Although, I must shoot down the word in this context, use it at all? I'm not sure. Let it stand as an ironic delicacy just then another. Unfortunately, I Pain came with this news before. But what can you do, school is just school

Well, what I really want to say and what I have now responded quite perplexed: "Minister: Killer games on a par with child porn", that is the headline on Winfuture . A similar news can also be found on golem . In the words of the Bavarian Minister Joachim Herrmann on the award of the German Computer Game Award 2009:

"Killer Games contradict the consensus values ​​of our peaceful coexistence based on a society and are shunned. That its adverse effects, they have a justified on a par with drugs and child pornography, no one questions their prohibition. "

"I call on the computer game industry to finally leave the rhetoric to action and refrain from the manufacture and distribution of violent video games in Germany voluntarily."

At these words, stays in but the real spooks. He also says also that killer games are used by the U.S. Army to learn to kill. That's not though. After all, who followed my blog, which is this article noticed . I refer here to Barlow's blog, who has also written a rather long article about killer games and refuted facts that are asserted again and again.

Loading ...

This is also the case with the U.S. Army. Specifically, this is quite different, and I quote from Barlow's Blog :

And you do target practice nunmal not with the mouse and the keyboard:

"As an example he cites the so-called" Multipurpose Arcade Combat Simulator ", [...]. It recruits aim a replica M16 rifle at a screen and have to fire like a shooting range to targets. "

Again clear is practiced with a replica gun - except that the target of no cardboard but a computer screen. But at least enough for this setup (although it has no counter-strike player at home?) To learn how to shoot? Answer is no.

Shooting with live ammunition ("live fire"), the simulator can not replace explicit, it says in the paper, just as a trained teacher.

But at least they are desensitized to it, right? On the contrary, because the military uses simulations mainly to civilians not even have access to:

"With entertainment software, they have little to do, their goal is the creation of realistic situations sober. A particularly brutal display of violence will be treated even as disturbing as this could reduce the motivation of the soldiers. Instead, try military software, also for propaganda purposes to portray the war as clean and predictable as possible. "

Col. Jack Millar, director of the department specially established Training and Doctrine Command Project Office of Gaming says the way the commercial computer games:

"I have not seen so far for the entertainment industry-developed game that has a training gap would [the Army] close."

Can also learn in the army, the same tenor to the question of whether you shoot with a first-person shooter, a former member of the Federal Armed Forces Special Forces Special Forces Command (KSK):

"Never simulations can replace the live firing. But they can add to it. "That's why he was even in a so-called shooting house trained, where they with the help of films projected onto screens nachspielten scenes, but shot only with real weapons. And even here it has gone not just about goals, but also courses of action before the shootout, as the response of a defendant or responding to rapidly changing situations.

(All quotations in this section are from a report by Gamestar 04/2008)

To sum up: The U.S. Army used the FPS do not desensitize and not to learn to deal with weapons - even more, all sought-after experts certify the inability to play on this field to be helpful.

The argument is thus rendered totally wrong!

I only can you argue about the topic of video games to inform themselves and to you, not to be exploited by the wingless words of so many politicians. You blabber just bullshit!

I for one will think again when choosing exactly who I choose. So the politicians start with me but no voice!

Sorry, but I will not be equated with an abuser. It's beneath my dignity! Such a comparison only shows the inability of many a politician to report objectively on the subject. Had the Mr. Herrmann did, he would disagree. But he probably will not even have a different opinion.

No related articles.