Re: The Bigger, Badder, Even More Serious Thread [4]

[David H]

It would cross fooking big ones with me Dave,

For me too, Az,  (though I confess it's always a bit easier to satirize somebody else's country's problems than your own.... )

But the problem for me is that Petty's argument for the artistic merit of GTA below (which crosses some big lines for me too) would seem to cover a UK Pedophilia Ring game even better.

The environment is a sandbox to play in, outside of the missions how you play is up to you.

And the last thing about them is context.
I said they were a parody of action films, but that just of the action stuff, the core of the environment is a satire of American society in particular, and Western society in more general, with side digs at other nations along the way and the violence in the game is a part of that satire.

So whilst it is entirely possible if you wish in-game to slow drive a prostitute on the street, pick her up, take her to a car park, have sex with her, pay her, let her get out the car, follow her out and bash her head in with a bat and take all your money back in a tabloid baiting manner....

That crosses big lines for me.

[Pettytyrant101]

I think it has to be justified by the target if its satire. GTA satires American culture, and you are a nation who have a near heart attack at the sight of an unexpected nipple, but think nothing of filling your tv schedules with shows in which everyone shoots everyone else. You have a casual attitude to violence as entertainment. Your country is awash with guns. Your films are full of shootings and explosions and high octane action based around violence. And the game satires that aspect just as it does reality tv shows or politicians.
So the target- American culture- warrants the extreme over the top action and the heightened violence within the context of being a satire of the American love for and portrayal of violence. Its lampooning the real violence, not encouraging it.

[David H]

I think it has to be justified by the target if its satire. Are you saying the recent sexual scandals of the rich and powerful in the UK aren't?   GTA satires American culture, and you are a nation who have a near heart attack at the sight of an unexpected nipple, but think nothing of filling your tv schedules with shows in which everyone shoots everyone else. You have a casual attitude to violence as entertainment. Until the Reagan administration deregulated the FCC in the 80's we had very strict standards.Your country is awash with guns. Your films are full of shootings and explosions and high octane action based around violence. And the game satires that aspect just as it does reality tv shows or politicians.
So the target- American culture- warrants the extreme over the top action OK and the heightened violence Not so OK within the context of being a satire of the American love for and portrayal of violence. Its lampooning the real violence, not encouraging it. I'd say it's lampooning the real violence, AND encouraging it

[Pettytyrant101]

Well Ive been playing the GTA series sine I was a teenager and I have yet to own a gun, steal a car, mow down pedestrians, attach a sticky bomb to anyone, fly a helicopter or wear a jet pack (sadly on that last one). I do however both appreciate when it makes me think about real world issues and enjoy when it makes laugh whilst thinking about them.

Would you ban an author from writing a satirical book on pedophiles?
Would you ban a book for depicting the acts of a serial killer? Or the Catholic Inquisition of the Middle Ages? A book about a rapist? A wife-beater?
Is the orc in the tower in Mordor that stabs his mate, tramples and pummels his body into a bloody mess before repeatedly stabbing the corpse and then licking the blood from the blade glorifying and encouraging others to do the same. Would you ban that bit from the book? Or does the context justify it?

If you would ban all that then fair enough in wanting to ban the same subject matter appearing in games too.
If not then I don't think there is really a case to be made here.

[David H]

To answer your questions in order:
no.
no.
no.
no.
no.
no.
I've never said anything about banning. It's something you keep bringing into the discussion. So let me ask you this:

Would you ban a network from producing a satirical primetime sitcom on pedophiles?
Would you ban a network from producing a saturday morning cartoon depicting the acts of a serial killer? Or the Catholic Inquisition of the Middle Ages? A cartoon about a rapist? A wife-beater?
Is the orc in the tower in Mordor that stabs his mate, tramples and pummels his body into a bloody mess before repeatedly stabbing the corpse and then licking the blood from the blade glorifying and encouraging others to do the same. Would you ban that bit from Saturday morning cartoons? Or does the context justify it?

You yourself actually edited out Gollum killing the goblin onscreen in AUJ, though it's actually referenced in the book. Didn't context justify it, or were there other factors in play?

The case I'm trying to make isn't for banning any of these things, though I find most of them inappropriate for the probable audience. My question is how to balance the issues involved. I don't question the value of satire for a minute, but it seems obvious and I believe well documented that at some level they also promote at the same time they satirize. Clockwork Orange was a good example. The Godfather movies were much beloved within the Mafia and helped define cool for the new generation. You can't (or shouldn't) dispute the Hollywood influence on the drug trafficking industry. And don't you think many of these guys are gamers? The street thugs who do the driveby shootings, do you think they've never seen these games?

The value of positive role playing is well recognized in all kinds of learning, from leadership training to marriage counseling to coping with traumatic experiences. What effect would you expect from negative role playing? Can you really argue there's no effect at all?

[Mrs Figg]

good points Dave. I agree with you. I think a lot of this stuff twists peoples minds, it has a subtle effect, which they may choose to deny or ignore. Violence begets violence. take two kids, one grows up in a home with adults who watch violent video games 24/7, its going to effect the kids brain chemistry, and how it relates to other humans. The kid who in contrast grows up without exposure to violent images is going probably to be more well balanced and not traumatized. or normaized to violence.

[Pettytyrant101]

Would you ban a network from producing a satirical primetime sitcom on pedophiles?
Would you ban a network from producing a saturday morning cartoon depicting the acts of a serial killer? Or the Catholic Inquisition of the Middle Ages? A cartoon about a rapist? A wife-beater?- David

You seem to presuming from a false premise- that GTA is aimed at children when you compare it to a Sat morning tv- its an 18 rated game.
Which takes into the territory of parental control. If parents buy the games clearly marked for adults for their children than its the same as if they buy 18 rated films for them.

As to would I ban a network for a sitcom, again depends on context. This is form Brass Eye, which caused a minor storm, billed and listed as a serious look at pedophilia it w as in fact a satirical assault on news reporting and hysteria over the subect-



They even got at the time prominent MP's and tv presenters to front the warnings bits, they were not in on the joke and just believed everything they were told and regurgitated it, no matter how stupid-





'You yourself actually edited out Gollum killing the goblin onscreen in AUJ, though it's actually referenced in the book.'

The kill is still in the edit, just not the proceeding fight where Gollum knocks it out and drags it away, and that because I didnt like that Bilbo sees Gollum lose the Ring then decides just to keep it and because I had cut out the Bilbo/goblin fight.
I did however remove the gratuitous holding up of Thrains head by Azog as I felt it crossed a line in regards to who I think the audience for a hobbit film should be. And that was censorship on my part, but based on my own instinct for what seemed appropriate for a younger audience.
GTA is not aimed at the same audience at all.


'The case I'm trying to make isn't for banning any of these things'

Then what is it you think should be done if you think these games encourage real world violence.

'Can you really argue there's no effect at all?'

No I cant, and in fact argued the opposite at the start. I said that of course it has an effect, that was the point of it to cause an effect, to create a response in its audience or a resonance.
Thats what art and culture do.
But they dont exist in a vacuum, they are a product, a commentary and a reflection of existing society, not the cause of it.

[Mrs Figg]

I think they are just cynical marketing tool. I dont think it reflects society, but was imposed on society from outside. Snake oil.

[David H]

Then what is it you think should be done if you think these games encourage real world violence.

I wish there was a simple answer. I don't think there is. I agree with Mrs Figg about the commercial marketing, and I tend to lump this social problem with the media glorifying/vilifying school shooters as their lead story for shock ratings, and as a result launching dozens of copycat shootings. There ought to be personal resposibility of artists and creators of media. External restrictions should be a last resort. But we're out of luck when the majority of the debate often never gets beyond the debate of whether there's even a problem. Does that make sense?

[Pettytyrant101]

but was imposed on society from outside.- Figg

I dont think that is true at all of gaming. The developments in gaming have come from within and been driven by human desire and wishes turning into developing the media.
Think of it like this humans went to the moon, but it was an internal idea, before that we sent satellites into space and people and before that animals. Before that we modeled the solar system in numbers, before that we told stories about moon goddesses.
Actually going to the moon was a culmination of human desire and bit by bit development.
When I started gaming it was pong, then pacman and so on.
You enjoyed games but you imagined what they could be like- better graphics, more freedom of movement, better controls, plots and stories. Sound instead of text. Real music instead of bleeps.
Each development has been built on the internal desires and creative process of what came immediately before. And that desire has in turn driven the tech to get better, allowing for those desires to be better fulfilled.
The content of games is largely driven by those internal developments which only reflect the desire to improve and expand what games are capable of. That has been the driving force behind game development since the start.

Obviously there is a strong market element, hello EA, but what sells in that market has always been driven by what makes a good game.

If GTA had been films of a similar standard of workmanship, tight production, attention to detail, and scope, they would have won every Oscar and ever other award going (as they did all the gaming awards).
Its not just the content- violent content does not save a bad game, it wont sell just because its violent if the gameplay sucks, its not just the violence that makes GTA the gaming phenomenon it is, its that they are superb examples of the craft of making a game and they expanded the boundaries of what people considered possible within games. They are as much a landmark in gaming history as Citizen Kane is in cinema. They influenced game design and expectation in every generation of gaming that has followed since.

'I tend to lump this social problem with the media glorifying/vilifying school shooters as their lead story for shock ratings, and as a result launching dozens of copycat shootings.'

I think the media glorifying real life violence is way, way more an important issue than the content of a game. But then I also think if America had anything like a sane persons approach to guns and gun laws your media would have a lot less school shootings to revel in. And thats more important issue to address than the content of a game.
And is we treated mental health and poverty seriously that would be a far greater effect than the content of any game.


Its just a scapegoat for all the real issues underlying violence and crime that we refuse to address.
Same as video nasties of the 80's were responsible for every crime going, and before that tv, and before that cinema and rock and roll, and before that books and before that paintings, and before that the first caveman that drew a big cock and bollocks on a cave wall.
All of them have one thing in common, they have been accused of being the reason for human violence and immorality and for promoting it.

[Eldorion]

The Godfather movies were much beloved within the Mafia and helped define cool for the new generation. You can't (or shouldn't) dispute the Hollywood influence on the drug trafficking industry. And don't you think many of these guys are gamers? The street thugs who do the driveby shootings, do you think they've never seen these games?

I think it's kind of a big jump to go from "criminals sometimes model their fashion and culture after popular media that features criminals" to "said popular media turns otherwise normal young people into criminals".  While I recognize the general uselessness of anecdotal evidence, the near-universality of violent movies and video games among my peer group growing up, coupled with the majority if not complete absence of gangbangers, mass shooters, or other violent criminals among them, has always led me to question the supposed causal relationship here.  This is true of video games especially, since they have become far more popular and prevalent over the last 20-30 years than movies, which were already deeply ingrained in our culture.  And yet, we are living in a 20+ year period of decline in violent crime, including youth crime.  I try to keep this statistic in mind when I read about a lot of things, actually.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crime_in_the_United_States#Crime_over_time
http://www.ojjdp.gov/ojstatbb/crime/JAR_display.asp?ID=qa05200

[David H]

I think the media glorifying real life violence is way, way more an important issue than the content of a game. But then I also think if America had anything like a sane persons approach to guns and gun laws your media would have a lot less school shootings to revel in. And thats more important issue to address than the content of a game.
And is we treated mental health and poverty seriously that would be a far greater effect than the content of any game.


Its just a scapegoat for all the real issues underlying violence and crime that we refuse to address.

Of course games have been used as a scapegoat. As has Television. As have guns themselves. And there's truth in all of them, which is what makes a scapegoat plausible and therefore effective. Eldo's statistical approach is sound as far as it goes (I particularly liked the lead exposure theory in the Wiki article ) but cause and effect is impossible to prove with an problem with as many linked variables as this. Economy fluctuations and returning war veterans I think are both bigger factors than any of the variables you named (poverty is related to economy, of course.)

But none of that lets media of all kinds off the hook in my book. We protect media out of recognition of the good it can do. Isn't it reasonable to at least acknowledge that it is just as capable of doing harm? I think I once made a related rant on the harm that FOX news does by intentionally stirring up racist fears under the banner of free speech.

For me the distributors bear a moral responsibility if not a legal one. Growing up where guns are tools, I've been shocked in the last 10 years to see how the gun has become a toy to many people. I don't directly blame the games for that, any more than I blame FOX for racism, but they're both playing for profit on unhealthy trends, and I feel obliged to point that out.

[David H]

The Godfather movies were much beloved within the Mafia and helped define cool for the new generation. You can't (or shouldn't) dispute the Hollywood influence on the drug trafficking industry. And don't you think many of these guys are gamers? The street thugs who do the driveby shootings, do you think they've never seen these games?

I think it's kind of a big jump to go from "criminals sometimes model their fashion and culture after popular media that features criminals" to "said popular media turns otherwise normal young people into criminals".  

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crime_in_the_United_States#Crime_over_time
http://www.ojjdp.gov/ojstatbb/crime/JAR_display.asp?ID=qa05200

I like the links Eldo, but I hope you're not inferring that I think media "turns otherwise normal young people into criminals" in the absence of other influences. That's exactly the kind hyperbole I've been trying to avoid. I think it undermines the discussion. The question in my mind boils down to, does media influence our actions, yes or no? PR firms clearly think it does. If it does, let's talk rationally about it, preferably with data, but that's hard to come by.
And speaking of which, do you know, has the CDC been allowed to start collecting data on the epidemiology of gun violence yet? We need those numbers!

[Orwell]

The Old Testament and Koran are great on encouraging violence - against Unbelievers, that is.

[Pettytyrant101]

they're both playing for profit on unhealthy trends, and I feel obliged to point that out.- David

I disagree that satire is an unhealthy trend. Quite the opposite. I think ts very important to highlight the absurdities and contradictions in our societies.
If the games simply glorified violence purely for fun on its own merits, it if made the violence realistic and gritty rather than over the top and cartoonish and there was no point to it but to be violent, then you might have a point.
But I feel to accuse Rockstar of just doing it for profit is ridiculous. Its been over 15 years of development on a series that didn't even hit anything like gold until GTA3 and arguably didn't make a sizeable hit until Vice City or a decent profit until San Andreas.

[David H]

The Old Testament and Koran are great on encouraging violence.   

Of course they are. You can't sell a product effectively without sex and violence apparently.  
The New Testament tried, with all that Sermon- on- the- Mount/ "Blessed- are- the- Peacemakers/ Turn- the- Other-Cheek" boring stuff.
It wasn't until their marketing department added the explicitly gruesome torture killing scene at the end that sales really took off.
Or so I've heard.

[Pettytyrant101]

Talking Fox News Dave this is rather reminding me of their piece on the Mass Effect game about its explicit sex scenes and full frontal nudity (which dont exist)- in which almost every single word they say is untrue about the game except for the one guy defending the game that they just talk over!-

[David H]

Unfortunately I can't watch the video on my dialup connection, Petty. But I'm guessing it's exactly the kind of sensationalized distraction from a fact-based debate that I try to avoid.

I just found the text of the report on gun violence recently sponsored by the Dept of Health.  Here's the part on copycats:
http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=18319&page=64

Copycat Behaviors as a Result of Media Violence

Some research suggests that media violence may be imitated or copied in real life, especially in cases of suicide (which may or may not involve a gun) (Bollen and Phillips, 1982; Chen et al., 2012; Gould et al., 2003; Phillips, 1982; Pirkis et al., 2006; Stack, 2003, 2005; Tousignant et al., 2005). Research has shown an increase in suicide attempts after the publicized suicide of a political or entertainment celebrity (Chen et al., 2012; Stack, 2003, 2005; Tousignant et al., 2005), as well as publicity surrounding mass suicides or murder-suicides (Pirkis et al., 2006). A dose–response relationship has also been documented between the intensity of media exposure and the number of subsequent presumably copycat suicides (Etzersdorfer et al., 2001). Evidence has also been found for consistencies between the methods of suicide detailed in media stories and presumably imitative suicides that occur in the wake of media stories (Etzersdorfer et al., 2001; Tousignant et al., 2005), adding to the plausibility of the interpretation that these events are copied. Research has also shown that the strength of effects on presumably imitative suicides varies by type of media, with television publicity sometimes seeming to result in more suicide imitators (Pirkis et al., 2006) and sometimes fewer (Stack, 2003, 2005) than if the suicide was publicized in newspapers.

Although there is not much research in this area, the existing research on broad patterns of presumably copycat acts is sufficiently strong to suggest that it might be useful to carry out more in-depth studies, such as retrospective case-control psychological autopsy studies, in an effort to learn more about the characteristics of people who are susceptible to such media effects and determine if there are any modifiable risk factors that could provide insights on effective preventive interventions. Such indepth studies might also produce insights that could advise media purveyors about changes in frequency or type of violent content to help reduce copycat effects or encourage help-seeking behaviors (Pirkis et al., 2006; Stack, 2003).

In addition to concerns about direct imitations of media violence, there are other possible adverse effects of media stories such as evening news reports about violent incidents in the community and ongoing sensationalized stories about high-profile murders and mass shootings (i.e., the “mean world syndrome” [Gerbner et al., 1980, 1986]). Some evidence exists that these types of news stories are associated with unrealistic perceptions of low community safety (Chiricos et al., 2000; Ditton et al., 2004; O’Keefe, 1984) as well as, in some cases, secondhand traumarelated fear, depression, feelings of vulnerability, and PTSD (Ahern et al., 2002; Bernstein et al., 2007; Comer et al., 2008; Fremont et al., 2005; Otto et al., 2007; Saylor et al., 2003). The extent to which high exposure to such stories leads to changes in proneness to violence for the exposed individuals, though, has not been the subject of systematic research.

So all I'm really asking is that before we get too deeply into a debate of banning or not banning, can't we please just do some research so we know what we're all talking about?

[David H]

Here's the bit from the two pages before

VIDEO GAMES AND OTHER MEDIA

Although research on the effects of media violence on real-life violence has been carried out for more than 50 years (Cook et al., 1983; Eron and Huesmann, 1980; Eron et al., 1972; Huesmann, 1986; Huesmann and Miller, 1994; Huesmann et al., 2003; McIntyre et al., 1972; Milavsky et al., 1982; Robinson and Bachman, 1972; Rubenstein, 1983; Surgeon General’s Scientific Advisory Committee on Television and Social Behavior, 1972), little of this research has focused on real-life firearm violence in particular (Boxer et al., 2009; Huesmann et al., 2003; Ybarra et al., 2008). As a result, a direct relationship between media violence and real-life firearm violence has not been established. Although the bulk of past media violence research has focused on violence portrayed in television and film, more recent research has expanded to include music, video games, social media, and the Internet. Interest in media effects is fueled by the fact that youth spend an increasing amount of time engaging with media. The most recent estimates indicate that 8- to 18-yearolds in the United States spend an average of 7.5 hours per day usingVIDEO GAMES AND OTHER MEDIA

Although research on the effects of media violence on real-life violence has been carried out for more than 50 years (Cook et al., 1983; Eron and Huesmann, 1980; Eron et al., 1972; Huesmann, 1986; Huesmann and Miller, 1994; Huesmann et al., 2003; McIntyre et al., 1972; Milavsky et al., 1982; Robinson and Bachman, 1972; Rubenstein, 1983; Surgeon General’s Scientific Advisory Committee on Television and Social Behavior, 1972), little of this research has focused on real-life firearm violence in particular (Boxer et al., 2009; Huesmann et al., 2003; Ybarra et al., 2008). As a result, a direct relationship between media violence and real-life firearm violence has not been established. Although the bulk of past media violence research has focused on violence portrayed in television and film, more recent research has expanded to include music, video games, social media, and the Internet. Interest in media effects is fueled by the fact that youth spend an increasing amount of time engaging with media. The most recent estimates indicate that 8- to 18-yearolds in the United States spend an average of 7.5 hours per day usingentertainment media, including television, movies, music, cell phones, video games, and the Internet (Kaiser Family Foundation, 2010). Media content is also a concern: more than 800 violent acts are shown on television each hour in the United States; about 15 percent of music videos portray interpersonal violence (Beresin, 2010); and two-thirds of the 97 percent of children who play video games play games that may include violence (Lenhart et al., 2008). However, data on the prevalence of firearm violence in the media are absent. The following section reviews potential associations of exposure to media violence and violent acts, but is not specific to firearm violence.

Overview of Past and Ongoing Research on Media Violence and Violent Acts

Short-Term Experimental Studies on Exposure to Media Violence

The vast majority of research on the effects of media violence is based on short-term laboratory or field experiments. These studies examine short-term effects of media exposure on physical and verbal aggressive behavior, thoughts, and emotions; hostility; fearful behaviors; physiological arousal (e.g., changes in heart rate); the tendency to mimic behavior; and changes in helpful behaviors, empathy, and pro-social behaviors in both males and females (Anderson, 2004; Anderson and Bushman, 2001; Anderson and Dill, 2000; Anderson et al., 2003, 2010; Bartholow et al., 2005; Browne and Hamilton-Giachritsis, 2005; Bushman and Huesmann, 2006; Fuld et al., 2009). Fewer studies examine the link between short-term exposure to media violence and violent behaviors such as arguing, fighting, aggravated or sexual assault, shooting, stabbing, and robbery (Gentile et al., 2004; Ybarra et al., 2008).

These short-term experimental studies consistently document significant effects of experimentally manipulated media exposure on a wide range of short-term outcomes. Results are broadly similar in studies of television and film violence (Bandura et al., 1963; Bushman and Huesmann, 2001; Huesmann et al., 2000; Paik and Comstock, 1994; Wood et al., 1991) and violent video games (Anderson, 2004; Anderson and Bushman, 2001; Anderson and Dill, 2000; Bartholow et al., 2005; Gentile et al., 2004). However, effects vary as a complex function of interactions among media content, viewer characteristics, and social contexts (Anderson et al., 2003) and are open to a number of interpretations other than those favored by the majority of researchers in the area, such as the suggestion that portrayals of competitiveness, rather than violence, account for these negative effects of media exposure (Adachi and Willoughby, 2011a,b; Przybylski et al., 2010).

[Pettytyrant101]

I'm guessing it's exactly the kind of sensationalized distraction from a fact-based debate that I try to avoid. - David

It is, its sheer hysteria and nonsense over invented fears that don't exist because they have never actually played the game in question or seen the content they are reporting on.
And I cant help but find it difficult to see somewhat of this in your argument.
Have you played many games? Have you ever played a GTA game?

Because it strikes me as being similar if not, to railing against the evils of cinema without ever having watched any films.

I said at the start that of course media has an effect, its a loop.
Punk or rock and roll are good examples of this loop- they existed as a spontaneous response of a group of people to current society norms, they challenged those norms and so had appeal and grew in popularity, then the media picked up on it and the idea got spread to many more people, as a result many more people were exposed to it and many more people became punks or rockers.
There is an obvious loop.

But does it start with the media? No. Do the media have some responsibility? Yes they have to operate within the laws of society- thats why films and games are age rated, thats why content has to pass each countries own censorship boards, in the UK thats the British Board of Film Classification (they do games too) and most countries have a similar body.

Fox News might sensationalise its news to the point of parody and to the point of risking copycats, but thats your countries fault, and its culture, not the medias.

News reporting like Fox News couldn't exist in the UK because of the strict rules on broadcast news.
The closest we have is Sky News, part of the same Murdoch Empire, and it has borrowed much of Fox's format- but it content is not a 100th as insane as Fox News.
If your media is becoming a cause of the problem you need better and stricter guidelines. Not to blame the content.

[halfwise]

I just found the text of the report on gun violence recently sponsored by the Dept of Health.  Here's the part on copycats:
http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=18319&page=64

So since Congress banned the CDC (Center for Disease Control for the NABs) from studying gun violence, the Department of Health did it!  Sweet end run.

Edit: Drat, I wrote that before reading the article. Not about gun violence at all. But it would be a nice bitch slap to congress if some other government agency did the study instead of the CDC.

[David H]

Do the media have some responsibility? Yes they have to operate within the laws of society- thats why films and games are age rated, thats why content has to pass each countries own censorship boards, in the UK thats the British Board of Film Classification (they do games too) and most countries have a similar body.

We only have vestiges of those laws left, gutted by deregulation, and almost no enforcement. (Just like Wallstreet ) To try to bring them back would have people screaming, "CENSORSHIP!!!"

Fox News might sensationalise its news to the point of parody and to the point of risking copycats, but thats your countries fault, and its culture, not the medias.  

Certainly it's fair to blame society, but I don't see how you can give FOX  a pass here. Murdock Inc. and others have lobbied hard to deregulate the media, making the argument that the media industry should be allowed to self-regulate.  So now that the old laws are no longer there to provide guidelines, why isn't it fair to ask them to live up to their side of the bargain?

If your media is becoming a cause of the problem you need better and stricter guidelines. Not to blame the content.

Again, this is exactly what many Americans mean when they refer to censorship. It would be impossible to pass anything like the UK legislation through congress, and if you did, it would instantly be challenged in the courts.
Given the history of a Republican Congress and the Supreme Court under Chief Justice Roberts, the odds are better that I'll win the Lottery than that we'll see any stricter regulation  (and I didn't even buy a ticket!)

[David H]

[quote="halfwise"]

 But it would be a nice bitch slap to congress if some other government agency did the study instead of the CDC.

I'd love to see Obama use his lame duck status to advance some things like this that he's paid lip service to in the past.
Unfortunately there are a lot of Democratic congressmen who come for gun rights districts who would NOT be happy.
No, this is going to have to be at least partially solved at the state level before we can expect to see any courage from the Feds.

[Pettytyrant101]

Again, this is exactly what many Americans mean when they refer to censorship. It would be impossible to pass anything like the UK legislation through congress, and if you did, it would instantly be challenged in the courts. - David

Thats kind of the problem- you are implying there is a problem from certain content, but it seems to me a lot of the problem is not the content per se, but America. Its a problem you have in the US.
As the UK is not awash with guns we dont get many drive by shootings, and where that sort of thing does very rarely occur it tends to be in very specific parts of the country (usually London, Manchester or Glasgow) and is always gang and drug related.

Someone who for whatever reason snaps and decides to go on a GTA style rampage in the UK will be hard pressed to get hold of a firearm to carry it out with.
The same person in America would have very few problems arming themselves and causing serious harm.
So again it seems to me you are taking a problem which is really the product of American culture and laws and then seeking to impose restrictions on media that is global.
Why should the rest of us suffer artistic restriction because America cant keep its own house in order?

[halfwise]

I'd have to dig up the legislation in question, but unfortunately I think it's a blanket ban on spending federal dollars on gun research. Stupid as hell.