We have had another incident. Many will have seen at least a little about it. The young murderer climbs into a school armed with two pistols and a rifle. He starts shooting and kills 20 children, six adults and himself. I've been loosely following the media coverage and lo and behold: a familiar pattern emerged. Some atrocity occurs, the populace demands answers - why and how mostly - political activism ensues. I've written about this before and there were follow-ups #1 and #2. It's been a while since then but things haven't changed much.
This time two major issues have become the focus.
The first is practically an old friend of mine: violent video games. In Germany dubbed the ominous "killer games" (no English definition - use google translate). Now even high profile American politicians start using similar terms and pointing fingers. A comprehensive discussion on slashdot is what prompted me to post again. The perpetrator in the Newtown shooting - I will not call him "gunman" because someone like him doesn't qualify as a man - played games like Call of Duty and StarCraft. Do games like that make children more violent? Videos like these #1 or #2 surely make it seem so and scare parents. But are these reactions brought on by the content of the games (World of WarCraft in #1 and Unreal Tournament in #2, in case you missed it) or were the kids just not alright in the first place? Are the games rather the catalyst for some pent up frustration? Indeed there are similar videos completely unrelated to gaming. This man is not playing Call of Duty but apparently has a bad day at work - a stressful job or some other reason that's not obvious. Office workers have turned violent on their colleagues. I don't see the government ban stressful jobs. Now you may say: if you're unhappy with your job, talk to your boss. If the boss is not receptive to your issues the situation will deteriorate. The same goes for kids and their parents, only that kids often cannot express what's on their mind. I get the impression too many parents don't take an interest and just buy their offspring a TV, a console and whatever game they want just so they'll shut up and stay in their room. TV programs like Supernanny (UK) show that children misbehaving doesn't have to be related to video games. In fact, from the times I watched the show I remember crying and screaming and "freaking out" but I don't remember video games ever being involved. I also remember that the nanny didn't place much emphasis on what exactly the kids played but on the role of the parents in their children's everyday life. In Munich right now there is an ongoing campaign for parenting. The tag line says: "sometimes annoying - always important: to be parents". Do note that once again in the case of the Newtown shooting the perpetrator came from a dysfunctional family and also that his own mother was his first victim. Classmates describe him as a loner and "socially awkward". Not all introverts are potential killers but this may be another piece in the jigsaw. It also suggests to me that there is more behind this guy than a kid that just played video games too much.
I certainly agree that 10-year-olds should not be playing games like Doom or Bulletstorm. Still, I don't think that banning or censoring these titles will change anything. Parents have to get actively involved. There's so much material available online, so spend 10 minutes watching some gameplay trailers, checking out some reviews, then decide what's best for your child. With age ratings the government can provide a guideline for parents and a suggestion but they cannot be in everybody's home (and thank God for that!). It's up to parents to enforce the guideline. It's up to parents to teach their offspring right from wrong.
If you still think banning works take a look at binge drinking in the UK: laws governing the minimum drinking age are very strict - under-age youths are not allowed to buy alcohol. Still you read on the news about 14-year-olds getting wasted in the street. And from the age of 18 everybody goes to the pub on Fridays and Saturdays and drinks as if there was no tomorrow. The strict law achieves ... nothing really. Some say on the contrary. So if the whole culture kids live in goes one way they'll be affected for sure. Is there maybe a whole culture of violence in the USA?
The slashdot discussion - as the current media coverage - also goes into great depth on the other issue that keeps rearing its head in USA: guns. The Newtown perp had three of them - two pistols and a rifle. Now - not for the first time - the US government seems to be serious about introducing stricter regulations. These plans are not new. With every incident the issue was rolled up again but often to little effect (take a look at the time-line). It was mainly due to the powerful gun lobby that only few of the plans were ever even near being put into practice.
At first glance the activism here seems similar to the restrictions on video games. According to recent statistics there are some 75 firearms for every 100 US citizens. The vast majority of these gun owners are law-abiding people. Unfortunately, in the US restricting gun ownership quickly escalates into a discussion about curtailing constitutionally assured civil rights. Interestingly, even German readers left comments along these lines. One reader even attributed the rise of Hitler and the Nazis to an earlier disarming act.
Now this is roughly where I fail to follow the reasoning. During my short time in the army I got acquainted with various firearms. I admit I did enjoy our trips to the shooting range. I also learnt to respect firearms as the dangerous killing instruments that they are. They are not toys and should not be trifled with. It's bad enough that soldiers everywhere kill each other with guns and other more deadly things but that's an entirely different argument. I fail to see how it helps a citizen to have the means to do the same - unless they actually do plan a revolution. Of course, the beautiful institution called NRA (National Rifle Association) has the answer to that question: "The only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun." To be honest, if I were living in the US this kind of John Wayne-style statement would do a lot more to scare me than to reassure me. It suggests that the answer to gun violence is ... more guns. It also suggests that the solution to a problem involving a gun is another gun. Fighting violence with more violence. An eye for an eye. We're going back to the world of the Old Testament - striking evil down with great vengeance and so forth. But then who's to say who is the bad guy? And who's the good guy? You could read that statement in such a way that everybody with a gun can decide it for themselves. Shoot first, ask questions later. This article I stumbled upon shows how that can end. Furthermore, if I could easily acquire a gun to protect myself then the "bad guy" can do so just as easily, so he (or she) will most likely have one, too. And they would have less to loose than me by using it. Now that's already pre-Biblical - cavemen arbitrarily beating each other over the head with a club.
Sure, there are countries with fairly liberal gun laws that do not seem to produce incidents like the one in Newtown. Switzerland gets mentioned a lot. We should not forget, however, that even in Europe Switzerland is a special case. It is a small country with few people. As an aside, it is actually one of the few true democracies in the world where occasionally every single citizen gets involved in the lawmaking process. Try to implement that in the US or even in Germany. It wouldn't work either. Both in Germany and the US we take pride in living in constitutional democracies. Free rule under the law. Then shouldn't we have more faith in our government and law enforcement to keep the peace? Do we need guns in our homes to keep them at bay? Call me naive but I strongly believe the above statement should at most read: "The only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun is a police officer with a gun. As a last resort."
Some slashdot members argue - correctly so - that restricting or even banning firearms will not prevent violence. User Charliemopps relates that a friend of his/hers killed somebody with a hammer. In fact, an incident that got a lot less worldwide media coverage but occurred at almost the same time as the one in Newtown was reported in China where owning guns is very strictly regulated and mostly banned. A man attacked - again - primary school children with what Western media translated wrongly as "knife" but was actually the kitchen hatchet that is common in China. 22 children and one adult were hurt - some badly so. Still, the news article itself makes an important point. "Everyone survived." It is much harder to kill with a hatchet or a hammer than with a gun. A popular quote sums it up well: "I've got six little friends that can all run faster than you can."
What is the point of all this rant? What is the message?
First of all, I am sick of seeing such atrocities blamed on music, films, games, the Internet. It happens all the time but I fail to see a causal link. I've said in my previous post that this scapegoat has evolved over the course of the 20th century and most likely before that. It's always some third power that makes the perpetrator do something horrible. In the Middle Ages they would have claimed the Devil whispered it to him or blame witchcraft and find a witch to burn.
As a matter of fact, I believe the reverse is true. Somebody with an inclination toward violence - like our Newtown killer - may find himself particularly attracted to violent video games and live out his fantasies in the game. Until that does not satisfy him any longer. Then they move on to the real thing.
The real thing leads to point two. To carry out his fantasies a would-be killer needs a real gun and real bullets. As a society I think people do have to think about how easily those should be available. Proponents of liberal gun laws have argued that criminal minds will always figure out a way to get their hands on weapons. While that is true we are not talking about organised crime here. In fact, the majority if not all the cases that I've read about were committed by people - youngsters - who already had easy access to firearms. That was the case in this shooting (mum had guns at home) as well as the last one in Germany (the kid's father was in a local gun club). Kids don't usually have the necessary connections to buy stuff on the black market. And interestingly, the incidents don't tend to happen in areas where they might have them, like in big cities, but in small, "well-adjusted" communities.
This brings me to my next point: a "killer game", no matter how realistic it is, will not prepare anyone for firing a real gun. You cannot just play lots of Battlefield 3, buy a gun and go shooting. The game does not account for the weight of the gun, its recoil or the whole routine of motions it takes to aim or reload. You can only practice that with a real gun. I speak from experience here.
Video games may be disturbing. Some may reward violence or glorify certain aspects. Still, I maintain: for a game (or a movie for that matter) to affect your character or your mind in such a way as to blur the border between in-game fiction and reality, to make the player want to carry out the same actions in real life, they have to have been pretty disturbed to begin with.
Finally, I've mentioned culture and the NRA attitude of facing guns with guns. The latest news, which happened while I was writing this, do suggest that there is a culture in USA that a conflict is easily solved with a gun. How convenient for NRA-types. But if verbal abuse and provocation quickly escalate to lethal force then shootings like in Newtown shouldn't come as a surprise.
I think all this points in a clear direction: limit access to guns. Not only in the US. I'm sure gun laws could also be revised in Germany. (Strangely these two countries seem to be the most affected.) Restricting gun ownership will not disarm crime syndicates. It will not prevent violent crimes. Stabbings in China, rapes in India or beatings in Germany don't require guns. At least it will prevent any idiot with a little money from acquiring a deadly weapon. It would mean that not every odd family has a gun at home that children might pick up - be it to go on a killing spree or be it to play with and injure someone by accident. Sure, guns are not the root of all evil either. "Guns don't kill people, people do." (NRA again) But if you take away their guns those people will have a considerably harder time doing it. Even if someone is already prone to violence it’s a lot harder to kill someone with a music CD or a game controller.
This time two major issues have become the focus.
The first is practically an old friend of mine: violent video games. In Germany dubbed the ominous "killer games" (no English definition - use google translate). Now even high profile American politicians start using similar terms and pointing fingers. A comprehensive discussion on slashdot is what prompted me to post again. The perpetrator in the Newtown shooting - I will not call him "gunman" because someone like him doesn't qualify as a man - played games like Call of Duty and StarCraft. Do games like that make children more violent? Videos like these #1 or #2 surely make it seem so and scare parents. But are these reactions brought on by the content of the games (World of WarCraft in #1 and Unreal Tournament in #2, in case you missed it) or were the kids just not alright in the first place? Are the games rather the catalyst for some pent up frustration? Indeed there are similar videos completely unrelated to gaming. This man is not playing Call of Duty but apparently has a bad day at work - a stressful job or some other reason that's not obvious. Office workers have turned violent on their colleagues. I don't see the government ban stressful jobs. Now you may say: if you're unhappy with your job, talk to your boss. If the boss is not receptive to your issues the situation will deteriorate. The same goes for kids and their parents, only that kids often cannot express what's on their mind. I get the impression too many parents don't take an interest and just buy their offspring a TV, a console and whatever game they want just so they'll shut up and stay in their room. TV programs like Supernanny (UK) show that children misbehaving doesn't have to be related to video games. In fact, from the times I watched the show I remember crying and screaming and "freaking out" but I don't remember video games ever being involved. I also remember that the nanny didn't place much emphasis on what exactly the kids played but on the role of the parents in their children's everyday life. In Munich right now there is an ongoing campaign for parenting. The tag line says: "sometimes annoying - always important: to be parents". Do note that once again in the case of the Newtown shooting the perpetrator came from a dysfunctional family and also that his own mother was his first victim. Classmates describe him as a loner and "socially awkward". Not all introverts are potential killers but this may be another piece in the jigsaw. It also suggests to me that there is more behind this guy than a kid that just played video games too much.
I certainly agree that 10-year-olds should not be playing games like Doom or Bulletstorm. Still, I don't think that banning or censoring these titles will change anything. Parents have to get actively involved. There's so much material available online, so spend 10 minutes watching some gameplay trailers, checking out some reviews, then decide what's best for your child. With age ratings the government can provide a guideline for parents and a suggestion but they cannot be in everybody's home (and thank God for that!). It's up to parents to enforce the guideline. It's up to parents to teach their offspring right from wrong.
If you still think banning works take a look at binge drinking in the UK: laws governing the minimum drinking age are very strict - under-age youths are not allowed to buy alcohol. Still you read on the news about 14-year-olds getting wasted in the street. And from the age of 18 everybody goes to the pub on Fridays and Saturdays and drinks as if there was no tomorrow. The strict law achieves ... nothing really. Some say on the contrary. So if the whole culture kids live in goes one way they'll be affected for sure. Is there maybe a whole culture of violence in the USA?
The slashdot discussion - as the current media coverage - also goes into great depth on the other issue that keeps rearing its head in USA: guns. The Newtown perp had three of them - two pistols and a rifle. Now - not for the first time - the US government seems to be serious about introducing stricter regulations. These plans are not new. With every incident the issue was rolled up again but often to little effect (take a look at the time-line). It was mainly due to the powerful gun lobby that only few of the plans were ever even near being put into practice.
At first glance the activism here seems similar to the restrictions on video games. According to recent statistics there are some 75 firearms for every 100 US citizens. The vast majority of these gun owners are law-abiding people. Unfortunately, in the US restricting gun ownership quickly escalates into a discussion about curtailing constitutionally assured civil rights. Interestingly, even German readers left comments along these lines. One reader even attributed the rise of Hitler and the Nazis to an earlier disarming act.
Now this is roughly where I fail to follow the reasoning. During my short time in the army I got acquainted with various firearms. I admit I did enjoy our trips to the shooting range. I also learnt to respect firearms as the dangerous killing instruments that they are. They are not toys and should not be trifled with. It's bad enough that soldiers everywhere kill each other with guns and other more deadly things but that's an entirely different argument. I fail to see how it helps a citizen to have the means to do the same - unless they actually do plan a revolution. Of course, the beautiful institution called NRA (National Rifle Association) has the answer to that question: "The only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun." To be honest, if I were living in the US this kind of John Wayne-style statement would do a lot more to scare me than to reassure me. It suggests that the answer to gun violence is ... more guns. It also suggests that the solution to a problem involving a gun is another gun. Fighting violence with more violence. An eye for an eye. We're going back to the world of the Old Testament - striking evil down with great vengeance and so forth. But then who's to say who is the bad guy? And who's the good guy? You could read that statement in such a way that everybody with a gun can decide it for themselves. Shoot first, ask questions later. This article I stumbled upon shows how that can end. Furthermore, if I could easily acquire a gun to protect myself then the "bad guy" can do so just as easily, so he (or she) will most likely have one, too. And they would have less to loose than me by using it. Now that's already pre-Biblical - cavemen arbitrarily beating each other over the head with a club.
Sure, there are countries with fairly liberal gun laws that do not seem to produce incidents like the one in Newtown. Switzerland gets mentioned a lot. We should not forget, however, that even in Europe Switzerland is a special case. It is a small country with few people. As an aside, it is actually one of the few true democracies in the world where occasionally every single citizen gets involved in the lawmaking process. Try to implement that in the US or even in Germany. It wouldn't work either. Both in Germany and the US we take pride in living in constitutional democracies. Free rule under the law. Then shouldn't we have more faith in our government and law enforcement to keep the peace? Do we need guns in our homes to keep them at bay? Call me naive but I strongly believe the above statement should at most read: "The only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun is a police officer with a gun. As a last resort."
Some slashdot members argue - correctly so - that restricting or even banning firearms will not prevent violence. User Charliemopps relates that a friend of his/hers killed somebody with a hammer. In fact, an incident that got a lot less worldwide media coverage but occurred at almost the same time as the one in Newtown was reported in China where owning guns is very strictly regulated and mostly banned. A man attacked - again - primary school children with what Western media translated wrongly as "knife" but was actually the kitchen hatchet that is common in China. 22 children and one adult were hurt - some badly so. Still, the news article itself makes an important point. "Everyone survived." It is much harder to kill with a hatchet or a hammer than with a gun. A popular quote sums it up well: "I've got six little friends that can all run faster than you can."
What is the point of all this rant? What is the message?
First of all, I am sick of seeing such atrocities blamed on music, films, games, the Internet. It happens all the time but I fail to see a causal link. I've said in my previous post that this scapegoat has evolved over the course of the 20th century and most likely before that. It's always some third power that makes the perpetrator do something horrible. In the Middle Ages they would have claimed the Devil whispered it to him or blame witchcraft and find a witch to burn.
As a matter of fact, I believe the reverse is true. Somebody with an inclination toward violence - like our Newtown killer - may find himself particularly attracted to violent video games and live out his fantasies in the game. Until that does not satisfy him any longer. Then they move on to the real thing.
The real thing leads to point two. To carry out his fantasies a would-be killer needs a real gun and real bullets. As a society I think people do have to think about how easily those should be available. Proponents of liberal gun laws have argued that criminal minds will always figure out a way to get their hands on weapons. While that is true we are not talking about organised crime here. In fact, the majority if not all the cases that I've read about were committed by people - youngsters - who already had easy access to firearms. That was the case in this shooting (mum had guns at home) as well as the last one in Germany (the kid's father was in a local gun club). Kids don't usually have the necessary connections to buy stuff on the black market. And interestingly, the incidents don't tend to happen in areas where they might have them, like in big cities, but in small, "well-adjusted" communities.
This brings me to my next point: a "killer game", no matter how realistic it is, will not prepare anyone for firing a real gun. You cannot just play lots of Battlefield 3, buy a gun and go shooting. The game does not account for the weight of the gun, its recoil or the whole routine of motions it takes to aim or reload. You can only practice that with a real gun. I speak from experience here.
Video games may be disturbing. Some may reward violence or glorify certain aspects. Still, I maintain: for a game (or a movie for that matter) to affect your character or your mind in such a way as to blur the border between in-game fiction and reality, to make the player want to carry out the same actions in real life, they have to have been pretty disturbed to begin with.
Finally, I've mentioned culture and the NRA attitude of facing guns with guns. The latest news, which happened while I was writing this, do suggest that there is a culture in USA that a conflict is easily solved with a gun. How convenient for NRA-types. But if verbal abuse and provocation quickly escalate to lethal force then shootings like in Newtown shouldn't come as a surprise.
I think all this points in a clear direction: limit access to guns. Not only in the US. I'm sure gun laws could also be revised in Germany. (Strangely these two countries seem to be the most affected.) Restricting gun ownership will not disarm crime syndicates. It will not prevent violent crimes. Stabbings in China, rapes in India or beatings in Germany don't require guns. At least it will prevent any idiot with a little money from acquiring a deadly weapon. It would mean that not every odd family has a gun at home that children might pick up - be it to go on a killing spree or be it to play with and injure someone by accident. Sure, guns are not the root of all evil either. "Guns don't kill people, people do." (NRA again) But if you take away their guns those people will have a considerably harder time doing it. Even if someone is already prone to violence it’s a lot harder to kill someone with a music CD or a game controller.
No comments:
Post a Comment