And in other news, an air-breather killed a man today...
They certainly don't teach you how exactly you should hold your gun and the like - but they do get the point across that if you want to be accurate, you bring the weapon up to your cheek. Of course, you can just as easily get a much better lesson in aiming from watching a movie, but people learn better through repetition. You also learn that there's more to aiming at a person than merely aiming at a person - that you want to hit the most sensitive body parts, especially the head and the chest. Games reward players for shooting these areas. Finally, games teach players about shooting economy - that you don't need to keep pressing the trigger until your gun is out of ammo, that generally one shot is enough. When people use an automatic or semi-automatic weapon for the first time, they tend to spray bullets. A soldier will learn during training that you don't actually need to do that, because one shot can kill. Civilians can learn the same lesson through games, and it has actually been noted in some of these high school and university killings, the perpetrators were unusually economical with bullets.EDIT: @Quarto: I'm not sure games really teach you how to aim. Normally your video game character doesn't hold the weapon in a way that may that harms aiming, for example. Also in most games you have a crosshair instead of the real aiming thingy.
To understand my view, you must begin by thinking about your home. Not your country, but the house you live in, and the family you live with (if you don't yet have your own family, think back to your childhood). Your home is not a free-for-all. There are strict censorship rules in place. Your parents undoubtedly told you things along the lines of "there is to be no swearing in this house", and you will probably tell your kids the same, if you aren't doing so already. Similarly, your parents would have probably punished you severely if they caught you with a porn magazine - and if you have any sense, you'll do the same with your own kids. It would never, even for a second, occur to us that this may be harmful - it's plain and simple common sense, you want to raise your children to be good people, and that involves exerting influence over them. What's more, it would never occur to you as a kid, or to your kids, to protest against this. Hands up if you've ever heard a kid tell his parents "it's my constitutional right to swear!". No - kids may disobey, they may in secret read and watch the things they're not supposed to, they may sometimes swear at their parents just to show how rebellious they are, but they do not ever claim they have the right to these things. They understand, in fact, that what they're doing is wrong.Generally I agree with you. I think the point you just mentioned last is the one where I stop agreeing with you:
In my opinion censorship does more harm than having disgusting and discriminating movies and games and books.
Hehe, I don't think I've heard of any Polish people taking offense at being called European. Some Russians will - Russia has never been able to quite decide if they prefer being a part of Europe or a part of Asia. Poland, though, firmly considers itself to be Europe - the only bone of contention is whether we are western or eastern Europe .Ok, I am European (and so are you, Quarto, if you want to call yourself like that, I know many Polish people don't so no offense) and most Europeans seem to have a different view on censorship than others (for example Americans or Japanese), and there are various reasons for that.
Recently, the US Supreme Court overturned a California law banning the sale of violent games to children under the age of 18, because this law supposedly violated constitutional freedom of speech - how does that make sense? And why did the games industry celebrate this as a great victory?
That same Supreme Court ruling that told California it cannot ban the sale of violent games to minors in fact opened the door to a court ruling that would tell other states they cannot ban the sales of pornography to minors - same logic applies.
Quite the opposite - society will move to change the constitution and restrict freedom of speech, but then government will probably get excessive power to impose censorship where society does not want it.
EDIT: The problem in California is not that they don't want to protect youths but that SCOTUS' opinion is that you can't take the right to decide away from the parents if I understood that correctly.