“I’m stating in 100% truthfulness and honesty I have killed people.....without the assistance of a video game. Where do I fit into your equation? If something like a First Person Shooter GAME will “make” someone kill, wouldn’t First Person Shooting REALITY make them all the more worse?”
That’s a fascinating question. I think Grossman would ask “in which context”? Military? Then you received the discipline; you know why you did it; and you are being recompensed for it: parades, medales, honour.
Or was it police duty? Or self-defense? Or as a civilian militant during a civil war?
The basic difference with FPS videogames is that one associates killing with reward and pleasure, without any disciplinary and larger context.
Is that so in the military and the police? I don’t think so. It’s about protecting the ‘sheep’ from the ‘wolves’ — much more than raking points, while smelling your girlfriend perfume and drinking soda pop with your buddies.
That's not generally how that works here in the US. Sure, where you are, it's all a great big group thing.
Here in the States, where I've gone days without seeing another human, and living 16 kilometers from the nearest neighbor, things are different.
Most mass killers (I'll define as over 3 shot or killed, on the same killing field, within one engagement) are considered 'loners', without girlfriends or buddies.
Your values are not my values. Your situation is not my situation. Your environment is not my environment.
To attempt to dictate to me that I give up my rights, as affirmed by the Constitution, is laughable.
Grossman's science isn't science.
He's drawn a conclusion without data that can be verified.
You compound that error by cultural mis-application of your experiences to a nation you know nothing about.
/johnny
Tin and yarn are of little recompense for human life. Killing for the sake of being "honored" in the name of parades, medals, and "honour" would be no different than killing in the name of "high score" on a video game. Do not seek reward amongst men.
Is that so in the military and the police? I don’t think so. So you don't think there is "reward and pleasure" in avenging the death of a comrade?
The basic difference with FPS videogames is that one associates killing with reward and pleasure, without any disciplinary and larger context
How do you know? What about the college student that uses video games as stress release to give his mind something unimportant to focus on for a set period of time so he can get back studying. Would this not be "discipline?" What about FPS games/scenarios used by the military that show cause/effect on actions in different scenarios?
---
Where do I fit into your equation? If something like a First Person Shooter GAME will “make” someone kill, wouldn’t First Person Shooting REALITY make them all the more worse?”
That’s a fascinating question.
And one that appears to have not been asked prior to Grossman's [and your acceptance] determination that video games should be banned. So how far down the rabbit hole shall we go? How many must lose their liberties before those questions are asked? If you can ban the video game because of what it may do, then certainly you could ban me for what I've already shown I can and will do? Why does it matter the circumstances of military, police, self-defense?
It didn't matter for the gamer that had done nothing more than play a video game. Your logic should hold true for the actual killer. If a video game corrupts one to kill, then it isn't that hard to believe killing will corrupt one to kill more. So, who is going to be responsible for making the determination of what/who should be banned next?
Beyond that is determining who the unfortunate soul that will be sent to "ban" me.......after all, I've already proven myself capability of killing for real.