:24 AM  
1 votes:
silvervial: "I think it is maybe time to re-think our handling of the mentally ill."

This. The rest is a side-show so the media can sell ads and talking heads can sell books.
2012-08-14 11:26:16 AM  
1 votes:

deadcrickets: A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.


I own no guns. I have kids. No money and I don't want to have to deal with keeping shiat locked up all the time. I worry enough as is.

I'd point out that if you think that sentence says only a well regulated militia can have guns, you are a moron. "A moist chocolate cake, being tasty and delicious, the right of people to own forks, shall not be infringed." That doesn't mean you can only use a fork if you're going to eat cake.

Yes, our founding fathers had terrible grammar and should have been introduced to the term "comma splice". That doesn't make the first two clauses anything more than justification for the last two. Had they meant only militias could have guns, they'd have no doubt said that directly; most likely by adding "for that purpose" to the end of the "sentence."

And people ask me why grammar is important.
2012-08-14 11:23:36 AM  
1 votes:

Fat Old Broad: I just wish people took mental illness seriously. His own family knew he was a whackadoodle and did nothing.

Forget about video game control. We need to get real about dealing with the mentally ill among us.


What, exactly, were they supposed to do? Back in the old days, you locked your mentally ill family member in the attic or basement and forbid the servants and your governess to go near the door. Then we became a bit more civilized and locked them in sort-of prisons and charged people to come tour the loonies. Then we got even more civilized and developed a sort-of treatment with theories and practices right out of the inquisition that included sticking ice picks up their eye-sockets and scrambling their frontal lobes or electrocuting their brains. Then we got even more civilized and merely locked them into hospitals and mostly took care of them, but also left them at the mercy of psychotically cruel nurses. Then we decided the hell with it, the Snake Pit thing wasn't working and cost money, and instead turned them all out into the streets to fend for themselves, thereby vastly increasing the homeless population - and that's where we more or less are right now. If you have a mentally ill family member, especially if they don't have insurance and you cannot show an immediate threat to themselves or others, you have pretty much no options except - locking them in the basement or attic and forbidding the servants to go near the door.

I agree. I think it is maybe time to re-think our handling of the mentally ill.
2012-08-14 11:22:50 AM  
1 votes:
The rise of video games has coincided with the greatest decline in violent crime since we started tracking such things. I think the government should divert funding from law enforcement, which has a spotty record at best, to video game development, which has been shown to be an effective way to reduce violence.
2012-08-14 11:18:21 AM  
1 votes:
Fish in a Barrel:
Can you imagine a rampage with one of those? You get off one shot, then you either spend the next five minutes trying to remove the case that laquered itself to the chamber, or you start using it as a pike.


Haha. In my recent research online (still haven't fired mine yet...boo hoo), I've seen people snapping off ten rounds with surprising speed and facility. Stripper clips and a good, clean rifle go a long way, it seems.

Still, there can be no doubt the Mosin Nagant was clearly designed with hand-to-hand combat in mind. The quadrangular, deeply blood-grooved screwdriv- I mean bayonet! and steel buttplate are at least as badass as the cartridge-spewing end.
2012-08-14 11:15:48 AM  
1 votes:

Doom MD: Video games have no purpose other than to kill others. Of course they should be banned.


I can't really picture someone killing a person with a video game. Smacking them over the head with a disk maybe? Implanting a virus that makes their console explode? Is that even possible?

/Dear Mythbusters...
2012-08-14 11:15:17 AM  
1 votes:
People with violent tendencies usually seek out violent forms of entertainment, but you don't necessarily have to be violent to enjoy violent entertainment/art. I'd hypothesize the chances that he was a mentally stable individual that started playing violent video games and became unstable because of them are nearly zero.
2012-08-14 11:13:48 AM  
1 votes:

deadcrickets: A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.


Yep. Individual citizens are neither well-regulated not militia.
The permanent professional US military has taken the place of yeoman farmers with muskets who needed to be ready to form up and kill King George's redcoats.
2012-08-14 11:10:19 AM  
1 votes:
Was he firing video games at the people or guns? Makes a huge difference in deciding which one was the lethal one.
2012-08-14 11:06:03 AM  
1 votes:

Generation_D: Aarontology: Absolutely.

Why should someone be able to just walk into a store and buy a murder simulator? The only point of those is to train people to be better killers. They desensitize them to killing, and make them better shots with guns. There should be a background check and waiting list before someone is allowed to purchase one.

Another awesome person who thinks TSA is a pretty good idea.

Here's the thing.

1) Murder rate has been dropping, as many have pointed out, during the same time span that videogames have gotten more violent and realistic.

2) A "murder simulator" as you so eloquently put it still requires a human being to commit a crime, murder, at the other end. Our justice system is based on moral choices, not on blindly following training.

3) 99.9999% of the owners / players of these games do not commit murder, yet you would penalize them in hopes your new background check thing would prevent someone somewhere (by what? proving they can't buy a game? They'd just download it, torrent it, steal someone's you name it).

To sum up: you are a dumbass, you have no idea what you're talking about, but you are willing to deprive non law breaking people the right to buy a videogame because you think in your little concerned heart that if you put in some sort of intrusive background check, it will prevent a psycho who wants to kill people from buying a game.

You cite no evidence your plan is going to help, and you cite no over all proof we need help, but you have this "feeling" that "we need to do something."

DO GOODERS ARE WORSE THAN THE PROBLEM THEY THINK THEY'RE ADDRESSING.

Do gooders punish the law abiding so their own paranoia may be satiated, and their own need to feel like they "made a difference" is met.

I would say "typical liberal douchebag" but there's plenty of do-gooders in all political walks of life. It seems to be endemic in society any time someone other than you does something legal that you don't agree with, you want to ban or imped ...


Substitute guns for video games and this argument works pretty well too.
2012-08-14 11:06:02 AM  
1 votes:
So, I know this is off topic when it comes to video games. But I just want to point out that the "News Flash" thread yesterday said that the shooter was using "automatic weapons."

A PSL-54C is most definitely not automatic. In fact, almost every PSL-54C shipped stateside had their matching magazines (10 round) mixed up rendering most of them nearly inoperable. I owned one that jammed after every shot because the matching magazines weren't included. It's a squad designated marksman weapon which fires a full-power rifle cartridge (7.62x54mmR) and is pretty much only for reaching out an touching someone at 1000+ yards.

He also had an SKS converted to take box mags.

Neither of those is an automatic weapon, furthermore, even though a ton of people say "an SKS is easily converted to full auto" you never actually see it happen because it isn't that easy.

Sounds like The Atlantic got their panties in a bunch, or had an ear witness who couldn't differentiate different firearms firing in rapid succession.

Also, if this hadn't been near a college campus, it wouldn't even be national news.

What it DOES point to, is a renewed focus on mental health in this nation rather than a focus on "gun control."
2012-08-14 11:00:58 AM  
1 votes:
Use of the term "gun-grabber" immediately destroys your credibility btw.

(and I'm not even anti-guns)
2012-08-14 10:59:36 AM  
1 votes:

KidneyStone: There's a lot of evidence that violent media (not just video games) actually is a problem. Not for the strong minded players but for the weak or troubled.


Back in my day, serial killers didn't play violent video games when they were young. They went out, they played in the fields, they tortured mice and cats. America was young and proud, then.
2012-08-14 10:58:00 AM  
1 votes:

trickymoo: Im just so unbelieveably GLAD that all those upstanding, armed Texans were able to prevent this nutbag from going wild with his automatic assault rifle which he clearly needed for a plethora of reasons, none of which include shooting at another human being.

Assault weapons discussion needs to start up... again.


If only the cops had been armed, things might have turned out differently.
2012-08-14 10:57:41 AM  
1 votes:
Other spree killers weren't in to video games. Common thread is still the guns. And perhaps being mental.

But the anti-health party is the more guns party, so have fun with all of that.
2012-08-14 10:51:43 AM  
1 votes:
I play RTS games. My legion of minions will overrun your base after my snipers disrupt your resource gathering. I will be nowhere near the carnage.
2012-08-14 10:49:57 AM  
1 votes:
His facebook also said he supported Michelle Bachmann for president.

I'm not sure video games were his real problem.
2012-08-14 10:49:37 AM  
1 votes:

Tat'dGreaser: Yes of course. We need to know what foods he ate so we can band those. What color did he like? Ban that. Every single brand of product he used, MUST be banned.


Eh, why not? That's essentially the argument put forth by the gun grabbers right here on Fark.
2012-08-14 10:46:16 AM  
1 votes:
Yes of course. We need to know what foods he ate so we can band those. What color did he like? Ban that. Every single brand of product he used, MUST be banned.
vpb [TotalFark]
2012-08-14 10:11:05 AM  
1 votes:

Tigger: I for one will not stand idly by and watch our innocent schoolchildren get harmed in these seemingly endless mass fatal beatings with pointy N-64 cartridges.


I wonder if the pointy N-64 cartridges might keep people from pointy 7.62x39 cartridges.
2012-08-14 09:05:59 AM  
1 votes:

dittybopper: Aarontology: Why should someone be able to just walk into a store and buy a murder simulator?

Somebody's been reading Grossman. Too bad all the evidence over the last decade and a half shows that he was wrong about video games.


In addition, his other conclusions and the data they are based upon have also been questioned recently.
2012-08-14 09:05:36 AM  
1 votes:
\

Generation_D: holy cow


Nice job Aarontology. Reeled in a winner today.
2012-08-14 08:38:52 AM  
1 votes:

czetie: Wait, background checks on purchasers of guns or purchasers of video games?

/I'm OK with either


So you would be OK with background checks at the library bookstore, movie theater, and required background checks for magazine subscriptions cable TV service and any other media delivery service?

That sounds like a terrible idea.
2012-08-14 08:35:56 AM  
1 votes:
How about we just stop letting mentally unstable people buy guns?
2012-08-14 08:23:34 AM  
1 votes:
Caffall refused to work after apparently quitting his job less than a year ago, his stepfather Richard Weaver said. He said Caffall, 35, regularly played video games

Meh, just another loser. Too bad he had to try to take others out because of his pitiful existence. Good riddance.
 
Displayed 47 of 47 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report