Argument about training for real life violence in video games

So I purchased a HTC Vive a few weeks ago, which is freaking amazing, but after playing some specific games I got to thinking about some old arguments regarding previous violent events (Columbine, for instance) and certain claims by media/experts.

The one that really struck out was how certain people claimed those two kids were effectively trained in FPS games like Doom. Anyone who's ever played Doom, or any other FPS for that matter, could easily see how that claim is baloney. Playing Doom and other FPS's is in now way a legit way to learn to shoot firearms well and it's a laughable proposition.

With VR, specifically ones with touch controllers (like the Vive), I think that argument may actually now hold some weight. While there are certain things these systems cannot replicate (such as recoil), I think you can absolutely train to use a firearm with them. A few of the games I play on the Vive require sighting down, proper aiming, and can, in my opinion, pretty accurately replicate handling and firing a gun.

So this being the case, do you think the previous argument about violent video games and kids using them to train for real-life violence could now has some credibility?

I don't know about violence per se, but I do know for example that some NASCAR drivers use simulators to train. So yeah, depending how in depth a simulator/game goes into recreating real life experiences that could be use to learn stuff.

With that said, lets say one could actually train to realistically use a firearm on a video game, nothing will happen if that person doesn't act on it. We could see it as a positive development; ex. people learning how to properly and safely use firearms.

At the end of the day, it all comes back to any particular individual deciding on whether or not to use something to do good or bad.

I agree with that. But let me offer up a scenario...so one of the arguments back then was that Doom was used as a training tool and that the makers of it have some level of liability. It was a ridiculous claim on it's face given the technology.

That's potentially changed now, though. Let's say some game developer made "School Shooting Simulator VR Edition". It accurately portrayed using guns, going through hallways/buildings, people running/hiding, and let the player train and get higher and higher kill counts. If some kid(s) played it and went out and shot up their school in real life ending with a high kill count, should there some level of liability for the game and the developer?

Yes, I'm of the position that violent video games can desensitize real violence. However I don't believe producers or developers should be held legally liable for criminal behaviors of deranged individuals. It's ultimately up to the individual to make that choice and they are solely responsible for their own actions. Unless they are under the legal age, then it's the parents' or legal guardians' responsibility.

I would blame movies before a video game. I can remember being involved in gang violence back in the early nineties and attending gang seminars where the police said they had thirteen gang members named Doughboy and not one of them had ever been out of the city I lived in. The name was from a gang movie that had been made in Hollywood.

I could see someone making the case that the developer would be liable. This is where developers should exercise discretion and proper judgment. Lets stick to the firearm simulator; to make it a more attractive game the game wouldn't simply take place on a shooting range but it would most likely include other settings like a forest for hunting, maybe an Olympic Games setting for the shooting completion, a nondescript war setting et cetera, et cetera, et cetera. It would probably be in poor taste to include a school setting.

Unless it is a school setting so you can defend the school! KABOOM!! And I bet you could "accidentally" kill the kids. Maybe use some cheats and kill the teacher too.

No, but really, it would be smart of the developer to exercise discretion as to not expose himself to lawsuits (which will come anyway, just to test). That, aside, again at end of the day, it is the individual who decides whether or not to take action.

OT: Little bit of tangent but I'm currently finishing GTA 5 to 100% and I was wondering, since Rockstar seems to be going with a more realistic approach, why don't they include any child NPC. Too much heat? Is running over children where Rockstar draws the line? :P

If that was the case then Arcade machines with gun controls would've done the exact same thing since the 80ties.

I'd say the experience you get shooting a gun with the Vive is far more realistic than your typical arcade cabinet gun game. They almost all use the same light gun type technology with isn't accurate and you are just shooting at a flat screen. I'm a former soldier and have shot a lot of firearms and VR with touch controllers is the closest to the real thing I've ever experienced.

Except the cabinet guns have the same weight and feel of a gun, as opposed to the hand controls. And the overall gameplay isn't changed much, you do still aim around on a screen and push a button when the target is in the crosshair. Only difference is with VR is that it's much closer to your eyes so to enhance immersion. No recoil besides a brief animation simulating recoil.

It may very well be the closest to the real thing right now, but again that was said when Duck Hunt and Time Crisis came out aswell.

It's way different. Cabinet guns (light guns in general) do not have good accuracy, and you are just pointing it at a 2d screen. VR has depth in environment (nothing to do with it being close to your eyes), you can walk around, you really have to aim. The difference in gameplay is a giant leap, not sure if you actually tried a VR set before but it's def world apart from a cabinet gun game.

And it is worlds apart from handling a real gun aswell, thus making the notion that it's training around the same level as light guns do. For the simple sake that you are still aiming at a 2d screen in VR, it's just different and it relies on motion tracking rather then movement signals from pressing certain buttons. It also gives the illusion of you being set inside the game, but you are still looking at a screen. It is not the Holodeck from Star Trek.

It's not worlds apart, the only thing it's really missing is recoil. It's not the same level as light guns. I can tell you haven't tried VR because it's not "aiming at 2D screens" in the same way light gun is. In fact, you aren't aiming at any screen. I'm telling you, as someone who has shot guns all my life (including being trained in the military) there is a huge difference, and shooting guns in VR is not even remotely like shooting light guns at 2D screens.

I'm finding it very hard to believe that you are a soldier if you are honestly comparing a VR headset and a pair of what is essentially Wii controls with a circle ontop, as close enough to a handgun that after X amount of hours you wouldn't need an instructor in telling you how to handle an actual firearm. Simply cause "The Brookhaven Experiment" taught you how to aim and push a button.

I also wonder wether you know what components a VR headset contains cause if you ain't aiming at a screen at all, then there's something fundementally wrong with the headset you've tried. Cause there ought to be a screen inside it that you look at and which recieves signals from the controls to determine where on the screen you are aiming and shooting at.

Poor taste but hardly justify a legal burden on the producers or developers of such games for gamers criminal behavior, especially when the game doesn't explicitly "tell" the players to reenact this in real life (most cases it's the very opposite, as publishers own legal team would slap a "do not attempt in real life" type of warning in the game).

... No because that would be a violation of their first amendment rights.. In less the game directly told the person a call to action in doing this, they cannot be held liable.

Video games should be banned. Or at least have background checks.

If videogames had a correlation with violence, we would be seeing the right wing thought controllers trotting it out every day and banning everything under the sun they can, and they would be aided by leftists who want a utopian vision where nobody is offended, even by virtual violence. Instead, the data shows worldwide crime dropping each and every year, where the sales and playing of videogames keeps going up.

Besides, I have shot guns in videogames and IRL, hunted in videogames and in IRL. They are not akin at all.

You have become so desensitized by the violence in video games that you cant even see it. The only solution is to have a government committee form that will then usher in several laws and restrictions on both the accessibility of these games to the public and on the creative content that they can have. We should have both a diversity panel to ensure these games represent our nation as a whole and a psychological panel that can determine if these games are bad habit forming. Why do you have to kill in these games? Why cant you just negotiate or hug it out with the enemies?

Anita Sarkesian for czar of gaming!!!!

Former 82nd Airborne, also did a combat tour in Afghanistan. Trained with M16, M4, M9, M3P 50 cal, Stinger, AT4, Mark-19, and various other weapons like claymores and grenades. I can tell you have no experience with what I'm talking about, because the "circle on top" is meaningless, they are far beyond Wiimotes, and you clearly do not understand the difference two screens displaying different images for each eye (coupled with the head tracking, 1:1 motion controls, etc) vs shooting at a completely flat 2D screen with in-accurate light guns.

You can absolutely train someone to shoot well with VR, and as someone who has shot many weapons, it is very impressive how close it is to the real thing.

You sure got hung up on the light guns when it's the whole notion of a VR headset and the controls being valid enough to train one to use an actual firearm that is the sheer stupidity I'm trying to point out.

I used the light guns as a comparison to how stupid the notion is when both they and the VR headset controllers serve the same function, you use both to aim and push a button to hit something you're looking at that's inside a game. It doesn't matter which is more accurate or which is hooked up to a single or double screen. Neither of them is going to train you in how to use a handgun, or a shotgun, or even a minigun for that sake.

Why?, Cause firearms is a entirely different thing then a videogame controller, irregardless of how it looks. Anyone that can't see that I fear no longer can differenciate between Reality and Fiction/Virtual Reality. If you really are a former soldier, it's frightening if you cannot see such a distinction besides it being, in your words, " The only difference is guns got recoil".

Cause if that is honestly the case, why waste ammo at basic training when Nerf or BB guns are cheaper?

Oh the irony...

They don't serve the same function, and the experience between the two are vastly different (ie what they can accurately model), that is the point. Not even sure what you are talking about regarding your fear comment, nothing I said has anything to do with fear or not being able to tell the difference between reality vs fiction.

Why waste ammo at basic training when nerf guns are cheaper? Is that a serious question? How about the fact nerf guns shoot like 20-30 meters max, and are completely inaccurate vs a real rifle? What an idiotic question. BTW, the Army does use advanced computer simulations to train soldiers. For instance, I was a 14S (Avenger Crew Member) where we had to be proficient firing Stinger missiles. While I did shoot 2 real life Stingers, they are expensive, and the vast majority of my weapon firing training was on a pretty high tech 360 degree VR simulator.

https://www.army.mil/article/132810/Sill_simulator_trains_Stinger_crews

I should mention that while that system is pretty high tech, it's dated and I think this system is even less realistic than what can be done with the latest in VR technology.

You clearly don't know what you are talking about.

That's not necessarily true. There has been cases against books that have published instructions on how to do something illegal (though not compelling the reader to actually do so), that a person did successfully file suit (not criminal) against. So there are instances where I could see publishers/developers open to civil liabilities.

And you sure do jump on things that are besides the point and utterly avoid the main point itself.

So I will give this one last try. Forget the Light guns, Forget the nerf guns and forget the supposed Stinger missiles you've fired. Forget all of that.

You said the only difference between the VR controllers and an actual firearm is the lack of recoil and using the VR controlls is not worlds apart from using a handgun. Now with the topic being about " Can VR tech now train one to use firearms", your comments seem to reflect the answer "Yes they can"

While I say a firearm and a VR controller is completely different and in no way can a VR controller properly train you to use a firearm. And note, when I say Firearm I mean Handguns and the like, not a missile control system.

Those are your examples, but yes, let's forget them because they are dumb. Anyways, being someone who has been professionally trained to handle and shoot many real life weapons (including rifles and handguns) *and* as someone who has shot guns in VR, yes, you can train someone to shoot a gun in VR. It's the closest thing simulation wise I've personally experienced to firing the real thing, and most of the concepts you can train on in VR are completely transferable skills to actually firing a gun.

That is incredibly broad though, in which we can basically say any kind of shooting manual that trains a person how to fire a firearm could be held accountable for training them to go on a shooting spree..

I believe the argument with Doom was desensitizing one to violence.....not training.

Well in these cases it was instruction of how to commit an illegal activity, which is legal, but does (in some cases) open you up to civil liability suits. If a video game simulated shooting up a school in a realistic manner, and it was in VR so a person would get some level of functional training, I think it's possible that developer/publisher would be opening itself up to liability.

@LJS9502_basic There were def claims that kids had trained in video games in the aftermath in some of these cases.

Okay, So let's say I play "The Brookhaven Experiment" for two months. If memory serves me right your typical firearm instruction and courses takes around two or three weeks combined in the US.

After those two months, I could then properly handle a firearm without any of those courses so long as I remember to hold onto it more tightly?

technology can be used to enrich to destroy. always been the case will always be the case

Did you know that BB guns are actually used to train people to use guns? Any 12 year old can get one.

They actually practiced with guns and again what I've read mention that they were desensitized to violence from games, music etc.

More irony. It hilarious seeing some anti-gunners here essentially making the same arguments gun right advocates have been saying for years for video games. General decline of violent crimes in spite of increase sales of (guns/video games), constitutionally protected (2nd/1st), etc. Similarly you can make the same type of counter points you guys have been making about guns; how 1st amendment doesn't explicitly cover electronic medium or our founding father never meant 1st amendment to protect murder simulations or foresaw the advancement of electronic entertainment and so on. Granted, I'm not seriously making those arguments, it's just funny to see you effectively argue against yourselves. Personally I'm consistent in that regardless of what the product is (unless the company is deceptive in what the product is or isn't), it's the individual that choose to act and should be the one solely responsible for the consequences.

........ What are you even talking about? Neither Renevent (I believe) nor I, are anti gun..

You certainly would be pretty well trained on how hold, aim, properly sight, and fire that's for sure, completely different than Call of Duty, or, the in-accurate light gun game cabinets.

They were claims they also trained in the games.

You are correct, I am not anti-gun. In fact, I am pro-gun. To be completely honest I just thought this could be an interesting discussion, I'm not advocating any specific thing...

ops that's my bad, I confused you for someone else. Still my point stands for slovak whom I believe is anti gun, as for some of the other posters here.

Played the games and the games were considered bad influences as with the music choice they had. You are confusing the two.

Yeah, I disagree. Granted there are elements like aiming and sight that might be improved, But that it'll replace real life training and instructions I find very hard to swallow and a rather dangerous thought. Dangerous in the sense that someone might then do those two months of gaming and then go out and aquire a gun thinking it's just as easy to use, mishandle it since there's not been a safety course and with a possible tragic result for themselves or others.

I'm not, you can pull up tons of editorials/etc specifically mentioning the perpetrators training in those games. Hell, Anders Brievek said he trained for the shooting in Call of Duty.

Editorial? I thought we were talking about something important. Those two individuals acquired weapons to practice with. They did not play a video game and think they were trained. As for Brievek......we weren't talking about that scenario so I don't see what that has to do with this discussion. Stay on point.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7T42-FIphKM

This is still incomplete, but you can absolutely model an accurate functional representation of a M9, for instance, including how to safety it, load, handle the receiver, and sight and fire it. With that training, someone who has never picked up a gun would be able to load, cock, fire (fairly well too), and how to use it's safety features. The one thing they won't have training on is the actual feel of the recoil.

No. It will never be the same as actually firing the weapon.

@Renevent42: .. If that is the case we might as well hold the military accountable when ever a veteran goes on a shooting spree or murders some one.. The military not only trains you how to fire your weapon and the like, but promotes aggressive qualities and a distanced indifference in keeping your cool in combat.

Indifference? Very poor choice of word. The military is NOT indifferent and there are many things one is taught NOT to do in combat. Also it's important to have a well trained military if one wants to have an actual country.

Well that kinda confirms my point, It's one thing to fire a weapon ingame but something entirely different to do so in Real Life. Just like it's one thing to use the wheel controller in a racing game but something entirely different to actually drive a car. Or a joystick in a flight game and flying a Boeing 747.

Sure you might have some knowledge of it, but it's not exactly training. I wouldn't want someone who's only played Gran Turismo to jump into a car and head down the road. Or have a Pilot flying the plane I'm in when the only "training" he or she has is from Wings of Prey.

You are also missing the tactile aspect of the learning process. No one operates the weapon by looking at it IRL as you would have to in VR since you are not holding a real world replica of the operating components (save for the trigger which is nothing like any real trigger on a firearm). The only training VR might provide is overcoming the instinctive flinch response and maybe basic operation based on visual cue, which again isn't all that helpful in the real world. Driving or flight sims are a different story since most good setups do in fact cover those tactile angles of the training (racing/flight sim cockpits have real steering wheels/flight stick and shifter/throttle).

http://www.salon.com/1999/11/12/videos/

"Last April, violent video games were vilified as a culprit behind the massacre. The game Doom was specifically cited as the means for Harris and Klebold to develop both their shooting skills and their passion for blood."

Stop. There was absolutely many instances of people (editorials, edu papers, news articles, etc) talking about the claim they trained in Doom (in addition to other training they did).