The Role Playing Public Radio Forums
General Category => Role Playing Public Radio Podcast => : metalwhisper December 18, 2012, 08:16:07 PM
-
Hey everyone, was curious about thoughts on violence in gaming given the recent school shooting in CT. Not to downplay the tragedy, which really is unspeakable( I can't imagine what the families involved are going through), but frequently games, as well as other forms entertainment media, are targeted after incidents like this by the news. This is nothing new, going back to the paranoia many people had regarding D&D in the 80s, and earlier with comics and rock'n'roll, etc. Anyone else here old enough to remember Mazes & Monsters? Of course, this sort of scrutiny has also been put on movies and now, video games, as well. But as a life long gamer who remembers the stigma of liking a non-mainstream pastime back in the day, I know the feeling that when something like this happens, you wonder what sort of backlash will occur.
I was wondering about what RPPR 's take on this topic might be. From what I gather, a few of the crew on the podcast such as Caleb and Cody are educators themselves, and Ross is an author( and yes, I did, in fact, buy his book), and they're all creative folks. I imagine they would have a lot of insight on this topic if they wanted to share their thoughts on it.
From my part, when I think about it, my interests in Fantasy, Sci-Fi, and Horror are intresets in genres that do obviously, have a lot of violence. And never once, in all my years as a gamer or a geek, have I ever thought of hurting another human being. It was always very clear to me what is make-believe, and what isn't. In fact, I would say games, and movies, comics, etc. helped form my moral compass today. It almost sounds silly, but I feel it is true. There's a lot of positive experiences games can create. Of course, those won't get covered by the news. That being said, criticism leveled at games and other media for contributing to violence may have some merit, and clearly many games would be inappropriate for minors. There have been studies supposedly linking games to increased aggression as well, etc. As gamers, what is our responsibility in addressing these issues? Or are these issues even our responsibility at all?
Sorry if this topic has already been addressed somewhere else on the forum, or if it belongs better in another category, or if people here are just tired of the discussion, but this is something I've been thinking a lot of lately.
Thoughts? Anyone? Anyone? Anyone?
-
I think a certain percentage of all humans are violent and will use violence under certain conditions. In that group, a subset of them will use violence inappropriately and a subset of those people will ultimately attempt to kill others and some of them will succeed. How that violence manifests and who is victimized by it varies based on a wide variety of factors including culture, the psychological and physiological makeup of the killer, geography, economics, and politics. In our particular culture, this sometimes eventually results in a tragedy like Newton.
This article makes several good points: http://www.rolereboot.org/culture-and-politics/details/2012-07-why-most-mass-murderers-are-privileged-white-men
"Rates of domestic violence, including homicide, are roughly the same across all ethnic groups. Statistically, murderers are more likely to kill family members and intimate partners than strangers. But while men from all backgrounds kill their spouses, affluent white men are disproportionately represented in the ranks of our most infamous mass murderers. In other words, the less privileged you are, the less likely you are to take your violence outside of your family and your community."
Media that glorifies or focuses on violence in some form has been a component of almost every culture and civilization in history. Blaming one particular type of media is about class warfare - the people attacking violent games/music/movies etc. view their own media and culture as inherently superior to others, even though their own favored media glorifies violence and exploitation as well, just in different ways. Maintaining distinctions between social classes is one of the major ways the elite stay on top - if you don't have the right signifiers of status and culture, you can be ignored.
All media and forms of entertainment have to be understood in their original context before they can be judged and even if a particular story or game is 100% bad news, it doesn't mean censoring it is the solution. After all, what you perceive as wrong doesn't mean you have a right to keep it away from everyone. Christians wanted to stop D&D because it had occult themes but why should they determine what non-Christians get to read?
Obviously parents have a right to control what their kids read and play but their rights stop at my first amendment rights. Censoring these games and stories won't solve the problem of mass murderers randomly killing innocent people. It's a complex problem, so a single step solution won't work. I think it would require better mental health services and somehow finding a way to keep these people from acquiring arsenals of weapons and ammo so easily.
I recently found this article: http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2012/12/14/mythbusting-israel-and-switzerland-are-not-gun-toting-utopias/
Interesting stuff.
-
I am actually training to be an educator right now (will have my credential at the end of the year), but I don't think I'll talk too much to that end. In my mind, from what I understand, schools aren't specifically targeted because they are schools, but rather because that's what was convenient. Which again isn't to downplay it, but it also speaks to the fact that I don't think trying to make schools "safer" is necessarily a solution. I know at the high school I teach at the district is working on some new regulations (like locking doors when class is in session) that don't seem to make too much sense in this regard.
Anyway, speaking to video games/gaming and links to violence, from my understanding, most of those studies are heavily misused. The ones I've looked at (and I read a number a few years back) merely made a connection between increased anxiety/aggression after playing a violent video game. The "problems" with these studies (as far as saying violent video games increase aggression) were:
1. Most of the control groups were people not playing video games (i.e. there was no control for a non-violent video game, or even "less violent") game.
2. The increased aggression in several was in perception of intentions (i.e. they thought other people's actions were more malicious), not necessarily in how the tested individual acted.
3. The effect was not lasting (i.e. after a bit away they "calmed down") and it is difficult to link it to long term behavior modification.
4. The effects were not really any different than individuals in otherwise stressful situations (i.e. someone who was under pressure from a deadline would act the same way).
Again this was a few years ago, but basically the impression I got was: Violent video games are tense and stressful (which is often why we like to play them, it gets us on the "edge of our seat"), and they are designed to be so. When people are stressed, they perceive threats more readily (fight or flight instinct). Therefore after playing violent video games, you have a heightened sense of "fight or flight" reactions and can act more aggressively. But there isn't any real link to this manifesting itself in behaviors outside the norm (i.e. you aren't going to go do something you wouldn't normally).
So that's basically the view that I've developed on violence in games as far as "causing" violence in real lives. Of course this is just my opinion. Also, it neglects potential effects of desensitizing people to violence, which could potentially lower their inhibitions to do something damaging, but again, that doesn't "encourage" them, it's more removing a psychological pressure that would hinder someone who might be inclined to it otherwise...
-
metalwhisper,
i grok where you're coming from. i'm an old-time gamer from the days when RPGs were 'wargaming with acting' and GMs were adversarial, there to murder the players...
gaming is spiritual for me -- it has brought a lot of meaning and purpose and fun to my life and it has extended far back before RPGs...human life is full of play. i remember the worlds i used to explore before books and dice...
one aspect of RPGs that is still strange to me is why do so much of the mainstream RPG market seem to be aboot murder and violation of civil laws?
i am also married to a wonderful American (Oregonian, actually -- i grok that Oregon is its own country) and have come to understand a bit more of things American. As a Canadian, our identity is, unfortunately, tied up intimately in 'we're not American'. so its been fun being able to explore bits of America...
on to the recent killing, like another online friend of mine has riffed on, i think it is important to let this event break us, crack our hearts, let the pain and feelings flow...let it remind us of what is included in being human and, perhaps, to urge us to be better people, especially to each other and to stop being so afraid of getting to know your neighbour ("but they might be crackheads, or want to steal my stuff...")...
and perhaps to think on things like perhaps Americans are spoiled with their 2nd Amendment? Yay, you get to have a gun...why should you even be allowed to have one? What aboot your society? Your fellow human being?
Note I am writing that mostly to urge people to think...
and this could jar people to do more research into things like mental illness, violence, how the media works, the history of America, the history of guns, biology, violence in other cultures, Marxism, reading "The Lucifer Principle" by Howard Bloom, etc etc
oh, and i'm not officially a member of the RPPR crew -- just a fan and interested bystander :3
-
Hey all, thanks for your responses. It is an interesting topic on a distressing problem.
Clockworkjoe: I realize, as you point out, that it's also a very complex problem having many facets including mental health, gun laws, and with no simple solution. The links provided fascinating reading. I do feel that censorship is definitely not the answer. Also, if I'm understanding it correctly, the view that the "blame media" thing is actually a form of class warfare is an interesting point, which I haven't really considered before, but it does make sense. For example, proponents for less gun control(usually conservative) point out that's it's not the guns but the entertainment media causing the violence. Proponents for more gun control(usually liberal) point out that it is the guns, and also the entertainment media. I guess both can be seen as saying, we value a gun culture, or a progressive culture, or a whatever culture etc. but your "video game" culture is inherently wrong and should be banned, and you are somehow wrong for liking it.
Nice to know that even though liberals and conservatives can't agree on anything else whatsoever, at least they agree that video games are bad.
Incidentally, sometimes it seems to me people who defend guns and blame video games also seem to be the people who can't get enough of war movies. None of them are saying that WWII movies might be a problem though. Don't get me wrong, I'm not necessarily for or against gun ownership, and I'm all for well done WWII movie. Just an observation that seems to be an example demonstrating how one group says its media is ok, while other media isn't, even though both are equally violent. I wonder if it's more of an American thing. Fan of violent sports? Great! Fan of horror movies? There's something wrong with you.
Mckma: Yeah, research studies can be readily misinterpreted, especially when brought up in the context of tragic events such as a mass shooting. And I also agree with many of your points. However, the news does cites these sorts of studies frequently. Several I watched recently have all but stated that violent video games and movies have directly caused the shooting. Not very good journalism, probably. Actually, I'm starting to wonder lately if there is such a thing as good journalism?
Quickrelease: No worries that you're not a member of RPPR, I'm really interested what all my fellow gamers think about this subject:) You bring up a good point: why RPGs are usually focused on murder, violating the law, etc? Could there be an interesting RPG game, or at least scenario, that could be run without including anything violent? And this can also be asked about gaming as a whole. Looking at my Steam game library, I don't think I have a single game that doesn't have one violent aspect or another. Is it because it's thrilling, more interesting? Probably part of the reason. I don't really know. That's a complex topic as well. What I do know is that most (though certainly not all) of the gamers I have known are the friendliest, most considerate people. Actually I think that goes for most fans of sci-fi, fantasy, horror, etc. The way the news media tells it though, we're all ticking time bombs. And to put it simply, I think that is untrue and unfair.
Anyway, sorry if I started rambling. Just my thoughts.
-
Most World War 2 movies tend to promote a certain type of nationalistic patriotism and the virtues of the ideal citizen-soldier. Killing is a grim necessity when it is done by righteous American soldiers against enemies that threaten our freedom but it cannot be shirked. Their sacrifice, faith (in Christianity or Judaism usually), humility, bravery, and ingenuity of the common soldier should be praised and soldiers that lack these qualities should be pitted or punished, depending on the nature of their failure. The world is ultimately just. While the good suffer, they eventually win. Everything is part of a greater plan. People get what they deserve.
Violent video games are not told in a standard linear storytelling format, like a movie or book, so they are automatically suspect. Few of these games follow the same ethos as the World War 2 movies I told above. Killing becomes an abstraction, part of the theater of absurd. Life is not just. It is nasty, brutish, and short. Video games typically support values that are considered subversive/corrupt/trashy by defenders of middle and upper class values.
-
Good points. And I think it also shows how some media is labelled "good" or "bad" by certain groups based on their values. Yet, if you take away the context of a war movie for the sake of this example, as far as acts of violence committed, their number, their gruesome nature, and so on, those movies have just a much violence and gore as movies or games without the same perceived value systems. Leads me to think that it is not necessarily the violence that is being disapproved of, for all the anti-violence and morality talk, but more the reason it is being committed. Violence is good if it is being perpetrated for the right people, for the right reasons, against the right people. Yet, I can't help but wonder that a mass shooter might also thinking that he is committing his act for the right, justified reasons as well. Scary and distrubing thought.
-
For example, proponents for less gun control(usually conservative) point out that's it's not the guns but the entertainment media causing the violence. Proponents for more gun control(usually liberal) point out that it is the guns, and also the entertainment media. I guess both can be seen as saying, we value a gun culture, or a progressive culture, or a whatever culture etc. but your "video game" culture is inherently wrong and should be banned, and you are somehow wrong for liking it.
The thing is that the relationship between media and culture is complex and no one wants to say that America has a culture that glorifies and enshrines violence with the hope that people will understand that only certain violent actions are awesome and others are not. Many people do not get that or create their own contexts to place themselves on the awesome side. If we were looking for causes we'd have to go under the media and to the culture that eats it up. See the words people use about the Culture Wars, elections, football games...
Clint Eastwood was invited to speak at the Republican Convention. He's famous for being an actor playing people who stripped of context kills people to get what they want - which makes them heroes. That was just the low hanging fruit of examples, it's everywhere in language and media, but only because it comes from a culture that enjoys that.
As for video games/rpgs in the 80s, nothing is going to come from this. RPGs were an easy target in the 80s because no one had looked too deep at the Satanic Panic and varying levels of hucksters were having a field day. Video games were a target before they became an industry that rivals Hollywood for billions in profit. Plenty of talk can come about video games but at some point, Microsoft will keep making profit, Sony might spend some money too.
Labeling media is one thing but it's just the easy way to blame something and go back to doing what people were going to do anyway.
-
A data point about mass murderers in the US: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bath_School_disaster - a 1927 mass killing, perpetrated by someone who did not play violent video games and probably did not watch very violent movies, if he watched them at all. Also the top single mass murderer in US history.
-
Interesting that a tragedy of such magnitude occurred back in 1927. Way before the "corrupting shadow industry" of video games and entertainment warned of by the NRA's executive vice president, Wayne LaPierre, in a press conference today.
I can't say I know much about the NRA, but after hearing some clips of that conference, I'm inclined to think that it's full of batshit crazy people. No offense to any responsible gun owners out there. But still: Batshit. Crazy.
-
another way to look at "old WW 2 movies" is that they are aboot trust: trust in the world, trust in the government, trust in people, trust in the imagination of the viewers. to follow this idea, there came a time when movies became cruel...like have you ever watched the Omen and that bit when David Werner's head gets lopped off? Why do they need to show that? They don't, but they did and that says something.
metalwhisper,
you might also want to check out Stephen Pinker's book "The Better Angels of Our Nature" on how worldwide violence has been going down historically and an attempt to find a causal narrative why the USA seems to be a violence outlier...
-
Thanks for the book recommendation. Looks interesting. I'll add it to my reading list. Whether violence in the world today is actually increasing, or if it is only perceived to be more prevalent due to things like modern communication technology, is something I've wondered about. The whole "things were always better before" thing always came across as BS to me. Things were actually probably a lot fucking worse.
I mean, sure, I'd like to play an RPG set in medieval Europe, but would I have actually liked to live in medieval Europe? Like really? Hell no.
Well, then again, maybe it was better. After all there weren't any video games back then, so I guess there couldn't have been any violence.
-
As to Wayne LaPierre and his words, he's had a rough year getting almost nothing for all the money the NRA's PAC put into the election and looking stupid while doing it. And worst of all, when the thing he was hoping for, the possibility of some form of gun control talk, he wasn't ready. It's why most of what he said was outright stupid. He's looking for Shadow Councils ruling the world because he remembers the heyday of the Birchers and that "media" can be a good dogwhistle.
What we're seeing with his confrence (besides why the NRA normally won't respond to a mass shooting) is a relic, he came in in 1991 and managed to say enough to make George HW Bush leave NRA. That he is still someone who gets air time speaks to his personal power but not his relevance to the world. He's using failed talking points from the 90s and earlier here and for some reason it was not network policy to play circus music when he was on.
-
As to Wayne LaPierre and his words, he's had a rough year getting almost nothing for all the money the NRA's PAC put into the election and looking stupid while doing it. And worst of all, when the thing he was hoping for, the possibility of some form of gun control talk, he wasn't ready.
What? The NRA doesn't want anyone talking about gun control. That's the whole point of the organization.
-
If no one talks about gun control the NRA becomes less important to gun owners and looks more crazy from the outside. They need a balance of people talking but not doing things to keep people interested in them.
If LaPierre wants to keep his personal power/influince he needs to be fighting something, it was starting to look bad for him in that Obama did more or less nothing on any gun issue during his first term. That's where the crazy came from, the NRA PAC spent a lot of money screaming about how it was a clever ruse to lull Americans before the jackbooted thugs came for their guns and that sounded stupid to many. If this does result in something happening, he won't look as bad. If Obama's second term passes with no attempt at gun control, the NRA PAC will lose a lot of cred.
Also the NRA is pretty vast, their political wing needs this to keep fear up but the rest is just chugging along as normal.
-
Found this article interesting:
http://globalpublicsquare.blogs.cnn.com/2013/01/12/dont-blame-the-video-games/?hpt=hp_t2
Was kind of surprised to find an article on a news website that's actually not blaming games for everything.
-
I was listening to an episode of Fresh Air this week, and it seems that sales of certain types of guns have gone down over the years. One of the attributing factors for this is video games.
http://www.npr.org/2012/12/20/167694808/assault-style-weapons-in-the-civilian-market
It seems young people are more interested in games than shooting.
-
Compairing gun violence to China, Singapore and Japan is kind of lazy. I mean in the 1800s, the US had no problem with Samurai abusing their status either.
Plus there are attacks in China:
http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/story/2012/12/14/china-knife-attack-school.html
Different causes and such though. I do remember when the pre-school I was teaching at got a new security guard. He was pretty cool, a good smoking buddy and I'd see him hanging around the classrooms while I was teaching because he wanted to pick up some English.
-
OK, I'll seriously respond to this post when I have a free moment. I don't have one right now though, so you'll get the shortened, snarkier response right now.
Before video games it was violent TV. Before violent TV it was violent movies. Before violent movies it was dime novels. Before dime novels it was the theater (hell, it's always been the theater, those damn actors!). Before the theater it was literature that was not the Bible. Before it was literature that was not the Bible it was whatever religion wasn't sponsored by the state/king/emperor.
Are you sensing a pattern here?
Basically, what is deemed low culture is always blamed for the evils that befall a society even though that low culture is usually a better barometer of what actually goes on in "high culture" of the period. Dime novels of the 1850s, for instance, also the period I primarily study, covered banking crises brought on by fraud, insurance manipulations, foreclosures, murder, prostitution, and - my personal favorite - fortunetellers. Did any of the "high culture" productions touch on these subjects? Rarely. Were these things a direct result of the moneyed classes? Oh absolutely.
Any time something gets singled out like video games, it's good to stop and think what video games do and why people want to criticize them. Violent video games are a perfect barometer for a society that has been at a state of war since 1914 and really before that. Since the end of the Cold War, the end of which was supposed to signal the end of state warfare, the US has fought two wars in the Middle East and participated in a number of other armed conflicts. These wars have benefited largely the moneyed classes - oil producers and weapons manufactures especially.
If people want to criticize video games, it is because people are making money off of holding a mirror in front of the American people. I'm not a religious person, but at times like these, I find 1 Corinthians 13: 12 instructive: "For now we see through a glass, darkly; but then face to face: now I know in part; but then shall I know even as also I am known."
-
Those are some good points. Pretty much any attempt to control or modify culture isn't about bettering society as a whole - it's about benefiting a specific part, usually the status quo/upper classes what have you.
The war against piracy isn't about protecting artists, it's about solidifying the stranglehold large corporations have over artists - for example http://boingboing.net/2013/01/14/how-internet-copyright-laws-le.html
-
Yes, I have to agree. Good points.
Also, Journ-O-LST-3: yes, the article was kind of lazy in that sense. The damn lies and statistics thing. They can be made to say whatever you want them to. Just posted it because in my experience its kind of rare, needle-in-a-haystack rare, to find any kind of article on a main stream news site saying that it's actually not the games fault, for whatever reason. As for the validity of the article's arguement based on the figures referred to, I have absolutely no idea. Personally I believe it is not the games' fault. But then, I'm a gamer, so I'm biased.
Clockworkjoe, I do agree that the "war on piracy" is probably benefiting large corporations, business, and so on over the individual artist. That being said, does piracy benefit those said artists? I can't say I agree with that completely. I mean, artists should be paid for their work and effort, right? Or at least compensated somehow.
For example, I have a pretty large number of rpg PDFs at this point. If I really wanted to, I probably could have downloaded them for free somewhere. People who can and do regularly would probably say that I'm a sucker. Maybe. But I feel strongly enough about it that I'd rather pay the artists and authors for their creative work, somehow.
Guess I'm getting off topic from my original post. But whatever. This is an interesting subject as well.
-
It's not lazy for the statistics, it's lazy because compairing attacks to japan, Singapore and China which are not gun places. The article I linked about the school attack in China isn't special, there have been a few over the last few years here. The roots and causes are largely directly class/anger related and mental illness may have played a part too.
If you want to look at things that make a better compairison, check out Switzerland where gun ownership is a thing and they have access to the same entertainment and first world stuff. Isarel is also a place where people have guns so you might want to look at that for a more accurate compairison, assuming you can ignore the other factors.
To keep up my theme from earlier, it's culture at the root. Which isn't really useful because "culture" is such a big thing that it means everything from video games to church services to PolySci 102 classes and the lingering effects of the Civil War.
Also to go back to my "NRA speaking stupid" the whole thing about a mental illness database is directly harmful in that it would encourage people to further hide/deny/avoid treatment for said illness. More or less, until society treats say depression as no different than a broken leg and removes the stigma associated we won't find much improvment.
To defend The Media here, the average reporter likely has four to six hours to scrawl together an article about violence and video games/culture/gun control. Then they have to write another article because half the office was fired to increase profits by doubling the workload of the survivors. You'd be much better off looking to special editions and magazines where the writers have longer to research and time to cross check what people say.
Someone to look at here might be Jackson Katz, http://www.jacksonkatz.com/ who is active as anti-sexist and anti-violence type stuff.
-
Most people pirate because it's convenient and offers a better product than the market - DRM free media you can use however you want. If you offer a better product then a lot of people will buy it rather than waste time and effort to pirate it. Look at Steam - they get selling PC games right - I can't remember the last PC game I've pirated because Steam offers such a better service that even though I could pirate a lot of games - I don't. There will always be some piracy and trying to stamp out a bunch of contrarian hackers that thrive on defying 'the man' is a waste of resources.
Artists are hurt more by gatekeeper corporations that deny access to the marketplace to most and then exploit the few they choose to be stars.
As for gun control in Switzerland and Israel - read this http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2012/12/14/mythbusting-israel-and-switzerland-are-not-gun-toting-utopias/
-
Sort of. What I'm talking about is if you're compairing instances of mass violence, availability of guns and a first world nation (which leaves out Serbia) when you look at almost every other country you find low gun ownership such as in Japan, China, Singapore and so on.
I'm playing this right back into my point about culture and glorification and blah blah blah.
From the article:
EK: Israel and Switzerland are both small, highly cohesive countries. So some say that the difference in gun crime shows that there’s something about American culture that’s leading to these atrocities. Do you buy that?
JR: Israel is not a peaceful society. If there were a lot of guns, it may be even more violent. Israeli schools are well known for having a lot of the kicking and punching type of violence. I don’t know that Switzerland has that reputation. But Israel does, and it seems that the lack of guns promotes the lack of firearm violence rather than there being some nascent tendency toward peacefulness and cohesion. That cohesion may or may not exist, but not having guns prevents guns from being used in violence. People do still commit homicide and suicide but they do it with less lethal means. The most common form of suicide in Israel is strangulation, which is striking, because it’s not that common elsewhere.
Here's a point from the article, it's interesting in that it does answer the question but it does not as well. She stops short of saying it's an American cultural thing but only dodges into saying there is indeed an element of violence in Israeli culture while she didn't say anything about Switzerland.
-
Relevant:
http://www.giantbomb.com/news/obama-instructs-cdc-to-research-links-between-violent-media-and-real-life-violence/4521/
The article sways it a little bit, as this portion is one of many steps regarding gun violence and attempting to end it. The whole document can be viewed here (http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/docs/wh_now_is_the_time_full.pdf).
-
My only qualification to jump on this topic is to be Swiss. I am not a psychologist or a fireman expert, but I do follow news in what is happening in my country.
First, regarding firearm.
The military service is compulsory for every male citizen and you have to do your "class" for about five months around the age of 20. Once done, you are responsible for your gun that you take home, with a sealed can of bullets (20, enough for one charger).
The rifle is a military weapon, capable of short burst or full auto (I gave this details because I read in newspaper that there is currently heated debated about banning automatic gun).
You will be entrusted with the weapon until you reach 35. During this time, every year you go for a 3-4 weeks military training, and you have to attend on a separate occasion a test shooting (about an hour). At each military training, you have to show your sealed can of bullet to prove that you did not use it.
So unless you have been found unfit for millitary duty, or you requested to do civil service instead of military service, you will have a rifle at home, with a can of bullet ready to use (if you don't care of the consequence).
When I turned 35 (when you are removed from the army list), I was asked if I wanted to own my weapon (which I refused instantly), but it is possible to own it. Your rifle will be modified not to be able to shoot full auto or 3 bullet burst and you will have to attend every year the shooting practice.
I do not know now, if you can still keep your gun after you turn 35 or if all rifles are kept in arsenals.
About once or twice a year on average, there is problem involving shooting (with or without killing, with or without military weapon) (out of 7 mio people to put in comparison with US population of 300 mio ?).
Having lived about a year in the US recently (California) I can make some comparisons.
Switzerland does not have a gun culture. Not at all. Yes, there is alot of guns amongst the population, but owing a gun is a responsability not a right. That being said, every year, there is in Switzerland the biggest shooting competition in the world with around 130'000 participants during a week end. It is a one-of-a-kind celebration, as there is no other "big" competition and amongst all my friends and colleagues none is remotely interested in guns (and they cover a large spread of the community).
However I remember that in the US, there is regular advertisement on TV, you can get gun in Walmarts and so on (which was baffling for a guy like me :-) ). No judgement on my side, simply making a comparison between two countries where guns number are high, but where the takes on gun-ownership is very different.
Regarding the gun issue, there is currently also a heated discussion in Switzerland on gun control. Very recently, having national registry of gun has been rejected by the government, the responsibility will be left to the 26 cantons (equivalent of US states), which obviously makes it much less efficient. People (and government) are fully aware that a lot of weapons are in circulations, and it seems that a fair amount of ex-military rifles are sold/stolen/lost without their owner notifying the proper authority. Which is a concern, but everything takes a very long time to evolve in my little country (geological scale is more adequate to track change in Switzerland than human calendar ;) ).
-
This leads me to a random question about Video Games in Sweden. I have always been against Video Game Censorship of any kind. I mostly scoff at people who think that there is a connection between Violence and any kind of violent media.
I am just wondering if while you were here(I live in Sacramento California), you may have noticed a difference between what is available in Sweden vs. what you can find in The USA.
Edit: In the media that is. Video Games/Movies/TV ect.
-
Flawless P, are you talking to me, because if it is the case, I am Swiss from Switzerland, which is not the same than Sweden...
Both have small population, but that's about the only common point Swedes and Swiss have. And the two first letters of their country.
There is about 2'000 km (so roughly 1'200 miles) between our borders, so we are not exactly neighbours, we don't speak the same language, Switzerland does not have a coastline or oil fields, but we do have chocolate, watches and dubious bankers.
-
Is it true that the Swiss have a secret language?
-
Flawless P, are you talking to me, because if it is the case, I am Swiss from Switzerland, which is not the same than Sweden...
Both have small population, but that's about the only common point Swedes and Swiss have. And the two first letters of their country.
There is about 2'000 km (so roughly 1'200 miles) between our borders, so we are not exactly neighbours, we don't speak the same language, Switzerland does not have a coastline or oil fields, but we do have chocolate, watches and dubious bankers.
Geography fail on my part... I don't know why I made that mistake because I swear I knew that!
I'm sorry, clearly I am not as smart, as I think I am sometimes.
I feel so silly right now... I must've just gone straight for the first country starting with S I could think of.
Yes though the question was directed at you about your actual home country of Switzerland.
*Facepalm*
-
Is it true that the Swiss have a secret language?
No.
But we've got your IP address and your location. Please, don't leave your sit as we consider it an obligation to answer your question personnally and in great detail. Don't run, don't shout, we are your friends. And no Romansch (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Romansh_language) is not a secret language.
I am just wondering if while you were here(I live in Sacramento California), you may have noticed a difference between what is available in Sweden vs. what you can find in The USA.
Edit: In the media that is. Video Games/Movies/TV ect.
Regarding movies, the same are showing in Switzerland than in the US (as long as they are distributed outside of US), and I would say, there is probably less censorship regarding sex/nude scenes than in the US (cf Basic Instinct for those who remember). Violence in movies is not specifically censored.
Movies are rated PG & cie, I would say more or less on the same scale than in the US.
As a side note, Singapore (where I lived for 2.5 years) has a much tougher censorship - Planet Terror from Rodriguez for example was forbidden to import, so no shop got it (but I could get it through Amazon though).
Regarding games, there are regularly outcries in the newspaper regarding such and such video game being too violent/promotting crime & so on (like GTA), but I do not remember having a game being formally banned (at least big title). And unless it would be banned in every neighbouring country, it would not be very effective - considering the size of Switzerland, 3/4 of the population live within one hour drive from a border (with France, Germany, Italy, Austria or Lichtenstein - which I only mention for the sake of completeness ;)).
Do we have more violence ? Since a decade or so, violence is on the rise - fight, brawl, assault - and respect towards authority (police, train & bus controller) has drop a lot - when they check your ticket in train or bus, it is no more a single controller, but it is a group of 3 or 4 because there was too much abuse and violence towards them.
Is it linked to more weapon ? I do not think so, because you don't see more guns being involved.
Is it linked to movies/games ? who am I to say.
What is a fact is that a lot more foreigners are involved in violent crimes than Swiss citizen (we have about 20% foreigners in our country), so for me it looks like it is more linked to education, culture and integration in the society than weapon availability - but again, I am not a sociologist.
Hope it brought some light on my little country way of life.
-
Well thanks for the answer, I wasn't sure I'd get one after I butuchered that post... :)
I sometime wonder if the aggressive tendancies of most of the high school kids in the US is connected to being pressured to be competitive in sports also. I'm just musing here so I'm not looking to offend anyone but I feel like of the people most likely to get into altercations and start fights or arguements were people who were involved in organized sports.
Not saying that sports are to blame because that would make me just as bad as the scapegoaters who are blaming violent media, but I think if we are going to disect the violent tendancies of one group of hobbiests it might be worth it to take note of another group.
-
Yeah, I wondered about the mainstream acceptance of violent sports, as opposed to the way the same supposed mainstream demonizes video games, as well. I think a part of it might come down to what clockworkjoe mentioned earlier in the discussion regarding criticism of certain types of media being a form of class warfare. I guess in this case, it could be seen that sports, even or perhaps especially, violent sports such as football are viewed as reinforcing the value system of the social class, order, or whatever, that wields power, while other entertainment, such as video games, rpgs, comics, are seen as different, strange, and/or somehow undermining what's is considered socially normal. I mean, look at the jock vs. geek thing in high schools and even afterward. Old, tired, and cliched, sure. But also pretty well established and consistent. Jocks, athletes, cheerleaders, what have you are held in high esteem and regard. Nerds and geeks are looked down on or teased with perhaps some people feeling sorry for them, etc. Granted, that may be changing now with video games and the internet becoming more popular as a past time than ever before, but even so gaming will never be as unquestioned or unconditionally accepted in the US as much as football ever will. Just my take.
Kind of sucks.
-
Here's a thing: http://m.usatoday.com/article/news/1870569?articlePage=0
Well, it's more a PR move for "execs" looking to loot some of the love America has for the military with a weekend LARP.
But it's sold because of a lot of cultural myths in the US. Which come to a nice sharp militant point spreading messages about what is good and what is condoned and such.
-
That was a good article.
I just need to share this fact.
My brain went straight for the Prime Directive, as soon as I read the conditions of the test.
In the discussion of the events I would have had two options. Either kill them all to save the girl, or let it happen.
The Prime Directive dictates that no one need die.
Weird that I went straight for Star Trek to guide my moral compass.