Deutsche VersionVideo Games Again
A few days have passed since the horrible killing spree in Winnenden near Stuttgart. Not many, but enough to get the discussion about consequences going, which invariably deal with the same questions every time.
First the political debate centered around private weapon ownership, which I consider to be a sensible question. I’ll be entirely honest here, I don’t see the need for sport-shooting clubs (whose members are allowed to possess firearms. The killer here got his weapon from his father, who, as a member of such a club, had eighteen legal guns at home), no matter how much they may think themselves embedded in local culture. Since there is no discussion about having handguns to protect yourself in Germany (we generally trust our police to do that), the only real reason we have those clubs is because some folks want to have fun. At the same time, there is a clearly significant risk associated with this. Obviously not every hobby marksmen is going to become a killer, just like with video games, but in contrast to those, a gun is an inherently dangerous tool. As an alternative to private firearm possession, they might at least be stored centrally and securely at the shooting range, but I’d actually prefer it if they changed the infra-red technology - or, hell, why not Paintball? All this allows folks to live out their phantasies without using dangerous equipment.
Now, however, we’ve returned to the old discussion about violent video games. The traditional answer of gamers, that I am probably expected to give here as well, is that this is all male cow excrement. Actually, I don’t think it’s that simple, though, [which I already wrote here previously][alterpost]. Video games do like to display violence as a valid and often the only possible solution to any conflict. Video games that just show violence without the context for the conflict are far from a rare exception as well. To me it seems pretty obvious that this can influence people on some level.
On the other hand, however, I have to say the same thing I did back then: Games are not alone here, all media likes to do that. We live in a society that actively encourages violent solutions. In a movie or TV show, it has become remarkable when the heroes do not do anything that is a clear violation of the Geneva Conventions. A common example would be torturing (e.g. by hitting) enemies to receive information, which is hardly if ever presented as a bad idea. News are not immune to this either, when discussing violent crime in length. Ironically or tragically, the portrayal of such killers [can actually cause others to do the same][bildblog]. For persons with similar self-worth problems and views as Tim K. from Winnenden, that guy might now look like a heroic figure who “does not take all that stuff”. To me, that seems far more dangerous than any video game I know.
An interesting point about video games is that it’s always Counter-Strike being named in these discussions here in Germany. Shouldn’t it be forbidden if all of these killers have played it? No. Counter-Strike’s main attribute is just that it’s extremely popular. It’s dirt cheap (and even less illegally, obviously) and in its different incarnations it runs on just about any computer made in the last ten years. If a killer has been a frequent online gamer then it’s more likely than not that he played CS at one point or another. The game is rather little violent, compared to others and its reputation, however. Of course, rather is the important word here: There is still senseless violence, but the graphics don’t show that much detail, and there are no additional points or encouraging comments for extraordinary (read: overly violent) kills, not to mention that the graphics are not all that realistic either. It has to be said as well that CS can only be played via a network, so there is always some sort of (online) contact with other people involved. The total effect of these points is that the german version of the latest version of the game is rated 16+. This rating was reconsidered after the last german school shooting (2002 in Erfurt), but ultimately left the same.
If I may add a personal notice: I do think that Wolfgang Schäuble, german federal minister of the interior, may be the largest danger to interior safety and freedom in Germany himself. Private gun ownership, specifically relating to hobby shooters[^1], is [not a problem for him][schaeuble], he sees the real problem in portrayals of violence (i.e. video games). My point is: When such a potential killer has no firearm, then the killing spree won’t work, no matter where the reasons lie. An example for that would be [Berlin central station in 2006][berlinhbf], where the criminal had no pistol, only a knife. 28 people injured and a danger of an HIV infection were decidedly not good, but I do think it was better than a respective death toll.
[^1]: Unlike the USA, there is no right to own guns privately to protect yourself or without specific reason, nor is there any demand for such a right here.
Written on March 14th, 2009 at 07:50 am
