The Rittenhouse DA tried to use violent video games as a cause for the shootings

Folks, on many occasions I’ve argued that violent video games desensitizes young and impressionable people into thinking shooting your opponent is ok. The violent video game lobbied hard and merely got age recommendations on their games which has ZERO expectation of being followed.

Since the left finally sees the destructiveness of violent video games, do they also think it’s about time to admit they cause unwanted violent behaviors?

I’m not saying they should be banned. The question before you is are violent video games a possible cause for violence which the DA in the Rittenhouse case said they are.

 

Yes. It’s not just violence in video games, it’s also violence in music, and TV and movies. Our culture has devolved into something violent, and crude and vulgar. Any sense of morality has been thrown away.

 

Good catch with the music, TV and movies.

 

No they aren't.

 

Nope, I have said this many times. Kids around the world play the same violent video games as ours do and it is not a problem there. Koreans and Japanese take the gaming much more seriously than we do and when is the last time you heard about mass shootings in Japan?

 

They watch the same violent TV and movies and can listen to the same music too. Have you heard about the number #1 show from Korea called Squid Game. Pretty damn violent when hundreds of people are gunned down playing children's games.

 

They weren’t using it to say that video games caused the shooting. What they were using it for was to say Rittenhouse had a fascination with owning a gun like an AR15. Which I think they did a pretty good job on proving. Especially when Rittenhouse admitted he couldn’t really use the rifle or understand its capabilities.

 

I used to see violent video games as a healthy outlet for aggression. But lately, many of them seem designed to be aggravating, as if making the game more annoying somehow makes it more challenging.

...or I'm just getting old. Either way, while I don't think the act of simulated combat engenders people to seek out the real thing, its entirely possible (and likely) that they could be used as a form of mind control. Not the sort that makes people do things against their will, but the sort that alters their subconscious tendencies and choices in one direction or another. And it certainly could be toward violence, depending on who is implimenting the suggestions and why.

 

The prosecutor doesn't believe his own line of reasoning. He's just grasping at straws hoping something sticks because his case is so weak.

It's why he tried to introduce evidence the judge excluded. He knows he's going to be fried alive by the media as a white supremacist if he doesn't get the conviction.

 

Taking your post at its word, I would say based on my clinical training that video games can potentially exacerbate a pre-existing tendency towards real-world violence. In healthy individuals I would say not.

This is where parental supervision can play a positive role.

 

The Rittenhouse DA tried to use violent video games as a cause for the shootings

He tried a lot of things and only managed to get criticism for his performance. I yearn for the time when trials actually try to get to the truth without the bias of both sides.

 

I think the DA is trying to look for straws in order to get the prosecution that they know they won't get. The prosecution over charged the case, then had less evidence than the State said that it had. It's the biggest problem with the American judicial system(and something weirdly cheered by the Left): They want to throw people in jail, the truth of a criminal complaint or case is secondary to this goal.

 

LOL at for "someone who couldn't really use the rifle "

Two out of three ain't bad

 

You just described Bolshevism.

 

I agree very strongly with your points about portrayed violence, whether in the video games or other entertainment media. And I agree that they should not be censored or prohibited, but we must not pretend that omnipresent violence does not have a bad effect on the development of values and minds.

Mr. Justice Brandeis spoke of the general theme in his dissenting opinion in Olmstead: "The government is the omnipresent teacher. For good or for ill it teaches the whole people by example. Crime is contagious. If the government becomes a lawbreaker, it breeds contempt for the law; it invites every man to become a law unto himself; it invites anarchy."

 

That makes it all the worse then. You do realize how that makes it even worse.

 

No it does not make it all the worst it means the man knew how to use it.

I know what you're trying to imply here, but that dog won't hunt.

 

Which might be relevent if he had accidentally discharged the weapon or shot someone unintentionally. But he didn't. All three of the people he shot were attacking him.

 

Extremely possible. I’ve been playing video game most of my life. As a kid, through my teens, and still today.
Yes I have/still play and enjoy violent shooters, however I feel I need to add that I was brought up learning to respect firearms from a very young age.
My Dad also had firearms placed strategically around my home growing up in the event someone was to break in at night.
My instructions were to “only touch the firearms in an emergency and protect your Mother no matter what.”
I was also shown up close what a firearm could do to your head via a pumpkin.
My point is that with proper supervision, upbringing parents that are willing to teach common sense violent video games CAN BE harmless.
Emphasis on CAN BE, I DID NOT SAY WIlL BE. Every child/ parental situation is different.
I’m just sharing my experience.

 

I've logged over 3,000 hours in Call of Duty over the years. I own several firearms. And do you know how many people I've shot or killed in real life? Exactly zero. The violent video game myth is exactly that. A myth....

 

you just took a stretch. the overcharging of crimes, (or the undercharging in the case of the 1/6 insurrectionists) is as american as apple pie. the assistant das are competing with each other to score points for promotions and better assignments, maybe even for private sector partnerships at big law firms. maybe that is why this prosecutor threw the case.

why would a bolshevek care? who is he competing with?

 

why were these white guys attacking rittenhouse? this case is not answering my questions.

 

Except the prosecutions case isn’t that he was defending himself, but he applied an unreasonable usage of force. Not knowing the full destructive power of your gun would lend itself to that.

 

Because if you got 2/3 people without knowing if you could have done something different, then the prosecution can say you applied an unfair level of force.

 

Oh come off it we know what you meant the gun is so easy to kill people with it anyone could use it even if you don't know about the gun....

Like I said that dog don't hunt here...
I truly wish this voice texting thing into a smartphone could have caught my tone of voice and conveyed it to you..