Video games 'linked' to NIU shooting; ECA issues response
Perhaps unsurprisingly, the origin of the video game link can be traced to Jack Thompson, who was on Fox News the morning of the incident. The New York Post also quickly joined the chorus in blaming video games -- specifically Counter-Strike -- as a contributing factor to the shooting. Kudos to the ECA for being timely in their response, making a concerted effort to prepare against a chance backlash and sensationalism. Our friends at Game Politics have been covering the story extensively, check out what they have to say:
- What is a 'murder simulator,' exactly?
- NIU Shooting: Why are games even under discussion?
- Illinois legislator on NIU rampage: don't blame guns, blame games
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 2)
Luke @ Feb 18th 2008 5:37AM
Every week.
Chad Cornish @ Feb 18th 2008 2:38PM
Interesting that every shooting incident involves someone on antidepressants, yet not all of them play video games. Guess it is easier to go after the entertainment industry instead of the pharmaceutical companies. Maybe someone should actually report on fact instead of pulling links out of their asses.
michas_pi @ Feb 18th 2008 5:47AM
ZOMG GUN CONTROL!!!!!!111111!!!!1111oneoneoneoneoneeleventy-one
They tried "linking" vidya games to Virginia Tech and failed.
Can't the media understand that sometimes people just snap and go on a needless rampage?
LaughingTarget @ Feb 18th 2008 8:25AM
Kinda funny, but this event proves that gun control is a load of bullshit, doesn't work and generates nothing but extra expense. Illinois is the single strictest state in the nation when it comes to gun control. Handguns in many areas are outright illegal, concealed carry is illegal, basic hunting rifles need to be registered with the state. To top things off, NIU is a "gun free" zone. Yet this still managed to happen. The idea of Gun control is proven to be bogus if this kindg of thing happens in Illinois.
Psaakyrn @ Feb 18th 2008 9:00AM
Not really true. Even if it is illegal in that specific state, the fact that surrounding states are more lax in said controls makes it equally vulnerable. The chain's only as strong as the weakest link; you need tough controls on ALL states (and everywhere else convenient for that matter) in order for gun control to properly work.
Crono (NDF - Knight of the Old School) @ Feb 18th 2008 9:35AM
The gunman legally purchased the guns in the state of Illinois.
But this rampage would have been cut short if just one person in that classroom was also packing heat. Gun free zones are invitations to criminals, because they know that none of the law abiding citizens in those places will have a gun to stop them.
FidliousWong @ Feb 18th 2008 9:53AM
Gunman bought the guns from Champaign IL... my town. Where he was attending UofI... and was on the deans list. This could have easily happened down the road from me.
And yet I still think the solution was hospitalization...
NATO_Duke @ Feb 18th 2008 10:00AM
I live in Illinois and the gun laws here are strict. It doesn't matter what the other state's weak points are, as you cannot buy most weapons in another state anyway. Sister states, those with shared borders, can sell you a shotgun - but not much else. You cannot go over the state line and buy an Uzi or a pistol. Also, in Illinois you have to have a FOID card issued by the state to touch ammo, go to a range, have a gun in your name, etc.
You simply cannot be in touch with a gun or ammo without being re-registered with the state every four years.
Besides this, in the Chicago area the gun stores (outside of town – as there are none in Chicago) have been shut down largely by the anti-gun lobby. Chicago doesn't allow any pistols to come into the city limits, and you have to register anything else that is allowed. More or less, Chicago's strict actions to ban gun ownership cause a lot of the rest of the state to suffer as well.
vidGuy @ Feb 18th 2008 11:16AM
"But this rampage would have been cut short if just one person in that classroom was also packing heat."
Sorry, Crono, but I hate that argument. Yeah, if he stormed in and Joe in the corner pulled out a .22 and put one in his head the "rampage" would have been over. But chances are that Joe would have killed somebody over a parking space or something weeks earlier had he had a gun in his pocket. You can't solve a problem by escalating it. There's a reason 'crimes of passion' are second degree murder instead of first, and it's not because they really cared. It's because the weapon used is so close that the offender didn't have time to think but just reacted.
You give everyone a gun and suddenly we have grannys killing the men who steal their purses and neighbors shooting each other over dogs in their yards.
Crono (NDF - Knight of the Old School) @ Feb 18th 2008 11:24AM
VidGuy, you're rebuttal is the weakest. Go live in texas, where just about every 3rd guy has and carries a gun. Crimes of passion may go up yes, but the deterrent caused by criminals knowing that every victim could be armed will cut down on all forms of crime quicker than a nanny state with a stabbing problem.
Gun ownership is a right and a responsibility. If you're responsible enough to own and carry a firearm "gun free zones" help criminals avoid your intervention.
Assuming just because someone owns and carries a pistol means he'll go killing people over stupid crap is perhaps the dumbest assumption I've ever witnessed you make, on any subject. Dispite what the government might tell you, people do have brains, and know how to weigh the consequences of their actions.
vidGuy @ Feb 18th 2008 11:42AM
Hmmm, you talk about deterrence as if it were a scientific fact. Criminals are generally not rational in our sense of the word and are rarely deterred by the outside risk that someone is carrying a weapon. Contrary to popular belief, most crimes are not planned and few crimes involve a calculation of risks. Most criminals see a small opportunity and take it, or don't feel like they have a choice.
I'm not assuming that everyone who carried a weapon would become an offender. I am suggesting that you would see more shooting crimes. How much would it take to send one depressed kid over the edge if he already had a gun in his pocket?
In the real world, people are emotional and not often rational. A person may be worthy of shouldering the responsibility of a firemen, but people in general are not. Maybe this is just my opinion from being in the criminal justice field and working with violent criminals, but I think that if you get lax on gun regulation and allow every private citizen to carry one, you make a potential criminal out of us all.
Crono (NDF - Knight of the Old School) @ Feb 18th 2008 11:58AM
We're all potential criminals anyway, but that doesn't mean you treat the general populace as such. I've never been arrested for anything, and the worst run in with the law I've ever had was speeding tickets. But if I own a gun suddenly I'm a potential criminal? Therefor, I should be barred or heavily restricted from gun ownership? Just because we have the power to kill, doesn't mean we'll all be tempted to do it, even in the heat of passion. The right to bear arms is rooted in our countries origins, and is designed not only for defense of self and community, but for defense of the republic, from both outside threats and internal ones. Exercising the right to keep and bear arms ensures that the government keeps working for us, and not exploit us for its own purposes.
And while most crimes are spur of the moment (like stealing the old ladies handbag), I think you'd find that spur much less attractive if you knew she might shoot you dead for it.
Petty criminals are cowardly. They pick pockets and steal purses because there is little chance of repercussions. If you made your living swiping bags from grannies, don't you think you'd be less inclined if doing so brought on the risk of death or serious injury?
And back to the case at hand. Dude went to a school, where he knew no one could stop him, and killed people until he came to his senses and realized the horror he just committed, and then killed himself. If the teacher were armed, or had a firearm in the classroom, the number of casualties could have been much reduced. It wouldn't guarantee less casualties, but it would have allowed for the possibility.
vidGuy @ Feb 18th 2008 12:01PM
Well I'm going to cut this short and agree to disagree, but thanks for the insight into your viewpoint. I'm always amazed at the intelligence that is displayed here, on a videogame blog ;)
Crono (NDF - Knight of the Old School) @ Feb 18th 2008 12:08PM
Thanks VidGuy.
hvnlysoldr @ Feb 18th 2008 12:17PM
Don't taze me Bro!
jorojoserojas @ Feb 18th 2008 2:09PM
I read VidGuy and Crono's debate all the way through. It was so enlightening, hearing both sides of the spectrum. Heck, they made better arguments than most politicians make when it comes to the matter...
And they both lost to hvnlysoldr, who won not only the debate, but the internet as well.
LaughingTarget @ Feb 18th 2008 3:40PM
I ran gun ownership rates and gun law severity levels through a regression analysis against firearms violence. Do you know what the end result was? From this data:
http://img513.imageshack.us/img513/226/homicideratebystatedv2.jpg
I came up with this formula:
Homicide Rate = 61.8873%-0.0355%*Gun Ownership Rates
What this means is when the number of guns in circulation increases, the homicide rate declines ever so slightly. Washington DC, where virtually no one has a gun, has the highest homicide rate in the nation while Wyoming, with the highest firearm ownership rate in the nation, has considerably lower homicide rates.
However, for those who understand statistics, the T and P values both show there is zero correlation between gun ownership rates and firearm violence. The same is shown true with gun legislation. The presence or absence of firearm restrictions have zero impact on crime rates.
Basically, despite all the whining, the best the pro gun control crowd can hope for is a neutral effect of all the cost and legislation involved with gun control.
Gun control doesn't work, violent crime occurs at roughly the same rate regardless of the number of firearms or laws present. As such, it is a matter of practicality to remove the restrictions since they do nothing more than create bureaucratic expense, such as the BATFE, and difficulties for law abiding citizens, like the $200 tax on automatic weapons (which didn't have an effect on crime as no one used automatics to begin with, despite what Hollywood likes to show) to obtain something they have a right to own in the first place.
Nigeria @ Feb 18th 2008 5:52AM
And to think groups like the NY Post will make money from these scandalous accusations. Making money of a horrid event and an unnecessary loss of life.
People are so disappointing sometimes.
Chris M @ Feb 18th 2008 6:09AM
Does Jack Thompson have his own room at Fox so he can spend his whole day waiting there on standby for any shootings to happen?, just so he can be the first on tv with his fucked up arguments and scare all the mindless drones who watch Fox
Tiptup300 @ Feb 18th 2008 3:05PM
He prerecords all his interviews, just leaving pauses for the names of people and locations. "Counterstrike" is constant however.
finnith @ Feb 18th 2008 4:05PM
Don't forget GTA! He sure doesn't.
Ashley Allen @ Feb 18th 2008 6:10AM
To make a point similar to that made in 'Bowling for Columbine' here in the UK we play that exact same games and don't have school shootings, same goes for pretty much the rest of the world, the recent shooting in Germany being the only one I can recall.
Chris M @ Feb 18th 2008 6:38AM
That's true we don't have school shootings but we do have stabbings and surely shootings aren't far off BUT in no way are they related to games they are related to gangs and stupidity, i just hope our media see it that way as well when it happens.
Nigeria @ Feb 18th 2008 7:07AM
"but we do have stabbings and surely shootings aren't far off BUT in no way are they related to games they are related to gangs and stupidity, i just hope our media see it that way as well when it happens."
Why so negative?
I like the absoluteness of your words. You clearly know things.
Psaakyrn @ Feb 18th 2008 7:33AM
Or I'll point over to Singapore where we've mostly similar games, but no shootings whatsoever, nor stabbings, and etc.
Granted, the whole societal athmosphere may play more of a part.
FidliousWong @ Feb 18th 2008 9:57AM
Before you guys go tooting your own horn here, keep in mind your government, specifically you PM, is currently trying to blame games for the stab related violence. And, oh yeah, teenage reckless driving? Totally Gran Turismo's fault...
Besides, don't believe the hype. Even with the rise of crystal method and these little incidents, gun violence is still on a steady decline.
James @ Feb 18th 2008 10:53AM
Maybe we just have less people on medication that mess with the brain?
I'd love to know why America has more nutters. Maybe it would help if they put greater restrictions on guns oh wait no it goes against their constitution.
A shame we can't behead people anymore. It's normally quite a good idea to drop old ideologies so you don't end up with prehistoric states. Like a certain middle east.
vidGuy @ Feb 18th 2008 11:24AM
"I'd love to know why America has more nutters."
Easy: there's more of us. Larger population = more 'nutters', which is easily the most offensive term I've seen here.
"oh wait no it goes against their constitution"
Depends. There hasn't been any real interpretation of the Second Amendment that would suggest that states cannot restrict and regulate gun sales. And considering that the amendment is usually interpreted as referring to a militia, it's safe to say that private citizens' gun ownership can be constitutionally regulated.
Crono (NDF - Knight of the Old School) @ Feb 18th 2008 11:26AM
The best thing about the right to bear arms is that it isn't needed until the government tries to suspend it.
WhatIsThatThing @ Feb 18th 2008 11:53AM
The real problem with the second amendment is that no one can understand what the fuck it means. There's the interpretation where guns are only allowed in a militia and the other one where guns are just allowed. Just look at it:
"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."
Does that make any sense?
Crono (NDF - Knight of the Old School) @ Feb 18th 2008 12:16PM
Maybe not to you, but it makes plenty sense to alot of people.
Personally, I believe the 2nd amendment gives two rights: The first being that the states have the right to form a militia independent of the federal government. Second because of the need of the militia from the common populace, the rights of that populace to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. Technically, the federal government has already removed the right of militia, because the National Guard has been federalized, and they take orders from the same people that the Army takes orders from.
So if the government starts looking out for itself more than the people, and/or the republic is overthrown internally (See Star Wars for an example of this happening), who will protect you rights, and how?
An armed populace is a safeguard against tyranny.
WhatIsThatThing @ Feb 19th 2008 11:52AM
But that's one interpretation. You could also see it as "a well-regulated militia...shall not be infringed" with the middle part being unnecessary, or "the right of the people to bear arms shall not be infringed" with the first part being unnecessary. The point is that your interpretation is just one of many.
Robotochan @ Feb 18th 2008 6:32AM
Jack Thompson Is A D*ck
Seraphim @ Feb 18th 2008 7:24AM
in a box.
Ryoga Vee @ Feb 18th 2008 9:25AM
on a stick
Travis @ Feb 18th 2008 7:27AM
i play video games!
ohs noes
The dude @ Feb 18th 2008 7:30AM
a very, very small box.
Psaakyrn @ Feb 18th 2008 7:37AM
On a more legal basis, can JT be sued for defamation of the gaming industry if games are indeed found to have negligible/zero associations with this incident?
generic @ Feb 18th 2008 8:59AM
Possibly, but it could open a whole can of worms that industry reps don't want to. With "experts" on both ends of the spectrum swearing by the so-called scientific proof they have, the weight of the case would pretty much lie in the judge or judges they pull for it.
It would more than likely be a precedent-setting case as well, so if the industry lost in their offensive against Thompson, it would legally justify his argument that gaming is a dangerous form of entertainment. That would open the way for legal restrictions on video games and their development.
I wouldn't doubt that this is part of the reason he's been so vocal about violent games; just trying to wake a sleeping giant. Of course, it doesn't help that he's an exploitative, money-grubbing worm.
Psaakyrn @ Feb 18th 2008 9:03AM
Except that considering that if games are not involved at all, games are no longer a factor in said case. It just becomes a simple case of libel/harassment between two parties.
The key factor is to first prove that games played no part in said case of course, but since JT jumped the gun in this case, there's a non-negligible chance that games actually plays no part at all.
Chase @ Feb 18th 2008 7:50AM
Jack Thompson is just making up for loss ground when he could have tried to link Pokemon to the Michael Vick dog fighting scandal.
eoghancampion @ Feb 18th 2008 7:57AM
Chris Rock: WHATEVER HAPPENED TO "CRAZY"?
eldee @ Feb 18th 2008 8:21AM
people still play counter strike?
MD @ Feb 18th 2008 9:48AM
Dude was playing it about three years ago. Apparently, like Manchurian Candidate and Zoolander (when else can I connect these two films in the same sentence?), it was a bit of a time delay effect.
ThornedVenom @ Feb 18th 2008 8:39AM
Reminds me that the other day in class, some bitch was pointing videogames as the biggest contributing factor of violence normalization.
Funny, because the teacher was pointing towards mediatization and war in response.
DOCR @ Feb 18th 2008 8:42AM
So the usual "Guns don't kill people. People kill people. Oh and video games make people kill people" crap then.
I remember a case in the UK where a schizophrenic man ran into a crowded church wielding a samurai sword. He managed to attack the vicar before the congregation wrestled him to the ground and disarmed him. 1 casualty, no fatalities. Had it been a gun the man was carrying, the situation would have been different.
Guns might not kill people, but they make it a hell of a lot easier for people to kill people.
ThornedVenom @ Feb 18th 2008 8:49AM
To quote a friend of mine:
Wars should be fought with fist fights.
James @ Feb 18th 2008 10:49AM
Guns don't kill people
Wappers do.
Denizenx85 @ Feb 18th 2008 8:44AM
The only thing to blame is human nature. The shooter probably felt outcast in some way and fliped out. He could have just been crazy I guess. Another example of why everyone should just try to give each other some basic respect.
PhoenixSS @ Feb 18th 2008 8:50AM
As per usual, we all need to find someone or something else to blame.
I'm sure the dude being on psycho-meds and then cutting them off had NOTHING to do with this. I'm sure the fact that he had mental problems was not the problem. Clearly, video games did this. Clearly.
What's wrong with you people. Why can't you see this it's so obvious!1!!5
(my eyes are rolling out of my f*cking head right now)