Quentin Tarantino will not answer questions about movie violence impact on society

[GiancarloC]

Touching on the (off-topic) little segue here about the blue ribbon society that Borg brought up... I agree with you, Giancarlo, that true competitive gaming teaches you about winning and losing. It's simply reality that you're going to lose and there's going to be a better player.

But for like the 99% of the market that aren't competition-minded players who can handle it-- most just ragequit the instant they aren't getting an easy win, and accuse you of being a Korean macro cheater with no life in a gaming sweatshop or something because you're better than they are.

So blue ribbon society is definitely still there too.

Yea, I agree some can't handle losing. That's why I tell those guys to play the game on the most difficult setting... frustration is a good thing. At least it can fine tune skills.

[chance1]

Are you going to explain this, or do I just report you for trying to bully me based on nationality?

And "where does it end" is a legitimate question, because art isn't quantifiable, it is not a law that you can read and evaluate. Who decides what's ok and what isn't? What "MAY" cause violence and what may not?

are you serious ? bullying? I'm bullying you ?

you really do yourself a disservice when you flail like that

you talked about where does it end ....... etc. you referenced padded coffins

we're in america

and your blather about "what's next .... where does it end" is "survivalist-esque" - suggesting an outcome - in their case they need their guns to protect themselves against the govt.

[Text: Removed]

so report away

[Kulindahr]

Barking up the wrong tree. Those same movies are released in Europe and they don't increase crime. America has a problem with guns... not movies and videos games.

No, America has a problem with 'winning' at any cost. I haven't found a study on the subject, but my bet is that if one was done, the result would plainly show that far more Americans than anyone else believe that violence is a legitimate solution to some problems.

[Laufey]

No, America has a problem with 'winning' at any cost. I haven't found a study on the subject, but my bet is that if one was done, the result would plainly show that far more Americans than anyone else believe that violence is a legitimate solution to some problems.

I'd say the main reason is the class conflicts.

For the richest country in the world the low-class can have it pretty shitty. When you feel like your society is unfair, even to the point of feeling like a 2nd class citizen... then you are more likely to break the rules to get yours.

In Europe, well western-Europe at least, most countries take better care of the poor and lower-class than the US.

[Kulindahr]

Gaming does teach a lesson in a sense... you either win or lose. There aren't any games (at least to my knowledge) you don't lose or win in.

Speaking of which... Tropico 4 makes me want to become a dictator of a small island and amass a huge swiss bank account... I'll have to get back to you guys in a few years when I fleece some poor island.

I knew a psychologist who worked with kids mostly. He made use of video games and role-playing games especially to help them learn on thing: to succeed, you have to work at it. Secondarily, he used them to teach that in order to succeed, doing it all by yourself generally comes in second to working together with others.

People used to claim that playing Dungeons and Dragons caused kids to lose touch with reality, neglecting it and so doing worse in school, etc. But as a long-time Game Master I knew that was totally bogus, because the kids I had as players ended up doing better in school, especially in problem-solving skills and getting along with others. It's the same with violent movies: solid research has shown that they are more likely to reduce the desire for violence than to increase it. As with the fantasy games, the ones who act out in the fashion of the subject material are those already tending in that direction -- the rest of us grasp that it's fantasy/fiction.

[Kulindahr]

I'd say the main reason is the class conflicts.

For the richest country in the world the low-class can have it pretty shitty. When you feel like your society is unfair, even to the point of feeling like a 2nd class citizen... then you are more likely to break the rules to get yours.

In Europe, well western-Europe at least, most countries take better care of the poor and lower-class than the US.

Class conflict is an impetus, but it does not cause violence -- history and modern events provide plenty of examples to show that class conflict need not result in violence; it merely does when that's already a preferred form of "fixing" things.

[Kulindahr]

As to the initial post....

Good for Tarentino. He should have resorted to sarcasm, though, rather than being pissy. Something like, "Are you mistaking me for a professor of sociology?" would have hit the mark nicely. Why? Because his job has nothing to do with figuring out whether his movies "cause" people to be violent (or anything else).

Or he could have calmly said, "If you want to discuss that, I'm sure there are sociology professors who could actually do the topic justive".

[xbuzzerx]

I knew a psychologist who worked with kids mostly. He made use of video games and role-playing games especially to help them learn on thing: to succeed, you have to work at it. Secondarily, he used them to teach that in order to succeed, doing it all by yourself generally comes in second to working together with others.

People used to claim that playing Dungeons and Dragons caused kids to lose touch with reality, neglecting it and so doing worse in school, etc. But as a long-time Game Master I knew that was totally bogus, because the kids I had as players ended up doing better in school, especially in problem-solving skills and getting along with others. It's the same with violent movies: solid research has shown that they are more likely to reduce the desire for violence than to increase it. As with the fantasy games, the ones who act out in the fashion of the subject material are those already tending in that direction -- the rest of us grasp that it's fantasy/fiction.

I totally agree. I know people sorta treat gaming in general as just sorta like a geeky side-hobby, but, gaming's pretty sophisticated nowadays, and tabletop gaming always was sophisticated and required teamwork and problem solving. Modern games tend to focus on small teams... 4, 5 people on a team. It's much more about teamwork than about what you do as an individual in so many games. Much like the things people are always saying are virtues gained out of playing a sport.

In fact I'm sure even the non-gamers here have probably heard the reputation that Koreans and Asians in general have as being like... "ridiculously good at gaming." Of course in some regards it's a stereotype and it's not universally true in every type of game. However, one game dev who had designed games both for US and Asian market releases had a comment about the playtesting process and the differences he noticed in reactions to game design between the two markets.

Americans were much more resistant to the notion of needing others to accomplish a goal together... and would avoid doing it unless it was absolutely necessary.

By comparison, Asians culturally had a much friendlier grasp of a collectivist sort of approach.

I'm sure he took some heat for saying that, but I also think you could probably get many or most American gamers to agree if you asked them-- Americans hate working together, and generally are stubborn and difficult about it. If it's at all possible for them to do something solo instead, they'll generally prefer to do it that way. Even if it decreases the chances of the team winning, or hurts the team overall.

[GiancarloC]

I knew a psychologist who worked with kids mostly. He made use of video games and role-playing games especially to help them learn on thing: to succeed, you have to work at it. Secondarily, he used them to teach that in order to succeed, doing it all by yourself generally comes in second to working together with others.

Yea I played a few strategy games... some RTS ones mostly like Red Alert. I also played city simulators like Simcity 2000 and 3000. I didn't like Simcity 4 at all as it was just too bloated and tried way too hard to do too much.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SimCity_(2013_video_game) - I'm awaiting this one though.

It really is a great game for those considering urban planning... even if it is not 100% accurate.

People used to claim that playing Dungeons and Dragons caused kids to lose touch with reality, neglecting it and so doing worse in school, etc. But as a long-time Game Master I knew that was totally bogus, because the kids I had as players ended up doing better in school, especially in problem-solving skills and getting along with others. It's the same with violent movies: solid research has shown that they are more likely to reduce the desire for violence than to increase it. As with the fantasy games, the ones who act out in the fashion of the subject material are those already tending in that direction -- the rest of us grasp that it's fantasy/fiction.

Yea that was a similar claim with the Doom series, which received serious bad press in the late 1990s. Doom was a incredibly ground breaking game that revolutionized the whole gaming industry. I took out frustration on the game, and was better focused on my studies. But I always knew it was fiction.

[Just_Believe18]

chance, you have correlation, but not causation. The fact is all American films are exported to global film markets in Europe, Asia, Africa, etc. and none of them even come close to the mass shooting gun violence we have here in the United States. Pick a different symptom. You're not scoring points here.

[Rolyo85]

I totally agree. I know people sorta treat gaming in general as just sorta like a geeky side-hobby, but, gaming's pretty sophisticated nowadays, and tabletop gaming always was sophisticated and required teamwork and problem solving. Modern games tend to focus on small teams... 4, 5 people on a team. It's much more about teamwork than about what you do as an individual in so many games. Much like the things people are always saying are virtues gained out of playing a sport.

In fact I'm sure even the non-gamers here have probably heard the reputation that Koreans and Asians in general have as being like... "ridiculously good at gaming." Of course in some regards it's a stereotype and it's not universally true in every type of game. However, one game dev who had designed games both for US and Asian market releases had a comment about the playtesting process and the differences he noticed in reactions to game design between the two markets.

Americans were much more resistant to the notion of needing others to accomplish a goal together... and would avoid doing it unless it was absolutely necessary.

By comparison, Asians culturally had a much friendlier grasp of a collectivist sort of approach.

I'm sure he took some heat for saying that, but I also think you could probably get many or most American gamers to agree if you asked them-- Americans hate working together, and generally are stubborn and difficult about it. If it's at all possible for them to do something solo instead, they'll generally prefer to do it that way. Even if it decreases the chances of the team winning, or hurts the team overall.

Well, that's what decades of fear mongering against "Communism" and "socialism" get you - a nation too afraid to be branded socialist if it actually pulled resources to fix a problem.

[JB3]

He's right to ignore it. There's been multiple studies done to conclude that violence in media like movies or video games does not result in violence in real life. Its something that was brought up by the NRA to try and cover up any responsibility they might have, and distract from the real issues.

[chance1]

chance, you have correlation, but not causation. The fact is all American films are exported to global film markets in Europe, Asia, Africa, etc. and none of them even come close to the mass shooting gun violence we have here in the United States. Pick a different symptom. You're not scoring points here.

Scoring points is not the goal

But thanks

As for violence in films and videogames

It has impact and is worthy of debate

Just as arming a school security guard does

Convos don't end because you're not in agreement

[Just_Believe18]

Scoring points is not the goal

But thanks

As for violence in films and videogames

It has impact and is worthy of debate

Just as arming a school security guard does

Convos don't end because you're not in agreement

But you didn't even list an impact to qualify the debate. You can make an assumption that a violent form of media somehow influences people to be violent, but you need to provide a warrant to justify causation. I provided you a very specific example of how violent movies (and video games for that matter) are exported around the world, and there's not a single industrialized country that even comes close to the amount of mass shootings and gun violence that we have here in the United States.

[GiancarloC]

Scoring points is not the goal

But thanks

As for violence in films and videogames

It has impact and is worthy of debate

Just as arming a school security guard does

Convos don't end because you're not in agreement

Another false equivalence.

Glad this thread was reopened... but no.

Violence in films and video games are not the cause for problems in society as these are distributed to Europe and crime rates are vastly lower there.

[tombastep]

The problem isn't violent entertainment, the problem is constant finger pointing at scape goats instead of looking at the actual problems. If movies and games helped cause violence then you'd see a lot more violence than these mass shootings considering how many people play violent games AND see violent movies. Considering it has been pointed out several times that these are all accessible universally and mass violence is not the case in other countries it should be a no brainer that it isn't the problem.

Violence, tragedy and atrocities didn't happen before all this violent entertainment existed right?

[Durango95]

The problem with quoting studies is that there are always contrary studies. It really comes down to where and from whom the "study" researchers are receiving financing. As a rule, when one finances a study, poll or survey, they have a vested interest as to the outcome. I personally cannot think of one instance of a study being financed by a certain group or individual that didn't eventually say what the financier wanted.

While I do not think graphic violence in video games or movies or TV, is solely responsible for an increase in violence in society it is a statistical improbability that it has no effect whatsoever. To blindly accept a celebrity's assertion that it just isn't simply because they say so is naive at best.

I do not find Mr. Tarantino's work entertaining in the least. It is very often poorly written, poorly acted, poorly directed and poorly produced.

Instead of asking him about violence in film, maybe the interviewer should have been asking him why his movies are so horrible.

[andysayshi]

I found Django Unchained to be one of Tarantino's better films - quite enjoyed it. Personally, I think his films would actually be better, and reach a wider audience, if he toned down the violence. But, they are what they are.

Meanwhile, I haven't been motivated to go on a shooting spree since seeing it.

[xbuzzerx]

The problem with quoting studies is that there are always contrary studies. It really comes down to where and from whom the "study" researchers are receiving financing. As a rule, when one finances a study, poll or survey, they have a vested interest as to the outcome. I personally cannot think of one instance of a study being financed by a certain group or individual that didn't eventually say what the financier wanted.

While I do not think graphic violence in video games or movies or TV, is solely responsible for an increase in violence in society it is a statistical improbability that it has no effect whatsoever. To blindly accept a celebrity's assertion that it just isn't simply because they say so is naive at best.

I do not find Mr. Tarantino's work entertaining in the least. It is very often poorly written, poorly acted, poorly directed and poorly produced.

Instead of asking him about violence in film, maybe the interviewer should have been asking him why his movies are so horrible.

It's a monumentally stupid thing to blame first before the fact that mentally unstable people have incredibly easy access to firearms.

[Durango95]

It's a monumentally stupid thing to blame first before the fact that mentally unstable people have incredibly easy access to firearms.

What blame? There was no blame. [Text: Removed]

Criminals have incredibly easy access to guns too. Limiting the access to guns for law abiding citizens will not reduce the accessibility to criminals.

[Text: Removed]

[Jack Springer]

If violent behavior in movies and on tv doesn't encourage violence -- would it be ok to bring back cigarette smoking on tv in shows and ads?

I think that's a very good comparison.

[Laufey]

Yes it would.

But ads are different from being a natural part of a storyline in a scripted show. You don't see ad's about fight clubs on TV.

[GiancarloC]

If violent behavior in movies and on tv doesn't encourage violence -- would it be ok to bring back cigarette smoking on tv in shows and ads?

I think that's a very good comparison.

No. Because that's an apples and oranges comparison. Thanks for the red herring though.

[xbuzzerx]

If violent behavior in movies and on tv doesn't encourage violence -- would it be ok to bring back cigarette smoking on tv in shows and ads?

I think that's a very good comparison.

An ad is actually encouraging you to buy or engage in a particular product or activity. It's designed to encourage you.

Saying any movie or TV show with violence is doing the same thing is a fallacy.

[Laufey]

Movies show all sides while ad's are always one sided sugar-coated messages only intended for you to buy the product.

It would be horrible if scripted material for entertainment and art could not show things real life has like smoking, sex, violence, doing drugs, etc... Artistic freedom should be considered a part of freedom of speech and expression.

Despite the media always focusing on the bad we are actually living in one of the most peaceful times in the history of mankind. For example honor killing was at one point almost a part of every culture on the planet... before the days of television.

[GiancarloC]

An ad is actually encouraging you to buy or engage in a particular product or activity. It's designed to encourage you.

Saying any movie or TV show with violence is doing the same thing is a fallacy.

This is exactly it, and the same applies to video games. Republicans, however, refuse to admit the problems and instead try to turn it around and blame video games, TV shows or movies. It's all desperation especially considering when public opinion is turning against them.

[HenryReardon]

.

Violence in films and video games are not the cause for problems in society as these are distributed to Europe and crime rates are vastly lower there.

Crime rates vastly lower in Europe? The facts say otherwise:

http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_count...tes_per_capita

"The top ten countries in per capita crime rate are as follows:

1. Dominica: 113.822 per 1,000 people
2. New Zealand: 105.881 per 1,000 people
3. Finland: 101.526 per 1,000 people
4. Denmark: 92.8277 per 1,000 people
5. Chile: 88.226 per 1,000 people
6. United Kingdom: 85.5517 per 1,000 people
7. Montserrat: 80.3982 per 1,000 people
8. United States: 80.0645 per 1,000 people
9. Netherlands: 79.5779 per 1,000 people
10. South Africa: 77.1862 per 1,000 people"

[Rolyo85]

We're talking about gun violence, sugar.

[HenryReardon]

We're talking about gun violence, sugar.

The post I responded to said "crime rates."

[Rolyo85]

The post I responded to said "crime rates."

All the crime conversation has been in the context of gun violence. [Text: Removed]

[HenryReardon]

All the crime conversation has been in the context of gun violence. [Text: Removed]

Not at all. [Text: Removed]

[GiancarloC]

I was referring to gun related crimes, and most of Europe still has an overall lower crime rate than the US. THat was a weak trolling attempt, but thanks for the right wing reactionary nonsense.

[Text: Removed]

So yes, crime rates are lower in most European countries... far lower. But I guess the truth hurts.

[Laufey]

How the law enforcement and justice systems are shaped influences the statistics for crime rates.

The simplest and best way is simply to compare gun related deaths. Countries like Finland and Denmark score much lower than the US.

Plus it's few countries. It would make more sense to compare the EU and US rather than pick the four European countries with the highest crime rates.

[GiancarloC]

Selective statistics is how the right wing operates... especially when public opinion has shifted against them. They operated that way throughout the election.

[xbuzzerx]

What blame? There was no blame. [Text: Removed]

Criminals have incredibly easy access to guns too. Limiting the access to guns for law abiding citizens will not reduce the accessibility to criminals.

[Text: Removed]

Almost none of the public spree shooters had a criminal record prior to what they did.

They were "law abiding gun owners."

I don't buy into this notion that there's two distinct camps of criminals and law abiding gun owners because it's friggin myth. People snap, people develop mental problems, or people go buy a gun in the heat of a moment or when under psychological duress-- that's the whole reasoning for any form of wait periods in the first place, so that you can't go buy a gun right after your wife gets full custody of the kids or whatever else.

Long story short: crazy ass people in this country sit on a pile of guns and eventually go do something with them. Up until the moment they do they were in your "law abiding citizen" category. Then they joined the criminal category after it was too late to do anything about it.

[mitchymo]

Criminals have incredibly easy access to guns too. Limiting the access to guns for law abiding citizens will not reduce the accessibility to criminals.

This mentality is a part of the problem. The mentality that criminals are sub-human beings. They are not a different species. Just because many of them won't let a tiny little thing called 'the law' get in the way of their business, doesn't mean they are going to go out of their way to acquire a firearm before commencing whatever crime they have planned, unless its a crucial part of the crime (armed robbery) which is normally the mainstay of INTELLIGENT and ORGANISED crime, not your average hoodlum. If your fact was true, it would be a different story in gun restricted nations.

If violent behavior in movies and on tv doesn't encourage violence -- would it be ok to bring back cigarette smoking on tv in shows and ads?
I think that's a very good comparison.

I think this comparison can be considered 'good', but unfortunately its baseless, as with computor game violence, that such advertising actually encourages people to smoke. I for one didn't take up the habit because i saw some sexy fella puffing on a cancer-stick on the tv screen. Most people get into the habit because friends or family do it. Think about it this way. What washing powder do you use? Has seeing an advert for a different washing powder made you swap brands? Or did you try it because having seen an ad, you opted to trial it after spotting it in the supermarket one day? The advertising doesn't encourage you, it just provides information. Its the availability of a product that is FAR more influencial (not to mention affordability for many). If your fave brand washing powder is out of stock, you look at whats available in its place, you don't succumb to an advert and buy something which takes you out of your way to buy, or is too expensive).
You have to remember that banning smoking ads to DISCOURAGE people from smoking, doesn't mean that allowing them has the opposite effect. Its just easier for people not to have their memory jogged by advertising, so people trying to kick the habit have an easier time without being INFORMED every ad break (notice i said informed, not encouraged).

Crime rates vastly lower in Europe? The facts say otherwise:

http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_count...tes_per_capita

"The top ten countries in per capita crime rate are as follows:

1. Dominica: 113.822 per 1,000 people
2. New Zealand: 105.881 per 1,000 people
3. Finland: 101.526 per 1,000 people
4. Denmark: 92.8277 per 1,000 people
5. Chile: 88.226 per 1,000 people
6. United Kingdom: 85.5517 per 1,000 people
7. Montserrat: 80.3982 per 1,000 people
8. United States: 80.0645 per 1,000 people
9. Netherlands: 79.5779 per 1,000 people
10. South Africa: 77.1862 per 1,000 people"

The 'FACTS' as you call them, provide no source and no date of record.
This is a link which i found: http://www.mapsofworld.com/world-top...ime-rates.html

It was updated in July 2012, and it shows a slightly different list. And look who is at the top of that list.

Now, the link i have just gave, may not be correct, maybe your link is closer to the truth. Its not easy to tell without a really good source, but neither of them are coming from any government branch or the UN, so...

And there is another thing worth noting. The US has the worlds highest prison population per capita, by a country mile, than other countries. So the US is protecting itself from a mighty huge figure of 'petty crime' at least. The idea that guns are having an impact on crime for the better, not the worse, is as flimsy as Quentin Crisps wrist.

[MattClaimer]

Of course he won't, because he knows it would publicly out him as a hypocrite. Wouldn't piss on him or Jamie Foxx if they were on fire and begging.

[Jack Springer]

Exactly. There is no responsibility to be taken. Art is not propaganda, so it should never answer to political or even social needs, though it always works with them.

Who decides what is art? Art is an expression -- it most certainly can be propaganda.

If you think art is just pretty stuff then you know nothing about art. Art has been used through man's existence to sway people to different points of view.

Childish.

[Rolyo85]

Dear Jack. I am a professional musician with over two decades of training. Please don't embarrass yourself any further by challenging my understanding of art ^_^

[mitchymo]

Art has been used through man's existence to sway people to different points of view.

The art?, or the story given to it?

I think you should give examples of such cases to back up such claims.

[Jack Springer]

Music -- "Ballad of the Green Berets", "Dixie"

Movies -- there were many in the US supporting the war effort --

Books -- 1984, Animal Farm

[JayHawk]

Man that movie was a great piece of art. It thoroughly demonstrates that slavery was a blight we have yet to have shaken off. The horrors we treated other human beings to in the name of a Christian bible. The people then perverted the word to their needs just as the zealots now pervert the Constitution and the biblical word to support their oppressive views of America.

So yes Jack i can see why QT didnt want to take on your entire party about how demented and misguided their ideas are and how well they compare to the ills given mankind from slavery.

[xbuzzerx]

Of course he won't, because he knows it would publicly out him as a hypocrite. Wouldn't piss on him or Jamie Foxx if they were on fire and begging.

A hypocrite about what?

I'm sorry but it's so lazy to take the attitude of "anyone who's ever thought about, seen, watched or made fiction about any violent situation ever has sacrificed any right to say they disapprove of real-life violence."

I've written short stories, many of them have some levels of violence in them, I now cannot criticize public spree shootings? That would make me a 'hypocrite'?

This reasoning is broken. It implies parallelism between fiction and reality or a complete dismissal of any distinction. I'm a hypocrite if I murder people and then condemn murder. Not if I write a short story where someone gets murdered and say I disapprove of murder. Please let's get real.

[Rolyo85]

Art comments on society and culture constantly. That doesn't make it propaganda and doesn't imply that it has a goal other than to SHOW. Art is the mirror of the human condition.

...as well as a million other things.

[Kulindahr]

If violent behavior in movies and on tv doesn't encourage violence -- would it be ok to bring back cigarette smoking on tv in shows and ads?

I think that's a very good comparison.

It's a false comparison: everyone knows that movies are fiction, but cigaret commercials are making claims about real life.

[Kulindahr]

We're talking about gun violence, sugar.

No, we're not -- we're talking about violence, according to the thread title. It's quite legitimate to point out a general increase in violence, especially when it's not uncommon for violent crime other than with guns to increase when guns are highly restricted.

[Kulindahr]

And there is another thing worth noting. The US has the worlds highest prison population per capita, by a country mile, than other countries. So the US is protecting itself from a mighty huge figure of 'petty crime' at least. The idea that guns are having an impact on crime for the better, not the worse, is as flimsy as Quentin Crisps wrist.

The US is also subsidizing violent crime by keeping the price of drugs artificially high, thus offering the opportunity for immense profit as well as an incentive to shoot competitors and prey on the innocent.

[tombastep]

If violent behavior in movies and on tv doesn't encourage violence -- would it be ok to bring back cigarette smoking on tv in shows and ads?

I think that's a very good comparison.

Please explain to me if you think violence would change if something was done about violent entertainment? And if this happened and things didn't change, what would be the problem then? I am really curious as to how you think these things effect a person to the point of violence.

In my opinion if violent entertainment is the "cause" or "enabler" of such acts it suggests to me that there is a mental health issue here. Which would be the real problem.

Television didn't always exist and the kind of "entertainment" on it didn't always exist either, that didn't stop mass killing sprees, murder, rape, slavery, etc. Since I know you know this, why is violent entertainment blamed here? What changed in violence when TV/Movies came about?

I am really curious for your explanations.

[Jack Springer]

I've said before in CEP that mental health was the problem. Violence in TV, movies, and games stirs people with weak will and mental illness to act upon their desires.

I do know that visuals stimulate the human mind -- look at pornography -- we watch it to get excited about having sex. Most people just jack off or have sex with a partner. Then, there are those that take it to the extreme and the porno excites them to do horrible acts of sex abuse and even murder.

I think it's hypocritical to isolate 'the arts' from the discussion and cause of violence. However, I can understand how elitists cannot see the connection.

[tombastep]

So the problem is not the entertainment and pornography. So my question why should those mediums be punished for something that already exists as a problem in the person that commits violence? I will move on from the fact that you did not address all my questions.

I think it's hypocritical to isolate 'the arts' from the discussion and cause of violence. However, I can understand how elitists cannot see the connection.

Stuff like this is rather unseemly, can you refrain from it? That is if you want people to answer you in an honest and fashionable manner. Otherwise don't be surprised how people answer you when you make swipes and jabs like this.