Regulating violent games, movies and on TV??
BY: riltri on 2013-01-14 6:17 PM

I am glad to see that there is discussion regarding the regulation of violent video games and movies.  If we can restrict porn, why would it be a stretch to regulate violence that our kids are exposed to?  I was raised to view sex as a very natural, pleasant experience between consenting adults.  Not sure the same can be said about violence.

What is your view??? 

RE: Regulating violent games, movies and on TV??
BY: cgregg on 2013-01-14 6:26 PM

Mixed feelings.

 

On one hand, I understand the thinking.

On the other hand, I recall people saying that Heavy Metal music was causing their kids to commit suicide, and I'm one generation removed from kids listening to the music of the Devil - that "Rock-n-Roll" with that Elvis man that shakes his hips in public.

 

I think it's a white-wash. Ignoring the real problem.... some humans just aren't right in the head.   Coincidentally, pretty much every shooter of the last decade has been on some form of prescribed medication... yet, that isn't getting looked at?

-----
"Be excellent to each other."



-Chris

RE: Regulating violent games, movies and on TV??
BY: Kido on 2013-01-14 6:27 PM

There are already regulations/rules/ratings and I'm opposed to censorship.

-----
- Je Ne Regrette Rien
- Pain is inevitable, suffering is optional.
- Challenges are what make life interesting;
overcoming them is what makes life meaningful.
- Maybe strong is just what you have left when you've used up all your weak.

RE: Regulating violent games, movies and on TV??
BY: Kido on 2013-01-14 6:30 PM

Games have ratings and can't be sold to minors.  Same with movies.  TV has ratings as well and/or parental warnings.

If parents are not involved enough to know what their kids are watching, buying, or playing, who's fault is it REALLY?

-----
- Je Ne Regrette Rien
- Pain is inevitable, suffering is optional.
- Challenges are what make life interesting;
overcoming them is what makes life meaningful.
- Maybe strong is just what you have left when you've used up all your weak.

RE: Regulating violent games, movies and on TV??
BY: kmac1346 on 2013-01-14 6:48 PM

I think we should add another verb to what action is considered.  I agree with the statement above that I get nervous at the thought of government restricting speech.  That doesn't mean, however, that we, as a society can't have a discussion, and perhaps reach a consensus that advertisers would be foolish not to listen to, about what we find appropriate or not.  We don't need to continue to sit by silently and let entertainment glorify violence as an acceptable means to an end, one that we enjoy watching.  Cop shows, mob movies, etc, I don't watch them, and I occasionally let the producers or stations know that I think something went too far.  If more did that, especially turning it off, advertisers would listen and that is not censorship. 

RE: Regulating violent games, movies and on TV??
BY: ChineseDemocracy on 2013-01-14 6:49 PM

Kido, love the part I underlined and bolded.  How many parents out there have no clue what their kids are doing?  

I've said it before and I'll say it again, until the law holds parents responsible (at least partially responsible) for the actions of their children, there is no solution to the problem.  It's much easier for parents to blame society, tv, the internet, etc. for their childrens' actions.  If the parent was actually held responsible, and if the parent actually saw other parents being held responsible for the actions of their children, perhaps we'd have a viable deterrent?

If all parents took their role as "parent" seriously...and actually made it the #1 priority in their life, we'd live in a much better and safer society in my opinion. 

The regulation is already out there.  How much more do we need?

 

-----
"...There's no one else could ever make me feel I'm so alive,
I hoped she'd never leave me, Please God you must believe me,
I've searched the universe, and found myself within her eyes..."
-This I Love -Axl Rose

RE: Regulating violent games, movies and on TV??
BY: crusevegas on 2013-01-14 6:53 PM

There is no substitute for good parenting and you can't legislate that.

We have laws that cost millions to keep home pools safe yet we have how many thousands of kids who die from drowning?

We have laws that tell us how we have to secure our children and ourselves in our vehicles, yet almost every accident is due to negligence or worse.

-----
I'm not happy till you're not happy
Losing Friends and Alienating Strangers One Post at a Time

RE: Regulating violent games, movies and on TV??
BY: crusevegas on 2013-01-14 6:56 PM

Is it possible we agree this much on a subject?,,,,, hmmmmm?

I would just add that the kids, as well as the parents should be held accountable.

-----
I'm not happy till you're not happy
Losing Friends and Alienating Strangers One Post at a Time

RE: Regulating violent games, movies and on TV??
BY: crusevegas on 2013-01-14 6:58 PM

I believe the reason is that Big Pharma contributes so much money to the political system and spends so much on advertising. They are literally poising our children yet nobody cares.

-----
I'm not happy till you're not happy
Losing Friends and Alienating Strangers One Post at a Time

RE: Regulating violent games, movies and on TV??
BY: ChineseDemocracy on 2013-01-14 7:00 PM

^Yo Cruse!  Absolutely!  Our agreeing on a subject...is this alerting us to the coming apocalypse?  

-----
"...There's no one else could ever make me feel I'm so alive,
I hoped she'd never leave me, Please God you must believe me,
I've searched the universe, and found myself within her eyes..."
-This I Love -Axl Rose

RE: Regulating violent games, movies and on TV??
BY: crusevegas on 2013-01-14 7:45 PM

It was 21 degrees here in the desert this morning, apparently he!! is freezing over.

-----
I'm not happy till you're not happy
Losing Friends and Alienating Strangers One Post at a Time

RE: Regulating violent games, movies and on TV??
BY: GomesBolt on 2013-01-14 7:51 PM

There it is. $185MM from Jan 2005-June 2006 from Pharma Lobby. $20MM in NRA lobbying.

No wonder the first response to any incident is to point at anything other than the drugs...
-----
------------------
-Matt

RE: Regulating violent games, movies and on TV??
BY: TriathletePT on 2013-01-15 7:23 AM

When I went to see Django, there was a 6-7 year old girl in there with her parents and grandparents. I've been at the ticket window before and a parent buys tickets to an R rated movie for a couple of 12 year olds and then lets them go watch it while the parent leaves. When I saw The Hangover, there were also young kids in the audience. I'm embarrassed for the parent when I see things like that.

To me, thats the problem. There are ratings for a reason, but if no one follows them, whats the point.

RE: Regulating violent games, movies and on TV??
BY: rayd on 2013-01-15 8:19 AM

pretty much in agreement here.  But here is my problem/concern; too many parents just don't have a clue, or don't care what their kids are doing.  It's always been this way, but there are just so many more influences on kids than what there was 20-30 + years ago.  We have an 11 and 13 year old and violent video games are not allowed.  This has been really difficult to remain consistant with because son has a lot of friends that have Call of Duty, and other games that we do not agree with.  Some of these kids I know the parents play the games with the kids.  Video games are a big time waster as far as I am concerned.  It would not bother me in the least if the really violent ones were taken off the shelves.  I do believe that the games are so realistic anymore that a person can become desensitized to the violence...especially a young person.  It would not bother me at all if they pulled the really violent ones off the shelf.

RE: Regulating violent games, movies and on TV??
BY: Jtiger on 2013-01-15 8:31 AM

 

x2 on this.  Seems to be and overreaction to the events that have happened.  Groups that have been pushing this censorship have their rally cry.

RE: Regulating violent games, movies and on TV??
BY: Jtiger on 2013-01-15 8:37 AM

 

Most likely won't happen.

 

These games sell in HUGE numbers so the game companies will provide the product that people want.

 

http://www.forbes.com/sites/erikkain/2012/12/07/call-of-duty-black-ops-2-sales-dont-point-to-franchises-decline/

 

I personally can't understand why soft drinks are sold but I know they aren't going anywhere any time soon.

 

I just make sure I know what my kids are doing.  They don't have anything on TV or their devices that I don't know about. 

 

(They aren't teenagers yet so they are still pretty honest)

RE: Regulating violent games, movies and on TV??
BY: mehaner on 2013-01-15 8:39 AM

there is an enormous spectrum between needing meds and shooting up an elementary school.  let's not paint with such a broad brush, please?  mental illness is plenty stigmatized and people that need help already feel completely embarassed to reach out for it.

-----
There are a bunch of cool BT'ers doing the race, that alone is worth at least $80.00. ~dalessit

God hates non-tippers. It's in the Bible. ~Iowaman

RE: Regulating violent games, movies and on TV??
BY: maxmattmick on 2013-01-15 8:41 AM

The ratings are there as guides... for parents and guardians to use in deciding whether or not they should allow their children to see a specific movie, television show or video game

they're not a "set in stone" rule....

I'm one of those parents you mentioned above (although 6-7 years old is too young for an R rated movie)

I've got three boys (15,13 and 11)

they see R-rated movies (I decide which ones they see and don't see), if they want to see a specific television show that is blocked by parental controls, I need to punch in the password after I decide it's ok for them to see and they play violent video games (the same ones I play)

they're well adjusted, have no sociability issues, don't get into trouble and alot of the movies, tv shows and video games lead to productive discussions

that being said, my father took me and my brothers to see Raging Bull, Apocalypse Now, Stripes, and many other great movies when we were the same age a s my sons are now so i think that has something to do with my parental attitude towards these things

as somebody said above 99% of these criminals have serious mental problems to begin with...

-----
from the movie "Parenthood"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w1h_hmdVJAc

RE: Regulating violent games, movies and on TV??
BY: crusevegas on 2013-01-15 9:00 AM

While I agree with the main point of what you said it would be irresponsible NOT to look at BIG PHARMA and the poision drugs they push on society and our children.

Here is a look at some of the mass murders and the prescription drugs they were on.

http://www.wnd.com/2013/01/the-giant-gaping-hole-in-sandy-hook-reporting/

• Columbine mass-killer Eric Harris was taking Luvox – like Prozac, Paxil,  Zoloft, Effexor and many others, a modern and widely prescribed type of  antidepressant drug called selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors, or SSRIs.  Harris and fellow student Dylan Klebold went on a hellish school shooting  rampage in 1999 during which they killed 12 students and a teacher and wounded  24 others before turning their guns on themselves.Luvox manufacturer Solvay  Pharmaceuticals concedes that during short-term controlled clinical trials, 4  percent of children and youth taking Luvox – that’s 1 in 25 – developed mania, a dangerous and violence-prone mental derangement characterized  by extreme excitement and delusion.

 

• Patrick Purdy went on a schoolyard shooting rampage in Stockton, Calif., in  1989, which became the catalyst for the original legislative frenzy to ban “semiautomatic assault weapons” in California and the nation. The 25-year-old  Purdy, who murdered five children and wounded 30, had been on Amitriptyline, an  antidepressant, as well as the antipsychotic drug Thorazine.

 

• Kip Kinkel, 15, murdered his parents in 1998 and the next day went to his  school, Thurston High in Springfield, Ore., and opened fire on his classmates,  killing two and wounding 22 others. He had been prescribed both Prozac and  Ritalin.

 

• In 1988, 31-year-old Laurie Dann went on a shooting rampage in a  second-grade classroom in Winnetka, Ill., killing one child and wounding six.  She had been taking the antidepressant Anafranil as well as Lithium, long used  to treat mania.

 

• In Paducah, Ky., in late 1997, 14-year-old Michael Carneal, son of a  prominent attorney, traveled to Heath High School and started shooting students  in a prayer meeting taking place in the school’s lobby, killing three and  leaving another paralyzed. Carneal reportedly was on Ritalin.

 

• In 2005, 16-year-old Native American Jeff Weise, living on Minnesota’s Red  Lake Indian Reservation, shot and killed nine people and wounded five others  before killing himself. Weise had been taking Prozac.

 

• In another famous case, 47-year-old Joseph T. Wesbecker, just a month after  he began taking Prozac in 1989, shot 20 workers at Standard Gravure Corp. in  Louisville, Ky., killing nine. Prozac-maker Eli Lilly later settled a lawsuit  brought by survivors.

 

• Kurt Danysh, 18, shot his own father to death in 1996, a little more than  two weeks after starting on Prozac. Danysh’s description of own his  mental-emotional state at the time of the murder is chilling: “I didn’t realize  I did it until after it was done,” Danysh said. “This might sound weird, but it  felt like I had no control of what I was doing, like I was left there just  holding a gun.”

 

• John Hinckley, age 25, took four Valium two hours before shooting and almost  killing President Ronald Reagan in 1981. In the assassination attempt, Hinckley  also wounded press secretary James Brady, Secret Service agent Timothy McCarthy  and policeman Thomas Delahanty.

 

• Andrea Yates, in one of the most heartrending crimes in modern history,  drowned all five of her children – aged 7 years down to 6 months – in a bathtub.  Insisting inner voices commanded her to kill her children, she had become  increasingly psychotic over the course of several years. At her 2006 murder  re-trial (after a 2002 guilty verdict was overturned on appeal), Yates’ longtime  friend Debbie Holmes testified: “She asked me if I thought Satan could read her  mind and if I believed in demon possession.” And Dr. George Ringholz, after  evaluating Yates for two days, recounted an experience she had after the birth  of her first child: “What she described was feeling a presence … Satan … telling  her to take a knife and stab her son Noah,” Ringholz said, adding that Yates’ delusion at the time of the bathtub murders was not only that she had to kill  her children to save them, but that Satan had entered her and that she had to be executed in order to kill Satan.Yates had been taking the  antidepressant Effexor.

  In November 2005, more than four years after Yates drowned her children,  Effexor manufacturer Wyeth Pharmaceuticals quietly added “homicidal ideation” to  the drug’s list of “rare adverse events.” The Medical Accountability Network, a  private nonprofit focused on medical ethics issues, publicly criticized Wyeth,  saying Effexor’s “homicidal ideation” risk wasn’t well-publicized and that Wyeth  failed to send letters to doctors or issue warning labels announcing the  change.

  And what exactly does “rare” mean in the phrase “rare adverse events”? The  FDA defines it as occurring in less than one in 1,000 people. But since that  same year 19.2 million prescriptions for Effexor were filled in the U.S.,  statistically that means thousands of Americans might experience “homicidal  ideation” – murderous thoughts – as a result of taking just this one brand of  antidepressant drug.

  Effexor is Wyeth’s best-selling drug, by the way, which in one recent year  brought in over $3 billion in sales, accounting for almost a fifth of the  company’s annual revenues.

• One more case is instructive, that of 12-year-old Christopher Pittman, who  struggled in court to explain why he murdered his grandparents, who had provided  the only love and stability he’d ever known in his turbulent life. “When I was  lying in my bed that night,” he testified, “I couldn’t sleep because my voice in  my head kept echoing through my mind telling me to kill them.” Christopher had  been angry with his grandfather, who had disciplined him earlier that day for  hurting another student during a fight on the school bus. So later that night,  he shot both of his grandparents in the head with a .410 shotgun as they slept  and then burned down their South Carolina home, where he had lived with them.”I  got up, got the gun, and I went upstairs and I pulled the trigger,” he recalled. “Through the whole thing, it was like watching your favorite TV show. You know  what is going to happen, but you can’t do anything to stop  it.”Pittman’s lawyers would later argue that the boy had been a victim of “involuntary intoxication,” since his doctors had him taking the antidepressants  Paxil and Zoloft just prior to the murders.

  Paxil’s known “adverse drug reactions” – according to the drug’s FDA-approved  label – include “mania,” “insomnia,” “anxiety,” “agitation,” “confusion,”  “amnesia,” “depression,” “paranoid reaction,” “psychosis,” “hostility,”  “delirium,” “hallucinations,” “abnormal thinking,” “depersonalization” and “lack  of emotion,” among others.

Read more at http://www.wnd.com/2013/01/the-giant-gaping-hole-in-sandy-hook-reporting/#wgAOQWYW9ml3HOHb.99

 

I think it is irresponsible but understandable that the authorities ignore this "considence".

Drugs are suppose to heal/save people and guns according to some have no other purpose other than to "kill". Yet the facts are that drug side affects kill 10 times more people than the object that has no other purpose than to kill?

Why are we not doing something about the poison these companies push onto our children?

-----
I'm not happy till you're not happy
Losing Friends and Alienating Strangers One Post at a Time