I think that's as daft as arguing that violent games "cause" youth violence, especially since you've already (correctly) pointed out that youth gang violence has been with us since the 1950s. The "hoody" thing is the result of increased surveillance (which was itself a response to levels of crime) but it isn't what's caused youth violence any more than wearing trainers has.
I didn't mean that it was the cause of youth violence today, I thought I made that clear in my first paragraph. But I don't think anyone can deny it has created the "hoody" culture due to the ridiculous amount of surveillance we're all subjected to - as you point out.
At the end of the day there are certain kids who are going to create trouble no matter what the punishment, some of it mindless and terrible violence. As for the solution, I've no idea and seemingly neither do local or national governments. Putting up more cameras certainly doesn't seem to have solved all that much.
jdanddiet showed me an article in Crash at the retro show where some mother was complaining about the level of violence in some Speccy games !
I think the lady in question was complaining about the infamous Barbarian Crash cover rather than the game (was a very bloody affair IIRC).
-just had a look at it - to be fair it was pretty graphic, especially for the time, although nowhere near bad enough to justify the backlash the magazine got:-
obviously the kid just wanted to top himself, and take a few people with him, and of course we have all had those thoughts, but the simple fact is a kid in this country isn't going to have a load of semi automatic guns in his house. and give me that bollocks about a car being more dangerous, sure you could run a few people down, but you can't easily taget the objects of your rage.
i have no idea about the gun controls in germany, but they seem to be really lax. as a poster on there said a kid could always go out on the black market and buy a gun. you can buy them in this country, but this black market hardly advertisis itself. buying drugs is difficult enough.
not even sure why gun are legal at all in germany, i thought they would have been banned outright after WW2 to stop any funny business.
i have no idea about the gun controls in germany, but they seem to be really lax. as a poster on there said a kid could always go out on the black market and buy a gun. you can buy them in this country, but this black market hardly advertisis itself. buying drugs is difficult enough.
I can get you an ounce of tack for 25 quid or an ounce of skunk for 45 quid, 250 buys you a re-activated revolver with a bored out barrel 300 buys you a semi automatic pistol smuggled in from a different country. Oh Scratch that I don't live in England anymore so I can't get those things for you afterall ;)
obviously the kid just wanted to top himself, and take a few people with him, and of course we have all had those thoughts, but the simple fact is a kid in this country isn't going to have a load of semi automatic guns in his house. and give me that bollocks about a car being more dangerous, sure you could run a few people down, but you can't easily taget the objects of your rage.
Cars have legitimate reasons for existing; they get you from A to B, they go where you want and when you want (unlike a bus or train where you have to adhere to the schedules and preset locations), and they can be used to move heavy objects around from place to place.
What legitimate use does a gun have? Yes, they apparently give a feeling of power and potency to the holder, but that might well increase the chance of him feeling compelled to use the gun on someone to prove his power. Yes, they can be used for "fun", but killing animals for fun is morally wrong, and the fun had by shooting inanimate objects is far overshadowed by the evil done by gun owners.
And I've never accepted the "civilians should have weapons for their own protection" line. If you do that, then criminals get guns too. And yes, you might have a gun for protection, in your bed side cabinet, or in your pocket, or holstered under your jacket, but if some criminal points a gun at you then you don't have time to get the gun and point it at him, he'll shoot you first. It's much better if neither him nor you have access to guns. Plus children sometimes get hold of their parents' guns, and shoot themselves or others with it.
Why shouldn't you have one if everyone else around you does, that sadly is the mentality of it all. I live in the US and I'm well aware that several people around me have, and maybe even carry guns, but I don't want one even if I used one justly in self-defense I'd be beating myself up in my mind for the rest of my life, even if the other guy would've killed me if I didn't.
That's just the type of person I am I guess, I don't think I'd feel guilt for smacking a mouthy charva in the face though, bullies piss me off. But killing somebody with a gun is definitely not for me.
i have no idea about the gun controls in germany, but they seem to be really lax. as a poster on there said a kid could always go out on the black market and buy a gun. you can buy them in this country, but this black market hardly advertisis itself. buying drugs is difficult enough.
not even sure why gun are legal at all in germany, i thought they would have been banned outright after WW2 to stop any funny business.
There is a Wikipedia article on gun law in Germany for you to read to dispel any doubts about it: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_politics_in_Germany
I haven't read it myself yet (going to do it now) and don't really know much about the law here. Never have personally known anyone who had a gun, the only time I used one was in the mandatory military service.
It's all blown out of proportion anyway by the papers remember the manhunt incident and everyone was saying manhunt was going to get banned as someone who played it a lot killed his friend with a hammer. It then turned out it was the guy who got killed who played it all the time yet that got about 3 lines worth of text in the papers where as the first story got all kinds of psychologists quotes on violent video games etc and whipped everyone into a frenzy.
I stopped buying/reading newspapers in the mid 60's (after I realised that A) they told lies (direct experience) and B) they had forgotten that they were producing NEWSpapers. And printing any kind of crap that would sell to the masses.
The above is a typical example and they should be made to retract the lies (on the front page in BIG type) AND pay a BIG penalty to charity.
And the twaddle about violent games causing crimes makes me sick. If we took the thing to its logical conclusion then we would all be eating our meals with our fingers just in case some pratt goes off the rails!
A tax on knives won't work. I know, really going out on a limb with that one!
No disrespect to Mr Taylor for what he's gone through but being a victim of crime does not make anyone an expert on how to deal with it. All it means is their opinions carry the weight of first-hand experience of the consequences of crime. That's quite different from the first-hand experience of preventing it.
As for knife crime, it's primarily a social and cultural problem and so all the police can really do is react to it and try and dissuade people from attacking each other (governments, despite what people think, are largely powerless when it comes to changing a national culture - even totalitarian governments struggle so governments in free countries really don't stand much of a chance). That's not easy considering how much machismo there is in teenage gang culture (despite what a lot of people seem to think I've no doubt that the average 15 year old knows perfectly well what the consequences of stabbing someone is, it's just easier for them to do it than to be seen to back down or walk away from a confrontation). What can be done is:
*Stiffer sentencing for knife crime
*The same for violent crime
*Attempt to restrict the sale of knives
*Better policing
Believe it of not, the last of those is the most important and the one people focus on less. Even with light sentencing if people carrying knives are regularly caught, charged and imprisoned then it's going to filter through the culture that it's probably not worth it.
Yes, but only if we can get to the stage of catching people every time - and make sure the severity of the punishment matches the severity of the crime.
But it's never going to work because of a fundamental trait of all life.
Consider this: As a kid you fall down. The higher you fall, the more painful the bump. All kids burn their fingers. The more severe the burn, the more severe the pain. So we learn that certain things cause us pain and we learn not to do it. but the pain has to come at the time of the trangression.
Imagine you fall out of a tree or stick your finger in a fire. Then a week later, maybe a month, maybe a year, you get the pain. How the hell would kids learn anything from that? And what if sometimes we stick a finger in the fire and never get any pain.
This is why any punishment society imposes is pretty much a waste of time - in terms of "teaching them a lesson" - just keep them away from society as long as possible.
Watch a mother bear or lion with cubs. They romp and play around but as soon as the cubs overstep the mark they get a cuff round the ear. You don't have to beat up kids to get them know where the boundaries are, just a gentle cuff AT THE TIME. And hence the reason why a clip round the ear from a copper on the beat at the time of the trangression works wonders.
Hal
Now I've got a strop on - kick me off my soapbox. Who started this damn thread!
Cars have legitimate reasons for existing; they get you from A to B, they go where you want and when you want (unlike a bus or train where you have to adhere to the schedules and preset locations), and they can be used to move heavy objects around from place to place.
What legitimate use does a gun have?
You're on a very slippery slope there - we can extend that argument to "what legitimate use does a violent video game have", or "what legitimate use does (something not liked by old men in power) have?" type arguments if you allow that to be an acceptable justification for banning something.
You're on a very slippery slope there - we can extend that argument to "what legitimate use does a violent video game have", or "what legitimate use does (something not liked by old men in power) have?" type arguments if you allow that to be an acceptable justification for banning something.
Maybe, but violent computer games do have a legitimite use - they entertain people (as proven by their popularity and sales) and they have no serious drawback (unless you believe that violent games cause real world violence, but I've never seen any evidence of that, and lots of evidence to the contrary).
Actually, one argument against violent video games (or any video games) might be that they are unproductive, and therefore just a waste of time. That's true to a degree, certainly, but if you accept that (not you, Winston, I mean people in general, of course) then by the same logic most TV programs, films in cinemas, books, and so on are equally worthless. In fact, if you believe that, then you'd have to conlcude that violent games are better than most of these, as reading a fictional book or watching a film or television program is passive whilst playing a game at least makes you exercise your intellect, reflexes and hand/arm muscles to some degree, however small.
Why does the goverment tax everything that we love to do? Drinking, smoking, chocolate (this might be introduced) and now video games? Why dosen't the goverment tax sex and wanking while they're at it?
They do. VAT on condoms (it was reduced to 5% in 2006, isn't that Mr Brown nice to us?)
Probably realised that 3/4 of the population under the age of 16 now have kids. Make jimmy hats cheaper in the hope that all the dopey charva types will actually use them.
It would be so nice if that was the case and it worked, I think scumbags should be able to get free blobs from the Jobcentre, that would stop em' breeding so quickly :lol:
....and in 15 years time you may actually be able to leave a moped parked in the front street without worries of some little tramp with a gluebag hanging out of the arse pocket of his Kappa tracky bottoms sticking a screwdriver in the keyhole and driving off on it.
But imagine when you were back that age ? Dont know about you but i was allowed to watch a fair few films which were 18 when i was only 14 or 15. I rememebr watching Salems Lot ! Scared me like anything but loved the film.
Robocop was an 18 and i'm sure when we were 14 or 15 we obviously had the game but also begged our parents/older brothers to watch the film.
18 rated movies/18 rated games i dont personally think affect kids. If a kids crazy enough to kill someone he'll turn into a psycho whether hes watching tom and jerry or robocop
I watched Robocop when I was 8 (thanks to my aunt who had it on VHS in 1988) and I never turned out violent.
Also, I'm a big Tom and Jerry fan, NEVER seen Resoire Dogs or Natural Born Killers or Kill Bill.
My wife actually calls me a pacifist although she says that in the 14 years she's known me, I've been violent once and that's when I wanted to murder my cousin for when he attempted to rape my eldest daughter (and she said she didn't blame me for thinking like it).
Like virtually everyone here, I watched a fair few 18 rated films in my early teens.
But the point is my parents actually took an interest in what I was doing, so if I'd been watching unrelentingly violent videos for hours on end they might have suggested I do something else for a bit like kick a football around, read a book or play some music.
I now work in a secondary school where it's obvious that most parents of our kids feel that since you can't completely stop kids from watching 18 rated stuff you may as well just allow them to watch/play/read/do whatever they want all of the time. I don't think some parents are even looking to see what the age label on a videogame say's never mind what the contents might be.
Don't get me wrong - I saw films I was too young for. But my parents didn't make it easy for me to do this all the time.
I don't especially feel that any of this stuff on it's own will turn a balanced human being into a killer... but I think 'apathetic' parenting is producing a lot of people who are a little less than balanced.
Maybe, but violent computer games do have a legitimite use - they entertain people (as proven by their popularity and sales) and they have no serious drawback (unless you believe that violent games cause real world violence, but I've never seen any evidence of that, and lots of evidence to the contrary).
Guns also have plenty of legitimate uses, too - on that same argument. For example, target/competition shooting (plenty of people enjoy target shooting with different kinds of firearms), pest control (I've never known a farmer without a couple of shotguns and perhaps a small calibre rifle), clay shooting etc.
The trouble is with these arguments that "$ACTIVITY that I don't participate in is useless and dangerous and therefore should be banned" is one of those creeping nannystateisms. It's a perennial fight we have to hold against the nannies who always want to ban the TT Races (they don't race, they don't see the point, they just see that some participants/spectators get hurt, so it should be banned) - so once you start banning anything because some (usually old, white man) in authority doesn't see the point, very soon life becomes extremely dull and all our civil liberties have gone away.
I played Postal 2 years ago, GTA 3, Vice City etc and even though in these games i've killed, maimed, ran people over or whatever i would never do that in real life. Can't people see it's just a game, a bit of escapism. Remember the scandal caused by Manhunt??
I read once in France some guy acted like he was in one the GTA games and killed his neighbour or something. If people can't handle 18 rated games they shouldn't be playing them.
Comments
I didn't mean that it was the cause of youth violence today, I thought I made that clear in my first paragraph. But I don't think anyone can deny it has created the "hoody" culture due to the ridiculous amount of surveillance we're all subjected to - as you point out.
At the end of the day there are certain kids who are going to create trouble no matter what the punishment, some of it mindless and terrible violence. As for the solution, I've no idea and seemingly neither do local or national governments. Putting up more cameras certainly doesn't seem to have solved all that much.
I think the lady in question was complaining about the infamous Barbarian Crash cover rather than the game (was a very bloody affair IIRC).
-just had a look at it - to be fair it was pretty graphic, especially for the time, although nowhere near bad enough to justify the backlash the magazine got:-
ftp://ftp.worldofspectrum.org/pub/sinclair/magazines/Crash/Issue41/CRCover41.jpg
Predictably:
http://www.gamepolitics.com/2009/03/12/europe-violent-games-under-fire-wake-german-school-massacre
Yeah, let's ban violent computer games. We don't have to ban guns of course, 'cos guns aren't part of the problem.
Insane...
i have no idea about the gun controls in germany, but they seem to be really lax. as a poster on there said a kid could always go out on the black market and buy a gun. you can buy them in this country, but this black market hardly advertisis itself. buying drugs is difficult enough.
not even sure why gun are legal at all in germany, i thought they would have been banned outright after WW2 to stop any funny business.
I can get you an ounce of tack for 25 quid or an ounce of skunk for 45 quid, 250 buys you a re-activated revolver with a bored out barrel 300 buys you a semi automatic pistol smuggled in from a different country. Oh Scratch that I don't live in England anymore so I can't get those things for you afterall ;)
Cars have legitimate reasons for existing; they get you from A to B, they go where you want and when you want (unlike a bus or train where you have to adhere to the schedules and preset locations), and they can be used to move heavy objects around from place to place.
What legitimate use does a gun have? Yes, they apparently give a feeling of power and potency to the holder, but that might well increase the chance of him feeling compelled to use the gun on someone to prove his power. Yes, they can be used for "fun", but killing animals for fun is morally wrong, and the fun had by shooting inanimate objects is far overshadowed by the evil done by gun owners.
And I've never accepted the "civilians should have weapons for their own protection" line. If you do that, then criminals get guns too. And yes, you might have a gun for protection, in your bed side cabinet, or in your pocket, or holstered under your jacket, but if some criminal points a gun at you then you don't have time to get the gun and point it at him, he'll shoot you first. It's much better if neither him nor you have access to guns. Plus children sometimes get hold of their parents' guns, and shoot themselves or others with it.
Guns have no place in a civilian's posession.
Why shouldn't you have one if everyone else around you does, that sadly is the mentality of it all. I live in the US and I'm well aware that several people around me have, and maybe even carry guns, but I don't want one even if I used one justly in self-defense I'd be beating myself up in my mind for the rest of my life, even if the other guy would've killed me if I didn't.
That's just the type of person I am I guess, I don't think I'd feel guilt for smacking a mouthy charva in the face though, bullies piss me off. But killing somebody with a gun is definitely not for me.
There is a Wikipedia article on gun law in Germany for you to read to dispel any doubts about it:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_politics_in_Germany
I haven't read it myself yet (going to do it now) and don't really know much about the law here. Never have personally known anyone who had a gun, the only time I used one was in the mandatory military service.
I stopped buying/reading newspapers in the mid 60's (after I realised that A) they told lies (direct experience) and B) they had forgotten that they were producing NEWSpapers. And printing any kind of crap that would sell to the masses.
The above is a typical example and they should be made to retract the lies (on the front page in BIG type) AND pay a BIG penalty to charity.
And the twaddle about violent games causing crimes makes me sick. If we took the thing to its logical conclusion then we would all be eating our meals with our fingers just in case some pratt goes off the rails!
Hal
Yes, but only if we can get to the stage of catching people every time - and make sure the severity of the punishment matches the severity of the crime.
But it's never going to work because of a fundamental trait of all life.
Consider this: As a kid you fall down. The higher you fall, the more painful the bump. All kids burn their fingers. The more severe the burn, the more severe the pain. So we learn that certain things cause us pain and we learn not to do it. but the pain has to come at the time of the trangression.
Imagine you fall out of a tree or stick your finger in a fire. Then a week later, maybe a month, maybe a year, you get the pain. How the hell would kids learn anything from that? And what if sometimes we stick a finger in the fire and never get any pain.
This is why any punishment society imposes is pretty much a waste of time - in terms of "teaching them a lesson" - just keep them away from society as long as possible.
Watch a mother bear or lion with cubs. They romp and play around but as soon as the cubs overstep the mark they get a cuff round the ear. You don't have to beat up kids to get them know where the boundaries are, just a gentle cuff AT THE TIME. And hence the reason why a clip round the ear from a copper on the beat at the time of the trangression works wonders.
Hal
Now I've got a strop on - kick me off my soapbox. Who started this damn thread!
you can do damage with yer fingers you know, they must come off too im afraid
You're on a very slippery slope there - we can extend that argument to "what legitimate use does a violent video game have", or "what legitimate use does (something not liked by old men in power) have?" type arguments if you allow that to be an acceptable justification for banning something.
Maybe, but violent computer games do have a legitimite use - they entertain people (as proven by their popularity and sales) and they have no serious drawback (unless you believe that violent games cause real world violence, but I've never seen any evidence of that, and lots of evidence to the contrary).
Actually, one argument against violent video games (or any video games) might be that they are unproductive, and therefore just a waste of time. That's true to a degree, certainly, but if you accept that (not you, Winston, I mean people in general, of course) then by the same logic most TV programs, films in cinemas, books, and so on are equally worthless. In fact, if you believe that, then you'd have to conlcude that violent games are better than most of these, as reading a fictional book or watching a film or television program is passive whilst playing a game at least makes you exercise your intellect, reflexes and hand/arm muscles to some degree, however small.
They probably would if they knew for a fact they could tax it efficiently.
Imagine how skint Mel would be :lol:
They do. VAT on condoms (it was reduced to 5% in 2006, isn't that Mr Brown nice to us?)
Probably realised that 3/4 of the population under the age of 16 now have kids. Make jimmy hats cheaper in the hope that all the dopey charva types will actually use them.
It would be so nice if that was the case and it worked, I think scumbags should be able to get free blobs from the Jobcentre, that would stop em' breeding so quickly :lol:
....and in 15 years time you may actually be able to leave a moped parked in the front street without worries of some little tramp with a gluebag hanging out of the arse pocket of his Kappa tracky bottoms sticking a screwdriver in the keyhole and driving off on it.
I watched Robocop when I was 8 (thanks to my aunt who had it on VHS in 1988) and I never turned out violent.
Also, I'm a big Tom and Jerry fan, NEVER seen Resoire Dogs or Natural Born Killers or Kill Bill.
My wife actually calls me a pacifist although she says that in the 14 years she's known me, I've been violent once and that's when I wanted to murder my cousin for when he attempted to rape my eldest daughter (and she said she didn't blame me for thinking like it).
But the point is my parents actually took an interest in what I was doing, so if I'd been watching unrelentingly violent videos for hours on end they might have suggested I do something else for a bit like kick a football around, read a book or play some music.
I now work in a secondary school where it's obvious that most parents of our kids feel that since you can't completely stop kids from watching 18 rated stuff you may as well just allow them to watch/play/read/do whatever they want all of the time. I don't think some parents are even looking to see what the age label on a videogame say's never mind what the contents might be.
Don't get me wrong - I saw films I was too young for. But my parents didn't make it easy for me to do this all the time.
I don't especially feel that any of this stuff on it's own will turn a balanced human being into a killer... but I think 'apathetic' parenting is producing a lot of people who are a little less than balanced.
Guns also have plenty of legitimate uses, too - on that same argument. For example, target/competition shooting (plenty of people enjoy target shooting with different kinds of firearms), pest control (I've never known a farmer without a couple of shotguns and perhaps a small calibre rifle), clay shooting etc.
The trouble is with these arguments that "$ACTIVITY that I don't participate in is useless and dangerous and therefore should be banned" is one of those creeping nannystateisms. It's a perennial fight we have to hold against the nannies who always want to ban the TT Races (they don't race, they don't see the point, they just see that some participants/spectators get hurt, so it should be banned) - so once you start banning anything because some (usually old, white man) in authority doesn't see the point, very soon life becomes extremely dull and all our civil liberties have gone away.
I read once in France some guy acted like he was in one the GTA games and killed his neighbour or something. If people can't handle 18 rated games they shouldn't be playing them.