Matrix Games Forums

I think the scene below is one example of what prompted the German ministers to take action:

[center][/center]

That's some lame "fighting" game. They can ban those all they want, if you ask me; so STUPID...

ORIGINAL: Terminus
I thought your name was Sue... Life ain't easy for a boy named Sue...[;)]

My NAME ain't Sue, but, when you're a lawyer, you sure learn to appreciate that good ole gal.

ORIGINAL: Jim D Burns

You can claim violent games have nothing to do with school shootings, but the fact remains, that since about 1988 violence at schools in the form of mass shootings is a relatively new sort of crime hardly ever seen before. There isn't really a lot you can attribute this to other than movies, television and games becoming more and more violent over the years.

Not really, the first school shooting was in 1891.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/School_sho ... l_shooting

About the reason why school shooting is getting more common and will get more common...
There's one - news media. Do you remember Virginia Tech? When the world's TVs made a star of some random guy who happened to have some issues. I remember expressing my irritation with this fact in comments on CNN website.

Hell, when I was 13, I've played Mortal Kombat and similar games, but it was unthinkable to me that someone could just go to school and shoot people, even though there were plenty of people there that deserved to end up in prison. Or shot people on the street. It was stuff from games and movies, not real stuff.
Then there was Columbine and thing like going to school and killing people, for fame, revenge, whatever appeared in common consciousness.

ORIGINAL: Jim D Burns

I personally doubt if violent video games are the only thing responsible, rather it is more likely that western culture has become more desensitized to violent action over the past 30 years or so due to many factors. In the 50s people would have been horrified by mass shootings at schools, today people get titillated by them to some degree.

IMHO, it's restoring a natural balance - people shouldn't give a damn about a school shooting in other country because normally they wouldn't know about it in first place.

Also, complete lack of discipline in schools introduced by the traumatic childhood (i.e. so called "stress-less upbringing") doctrine, gives some people memories that make them feel satisfaction when they hear about school shootings, because they imagine that victims are the people who "deserve it", for example are sexual molesters, bullies and other scum that should be punished and disciplined by authorities but wasn't due to the aforementioned doctrine.
So, sometimes it's a distorted fantasy of "justice".

Which is probably also a factor why European population is decreasing.

Also, weren't people in 50s just after two biggest massmurderfests in the history?

ORIGINAL: Jim D Burns

More and more violence in film and in games are a big part of the reason, but on a whole this increase in violence as entertainment is/has been accepted by most western societies. Violence in the news is an almost daily event today and the dumbing down of our cultures with reality shows that highlight danger and thrill situations are probably more responsible for our desensitization than games are in my opinion.

Which is a reason I stopped watching TV. And not because it desensitized me, but because it scared me, made me sad or pissed me off. TV News create an alternative reality that is full of dangers and corruption. They very rarely show good people.
They basically want to shove as much of tragedies, dramas, crimes, etc. to viewers throat as it's possible. It's basically feeding a person with lies.
The reports are non proportional (which also applies to gamers) - they don't represent reality, but some horrible concentration of disasters.
The truth is that I shouldn't care about things from outside a local community unless it's about politics - in old times no one would know that there was a school shooting a few hundred kilometres away.
I think that such pollution of news with misery of people from far away only serves to spread misery, to make everyone miserable.

30 students died in a burning bus and media show it down every ones throat and there's a "national mourning". How about a national mourning everyday when twice as more people die on the roads anyway?
Or a national mourning because x people die daily from deadly diseases?

IMO such things should be left in local societies and shouldn't be pushed on other people, unless their charity is needed.

ORIGINAL: Jim D Burns

Now what prompts people to take these kind of mass killing actions probably has more to do with fame and notoriety than with video game or film violence. If the news refused to cover these killings and the people who committed the acts were left to rot in jail alone and unknown, there would be far fewer acts like these than we see.

But western culture celebrates these acts with intense 24/7 news coverage followed by documentaries and made for TV movies, all of which glorify the acts and those who commit them to some degree and motivate others to want to achieve similar stature and notoriety.

I agree here. TV News have ability to turn no-one into Someone. Which is why school shooting won't go anywhere.
But I think it's more something like some sort of catastrophism than a celebration of violence - information media are drawn to what is scary and horrible - they are drawn to catastrophes - tsunamis, school shootings, car accidents, plane accidents, etc.
Similarly, they are drawn to corruption, etc.
I think that people from media are more like some people who try to change the world by uncovering it's worst aspects.
The problem is that instead of changing the world they are scaremongering and sowing defeatism.
It's so horrible! Let's get scared together!

In that way they create a society of scared, passive people. After all, there's a catastrophe waiting behind every corner.


As for relationship between games and violence. Basing on my experience, I have an opposite theory, but equally non-positive.

When I was on journalism studies, there was a section about computers in a media manual.
It was probably the only sane evaluation of dangers connected with computer gaming that I've ever seen.

The verdict was: gamer kiddies are more capable to express their anger and other negative feelings in non destructive ways than other kiddies, but are more passive, less interested in school work and often addicted.

Which kinda fits my observation of players in RL. They are usually less prone to violence, but I don't think it's a good thing.

For example, being a player could affect a school shooter in a different way than "desensitisation to violence". I think it's more like desensitisation to violent impulses.
For example, let's assume that our nerd is being bullied - he isn't really wired up for fighting, but for mashing buttons. So, he remains passive.
His anger isn't released in an impulsive way (for example doesn't jump on his bully and beat him up in berserk rage), but wells up. So, our non violent-passive gamer is filled with hate. For years. It turns into a personality disorder. Additionally, let's say that he plays a lot, seeking compensation for not using violence in real life.
Later, after some time, he suffers from lack of achievement in school and at certain point something happens and it starts to see like he has no future.
He hates humans and maybe demonizes some of them or has a superiority complex or whatever - now no "desensitisation to violence" is needed.
That's how human mind works - in certain situation killing is easy - for example: during WWII - when US soldiers were asked if they want to kill a Japanese - they said yes. When they were asked the same question about Germans, most of them said no.

So, in case of our future killer it's not like he is desensitised or something - to him, people in school are Japanese - they are untermenschen - degraded as a form of compensation to make his inferiority complex less painful.

And now he has icons to turn to - the famous school killers. He knows that he will be famous too...
He will be someone...

By the way - similar system of dehumanisation is used by the news media against Gamers - Gamer is always the guy who kills people. They almost never show normal gamers.

The problem is that violence in media doesn't create crowds of violent maniacs. If would be true, people like Jack Thompson would end up beaten up or even dead.
(Hey, when was the last time you've seen an enraged crowd of gamers screaming for blood?)
No, it's the opposite.
It takes away the vitality from the people - it takes away the killer instinct.

Now you can rape a woman in the middle of the street and people will be passive/confused what to do. And it has nothing to do "desensitisation to violence" and everything to do with fear and lack of killer instinct (or beat em up instinct).
A violent person would probably be most likely to come to help in such situation.

What is needed is bringing back some healthy aggressiveness and readiness to violence into people, especially decent people.

ORIGINAL: Jim D Burns

Can we go back by passing laws that outlaw violence in games and film? Possibly if everything is treated the same across the board and the laws are enforced long enough for society to slowly change back. But the film and news industry has a powerful lobby and the game industry does not, so only the games will be outlawed.

That's why it's time to create such a lobby.
I would say that gamers are infamous for their lack of ability to fight to keep their rights and lack of will to repel any aggression.
No action. Action is bad. Whining is good. Pages and pages of whining in comments under various articles. But never action. Which is why they will always lose against those who have will to power.
Some people succeeded in driving Adult Only games from Walmarts (and thus killing the market for them) just by using very basic tools that they had and without any risk for their personal safety. They only had to stop buying at Walmarts.
That's the real power that allows a group of small men to topple giant that seemed to be invincible.
Gamers need to learn to use such tools for their cause.

ORIGINAL: Jim D Burns

So more than likely this experiment will fail when they see no discernable decrease in violent acts once they outlaw the games. Eventually the law will be rescinded and then they'll have precedent to point to that it doesn't work and they'll no longer attempt to turn back the clock like this again.

Or they would blame piracy (which I've heard is very high because it's the only way one can play the same game version as people in real world) and start treating computer games likes like child porn.

BTW. how do you relate what you say to wargames? After all they are the most violent kind of video games, and are practically dedicated only to senseless bloodshed - they have no plot, no story, no message - only thinking how to kill the enemy better than he kills you.

Close Combat series are the second most violent of all the games that I've played (and I've played games like Postal+, Manhunt, GTA1/2, Carmageddon and Mortal Combat - practically all the "villain" games). Defcon 5 is the first.


Anyway, the worst thing about games is that they are a substitute - they can create a false sense of power, a false sense of achievement - artificial victories that are worth nothing in struggle with our brutal, unforgiving world.
Someone can be a great warlord in an online browser game, but in reality will not be confront his enemies, even if it doesn't put him in any real danger. And that's just sad.


As for the German plans...
Here's a newer information:
http://www.gamezine.co.uk/news/formats/ ... 301757.htm

Good gawd......are there actually 4 paragraphs in that link? Is that really worth getting all worked up about? If it's that short, it's going to be extremely low on fact and detail...ergo it's safe to assume that you cannot assume anything from it.

Wait till the details are worked out and then get all hot and bothered about it.

As a direct answer, though, I say fine to banning gratuitous violence. What's with all the gratuitous violence anyway? How, exactly, does it enhance your gaming experience and, to be honest, if it does (and I'm thinking along the lines specifically as shown in Greybriars post above), then perhaps there issues in oneself which need to be monitored!

The devil is always in the details.

You need to review the legislation once it is drawn up to see exactly what it is that will be banned.

There may be a slippery slope though. Today they ban only certain video games and then before you know it, the extent to what is banned can escalate.

Fifteen to twenty years ago they started to limit/ban smoking in certain establishments in various cities & states in the US (restauraunts, public government buildings, etc.). Today, there are some communities that have banned (or considered banning) smoking in places such as all office buildings, public sports stadiums (even outdoor stadiums), parks, bars/nightclubs, and even in people's apartments.

Banning some video games today, may eventually lead to banning games that were never even considered.

Germans may one day find themselves limited to video games such as these:

Wonder Pets Save the Puppy

and

Dora Saves the Snow Princess

Am I over-reaching here? Perhaps, but one never knows where this sort of thing leads. I doubt that people 20 yrs ago ever imagined Big Brother would be telling them that they cannot smoke in a bar or in their own apartments.

They should ban pimple faced teen aged geeks. No food or water unless they spend at least four hours a day outside.

Banning video games will solve nothing. They need to also ban movies, tv shows, radio, books, newspapers, magazines, comics, the internet and imagination. That should cover it. Then we'll have no more crime and live is a Utopia.[8|]

After all they did start 2 World Wars.

As I recall, Germany did not start the first war, but got dragged down into it due to an alliance pact.  And this is the very same thing that dragged down many other nations into the same great war.

The second war was a cause & effect due to the outcome of the first.

If we don't pay attention to history, I see this whole thing blowing up again due to a tiny middle-east conflict.

ORIGINAL: chijohnaok

The devil is always in the details.

You need to review the legislation once it is drawn up to see exactly what it is that will be banned.

There may be a slippery slope though. Today they ban only certain video games and then before you know it, the extent to what is banned can escalate.

This is the real problem with such controls. Once a legal precedent is set, the extremists (control freaks)start to salivate.

I believe that life follows art-especially in this mass media age. Therefore, it would seem rational to have some controls. However, the risks of violating principals of freedom are very great. So, what to do? There is no easy answer, but I think shooting lawyers caught in lies would be a good start. Maybe we could find some young gamers willing to do that[;)]

I copied the following post from one of the provided links. This info does not surprise me at all. Some, if not all of the child shooting cases involve this crap in the US.
#

"the fella who shot up the school in germany was on antidepressants they make u go pyscho dont blame games"

mr t (mars) Posted: 15/06/2009 16:01:34

This is a far larger problem than violence in shows or games. It seems to me that pharmaceutical CEO's and the politicians that take their payola are among the western worlds greatest threats-not game developers.

I should state that I never allowed my children to have games such as GT Auto. I thought they could find something a little more wholesome to kill some time with. I recall being very surprised to see my in-laws letting their 6 year olds play GT Auto and like games. That was many years ago, and all of them grew up w/o having killed anyone-go figure. I guess they were lucky they were not put on Ritalin.

ORIGINAL: hadberz

Banning video games will solve nothing. They need to also ban movies, tv shows, radio, books, newspapers, magazines, comics, the internet and imagination. That should cover it. Then we'll have no more crime and live is a Utopia.[8|]

Guns-you forgot guns-gotta get rid of those two. Only then will we be safe to sit and hum (in monotone) around the Sterno can roasting our soy cakes.
Ahh-Utopia-I can't wait.[;)]

ORIGINAL: Jim D Burns

You can claim violent games have nothing to do with school shootings, but the fact remains, that since about 1988 violence at schools in the form of mass shootings is a relatively new sort of crime hardly ever seen before. There isn't really a lot you can attribute this to other than movies, television and games becoming more and more violent over the years.

http://www2.indystar.com/library/factfi ... tings.html

I personally doubt if violent video games are the only thing responsible, rather it is more likely that western culture has become more desensitized to violent action over the past 30 years or so due to many factors. In the 50s people would have been horrified by mass shootings at schools, today people get titillated by them to some degree.

More and more violence in film and in games are a big part of the reason, but on a whole this increase in violence as entertainment is/has been accepted by most western societies. Violence in the news is an almost daily event today and the dumbing down of our cultures with reality shows that highlight danger and thrill situations are probably more responsible for our desensitization than games are in my opinion.

Now what prompts people to take these kind of mass killing actions probably has more to do with fame and notoriety than with video game or film violence. If the news refused to cover these killings and the people who committed the acts were left to rot in jail alone and unknown, there would be far fewer acts like these than we see.

But western culture celebrates these acts with intense 24/7 news coverage followed by documentaries and made for TV movies, all of which glorify the acts and those who commit them to some degree and motivate others to want to achieve similar stature and notoriety.

Can we go back by passing laws that outlaw violence in games and film? Possibly if everything is treated the same across the board and the laws are enforced long enough for society to slowly change back. But the film and news industry has a powerful lobby and the game industry does not, so only the games will be outlawed.

So more than likely this experiment will fail when they see no discernable decrease in violent acts once they outlaw the games. Eventually the law will be rescinded and then they'll have precedent to point to that it doesn't work and they'll no longer attempt to turn back the clock like this again.

Jim

i respectfully disagree. i think we in western culture are less used to kill/death than people 50 years ago were. i mean most of america was from rural areas back then and they grew up having to kill things or at least being around it. most kids now only see killing/death as a concept they have no actualy first hand experiance in it. so there for when they think about killing stuff it doesn't carry the same weight. they have no experiance with it. i also think one of the reasons violence is so popular in media is because it has become so taboo in western culture. you can get in a fight without the cops getting called out and everyone going to jail these days.

ORIGINAL: Joe 98

ORIGINAL: V22 Osprey

heh...Germany is only doing this to show to the world that they are not violent nazis and trying to conquer and kill people anymore.After all they did start 2 World Wars.

They didn't start WW1

in what history book are you reading? austria attacked serbia in a regional conflict. germany decided to go after france and with 0 provocation. plus they gave the austrians aproval for going to war with the serbians.

ORIGINAL: bobogoboom

ORIGINAL: Jim D Burns

You can claim violent games have nothing to do with school shootings, but the fact remains, that since about 1988 violence at schools in the form of mass shootings is a relatively new sort of crime hardly ever seen before. There isn't really a lot you can attribute this to other than movies, television and games becoming more and more violent over the years.

http://www2.indystar.com/library/factfi ... tings.html

I personally doubt if violent video games are the only thing responsible, rather it is more likely that western culture has become more desensitized to violent action over the past 30 years or so due to many factors. In the 50s people would have been horrified by mass shootings at schools, today people get titillated by them to some degree.

More and more violence in film and in games are a big part of the reason, but on a whole this increase in violence as entertainment is/has been accepted by most western societies. Violence in the news is an almost daily event today and the dumbing down of our cultures with reality shows that highlight danger and thrill situations are probably more responsible for our desensitization than games are in my opinion.

Now what prompts people to take these kind of mass killing actions probably has more to do with fame and notoriety than with video game or film violence. If the news refused to cover these killings and the people who committed the acts were left to rot in jail alone and unknown, there would be far fewer acts like these than we see.

But western culture celebrates these acts with intense 24/7 news coverage followed by documentaries and made for TV movies, all of which glorify the acts and those who commit them to some degree and motivate others to want to achieve similar stature and notoriety.

Can we go back by passing laws that outlaw violence in games and film? Possibly if everything is treated the same across the board and the laws are enforced long enough for society to slowly change back. But the film and news industry has a powerful lobby and the game industry does not, so only the games will be outlawed.

So more than likely this experiment will fail when they see no discernable decrease in violent acts once they outlaw the games. Eventually the law will be rescinded and then they'll have precedent to point to that it doesn't work and they'll no longer attempt to turn back the clock like this again.

Jim

i respectfully disagree. i think we in western culture are less used to kill/death than people 50 years ago were. i mean most of america was from rural areas back then and they grew up having to kill things or at least being around it. most kids now only see killing/death as a concept they have no actualy first hand experiance in it. so there for when they think about killing stuff it doesn't carry the same weight. they have no experiance with it. i also think one of the reasons violence is so popular in media is because it has become so taboo in western culture. you can get in a fight without the cops getting called out and everyone going to jail these days.

I think that that (the boldened part in your quote) is what a lot of the "desensitization" hypothesis proponents focus on. 50 years ago, many people had regular direct experience with death, either through rural living and butchery of animals, or through higher mortality rates and lower rates of hospitalization, and more limited professional medical care. That is the argument the author of that book "On Combat" made. I think one version of the argumen is that it is the combination of (a) lack of exposure to real death in the rich modern societies; and (b) exposure to trivialized imagery and tropes of death and violence in mass media that combine to form the "desensitization effect." Now whether this is true I do not know. But if people today are more 'desensitized' about violence, and consequently some segment of the population is more prone to flip out and go postal, then I would feel confident in my intution that it is NOT solely video games that are the mediator of that increased desensitization. As Jim points out, excessive and trivialized violent content has become the norm, not just in games, but in all kinds of mass media.

The point about there being psychotic violence in the past long before modern mass medai (e.g., the first school shooting being in 1891 or whenever it was) is apt I think. If the level of this kind of violence today actually constitutes a reduction compared to the past, then any basis for arguing that contemporary mediators of it need to be banned is completely invalidated. To say nothing of the question as to whether the games are actually the primary mediator or not. Not my area of expertise but from what little I know, the scientists who focus on this have not reached the kind of consensus that you would expect to be necessary for other sorts of liberty-infringing legislation. If they are gonna reach the conclusion that something needs to be banned because it is a menace to society, you'd think they'd want to be CERTAIN that it was a real source of problems and not just a confounded variable, or the tip of a much bigger iceberg as Jim suggests.

Yes I agree, the vidi of the head getting ripped off is obscene, unnecessary, and the company that made it deserves to go out of business. Parents that either buy that crap or let their kids buy that crap have got some kinda screw loose IMO. But banning it? That is almost never a good precedent.

How about the following idea:

Violent video games (a category I would take to include only stuff like Doom or Counterstrike, not for example most wargames, not even say Panzer Command or Close Combat) are not the cause of school shootings, or other forms of teen violence. Instead, playing violent video games is a possible symptom of the same thing that can lead to school shootingsn and other forms of teen violence - an intense level of frustration with life and/or the people around oneself, and a predisposition towards violent behavior.

I have never heard of a school shooter for whom playing violent video games was the only thing that was wrong with him. They are almost always loners, they are almost always picked upon by their fellow students, they almost always receive little warmth and compassion from their parents.

I´ve been there myself; school from 5th to 10th grade was hell, and NOBODY seriously tried to help me - all I got was "well it can´t be that bad" or "if you ignore them, they´ll stop" and crap like that. I am absolutely certain that, if I had had access to firearms during that period, both I and a considerable number of my fellow students would not be alive now. And I didn´t even play violent video games, so people would have had to find something else to blame - though I doubt anybody would have had the audacity to suggest that this disgusting bully scum had brought their fates upon themselves.

ORIGINAL: Greybriar

I think the scene below is one example of what prompted the German ministers to take action:

[center][EDITED because it's too disgusting to look at][/center]

What a disgusting game. Maybe violence in computer games doesn't necessarily cause violence in people but I would say that game crosses the line of good taste at the very least.

EDIT: I can't stand looking at that video so I deleted it from my post.

ORIGINAL: Perturabo
Not really, the first school shooting was in 1891.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/School_sho ... l_shooting

Forum tip:

I'm not saying this isn't accurate, but you should always attempt to confirm anything you read on wiki with an alternate source. And never use wiki in a forum discussion without first stating that you were unable to find an additional source. Wiki is notoriously inaccurate and has seen episodes where a poster edited wiki himself in an attempt to fabricate *evidence* that backed his arguments in a forum debate.

My original point was however that the rash of school shootings we see year after year today is a relatively new phenomenon. There have been some in the past, usually with many years between events, but the frequency and numbers of occurrences we see today are what's new.

ORIGINAL: Perturabo
Also, weren't people in 50s just after two biggest massmurderfests in the history?

You misunderstood my point. When I say people have become desensitized to violence, what I mean is they no longer care enough about the violent acts to do anything about it themselves. In the 50s there would have been popular outcries for reforms and changes to be made in an attempt to stop any future events from occurring. Many times people over-reacted to things, but they at least cared enough to want to try and make a change.

Today people really could care less, you seldom see any real popular attempts to right perceived problems in our societies. And when an attempt is made like what is apparently happening in Germany, it's usually instigated by a minority group and is a half hearted and half assed attempt
because of all the resistance by the majority, so it results in nothing being done really.

ORIGINAL: Perturabo
IMO such things should be left in local societies and shouldn't be pushed on other people, unless their charity is needed.

But society has demonstrated an almost insatiable demand to be titillated by it. If society rejected violence in the news and on other forms of media by tuning out, we wouldn't see it. But people tune in by the millions to watch it, so every year it gets worse and worse.

ORIGINAL: Perturabo
What is needed is bringing back some healthy aggressiveness and readiness to violence into people, especially decent people.

So you're advocating violence as a means to an end. Hmm I wonder why this would seem like a positive solution to someone. It couldn't be because you play violent games and win those games through the use of violent actions? No of course not.

Violence is never a solution. I'm not saying it isn't called for in certain situations, but as a solution to societies problems? I think not.

ORIGINAL: Perturabo
That's why it's time to create such a lobby.

You said it yourself. Gamers are a passive lot, they're too busy detaching themselves from reality by playing the next cool game. By the time they get worked up enough to care, the issue will be long over.

The only people who could ever create an effective game lobby will be the producers and publishers of those games. And until they are threatened enough themselves, it isn't cost effective for them to spend the needed money to create such an expensive enterprise as an effective gaming lobby.

ORIGINAL: Perturabo
BTW. how do you relate what you say to wargames? After all they are the most violent kind of video games, and are practically dedicated only to senseless bloodshed - they have no plot, no story, no message - only thinking how to kill the enemy better than he kills you.

For the most part, wargames are an intellectual activity and graphics have very little to do with them. Their content and the appropriateness of that content will always be a more scholarly debate and of little concern to politicians or the public at large.

There is a reason graphics sell in the video game market. The vast majority of people are only interested in what they see on screen, not what is represented by the game in question. That's why this anti-game stuff is relatively new. Back in the late 80's and early 90's you never heard a peep, because graphics in games were very basic back then.

Once someone could see the blood spatter on screen, then people started to care about game content. They'll never make an argument about whether or not representing war in a game is or is not appropriate. But let them see a grenade explode on screen and tear someone apart in a bloody mess and they'll scream to high heaven.

It's a sad commentary on the average intelligence of mankind. But the fact remains, sex and violence sell, but only if you get to see it.

Jim

There has certainly been an uptick in violence in our society. School shootings and all sorts of things you seldom heard about until the past few decades. I wonder what is going on and why? What is making some people so horribly inhuman as to go to a holocaust museum for example and kill innocent people? What is wrong with those people? What went wrong in their upbringing? [X(]

I suspect that there is something of the 'nanny-state' mindset here as well.  With society mired in lawsuits where everything has to have individual or circumstance at fault for anything that happens, these sorts of draconian laws are sadly inevitable.
 
Few are willing to take responsibility for their actions, lawyers and some prominant educators prefer to focus on third-party motivators to explain anti-social behaviours rather than making the individual actually take ownership of what they say or do, be it violence or speech.
 
Far easier to ban an entire family of games than sanction a mal-adjusted individual who will always hide behind any percived social or economic injustice, assisted by lawyers or social workers with a cause who wishes to prove that the violent perpetrator is really an innocent victim after all.
 
Best Regards

ORIGINAL: Randomizer

I suspect that there is something of the 'nanny-state' mindset here as well.  With society mired in lawsuits where everything has to have individual or circumstance at fault for anything that happens, these sorts of draconian laws are sadly inevitable.

Few are willing to take responsibility for their actions, lawyers and some prominant educators prefer to focus on third-party motivators to explain anti-social behaviours rather than making the individual actually take ownership of what they say or do, be it violence or speech.

Far easier to ban an entire family of games than sanction a mal-adjusted individual who will always hide behind any percived social or economic injustice, assisted by lawyers or social workers with a cause who wishes to prove that the violent perpetrator is really an innocent victim after all.

Best Regards

I have no problem with games like the one above being banned. But I think you are probably right about the tendency to blame third parties for the actions of the truly depraved. People should be duly punished for their crimes. "The devil made me do it" is no excuse. Courts need to stop worrying about what "ultimately" caused the crime and pay more attention to admonishing the guilty.