US President Wants To Fund Study Of Video Games And Violence

US President Obama directed further research be done into the relationship video games may have to violence, part of a series of actions the White House is taking in response to the problem of repeated mass shootings across the country.

In a news conference taking place now, the president asked Congress to set aside $10 million for the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention to study the ties between violent images in the media — specifically mentioning "the effects violent video games have on young minds" — and violent crime.

The request followed a week in which US Vice President Joe Biden met with leaders of the video game industry to discuss violent video games. The study is not the only proposal Obama made; among two dozen others, including a ban on assault weapons and high-capacity clips, and stricter background checks.


Comments

    Well considering that every other study that has been done either by independent or government agencies have basically been ignored, this is probably a damage control move for Obama and his cabinet. Since every study has said the same thing which is along the lines of
    "There is no correlation between the playing/viewing of violent video games and/or violent movies", I can see this study if it goes ahead saying the same thing and then the next time a shooting occurs in America people will still turn the blame to the video game and movie industry. It is a sad fact that some people give more of a fuck about a piece of metal than the life of a child in America.

      Well said. Yup a piece of shinny assault metal seems to be more important than a life so says the NRA.

      And do you know what's brilliant? It costs ten million dollars for this frivolous exercise. ;-)

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JK7BNKNZ5Gc
    Enough said.

    This has been going on for years, with every type of 'new' media for the time... Video games are no different

    Last edited 17/01/13 9:37 am

    That'd be almost interesting if they weren't killing so many civilians with drone strikes.

      Yes it's true the Drones, controlled by men and women of the armed services do on occasion kill civilians, but with up to reportedly 900 gun deaths in the US a month it's not really comparable. You have to wonder WTF is going on with people who still believe it's a great idea to own a shinny assault class weapon, and why they still insist that video games are to blame every time.

        It's very comparable. We could stop all of those drone deaths today if we wanted to. But of course, they're brown people so their lives aren't worth saving, apparently.

        As for "assault-class weapons", which is in itself ridiculous, it comes from having a country that had to fight for independence, at least on the base level. On paper I like the idea of a populace well-armed enough to destroy an out of control government. In practice, it's a bit more difficult these days.

        Unfortunately, stupid jackass minorities (do not interpret that as *racial* minorities, please) are once again ruining something for the overwhelming majority who are at least decent human beings.

        Last edited 17/01/13 10:38 am

          America did not "have to" fight for independence, they chose to rebel against the Crown (England).
          Also, Democracy (and freedom) is not based on arming a populace so Democratically elected Governments feels too intimidated to make Laws in case the President is assassinated or the Government overthrown by a "populace well-armed".

            The US is not a democracy, nor is any other country I can name.

            In any case, yes, they chose to rebel against the laughable monarchy, an act which I wish more countries would do.

            As for laws, every law that needs to exist already does, and most of the laws that exist probably should not.

          That whole argument about needing guns to overthrow a corrupt government makes me chuckle.
          The US government controls the most powerful military with the most advanced weapons known to mankind. They could realistically invade and destroy almost any country on earth if they wanted but we don't need to worry... Jim Bobs keeping them in check with his AR15.

            If you had comprehended the post, or even read it completely, you'd have noticed this point:

            "In practice, it's a bit more difficult these days."

              I did notice that, as did I notice “which is in itself ridiculous”. So yes. I did understand your post but was obviously not clear enough in mine as you seem to think I was ridiculing your thoughts on the matter.
              My comment was about the use of the argument BY GUN LOBBY GROUPS and how ridiculous it seems to me to the point of making me laugh. I guess I could have been clearer but I assumed that we were agreeing with each other and you would also see the humour. I’ll be clearer for you next time.

                Ok yeah I'm with ya. :) WE COOL, YO.

                I dunno, if the government turned on it's people. I would rather them have something then nothing.

                  shrugs~ you can't make something out of nothing. Even if the people resorted to hijacking government weapons. It would still taking a lot longer/ less possible to take back a country.

        Maybe they should do a study of whether or not "patriotic" support for warfare overseas has an effect on violence within america Zzzz

    This is just damage control. I don't know about anyone else but if there's one thing I'm getting desensitized to, it's all these clowns who think everyone but themselves is too stupid to seperate fantasy from reality. The anti-games folk won't be satisfied until they find a study which directly links violent games to reality.

    I wonder what people blamed violence on when the Vikings were slicing people up? Or all the wars and violence in the real world which existed before video games, comic books, music and TV? Maybe back then people just accepted that some human beings are raised poorly or are simply predisposed to being lunatics?

    But hey, whatever takes responsibility away from the perp right?

    yes, because when the research comes back that it's not games, does anyone thing that the raving lunatics will accept the research when most of them don't accept evolution?

    People will still say, "but i think there has to be a link."

    So are they going to balance this out with studies against Sim City making kids what to plan towns? Or study Mario Bros for making kids flowers and throw fireballs while jumping on turtles to kill them? Or study Harry Potter for making kids use broom sticks to fly?

    Honestly get your heads out of your arses and just parent your kids like normal parents do. Many problems will solve themselves without the need for studies, prescriptions or psychologists.

      Look up quidditch for muggles on google, that the influence the broom stick flying gave on people

Join the discussion!

Trending Stories Right Now