# What Went Down During Trump's Meeting With The Video Game Industry



## matias3ds (Mar 9, 2018)

Sure sure , people play videogames and after that they go to schools and shoot with their joysticks


----------



## dimmidice (Mar 9, 2018)

"And how our industry’s rating system effectively helps parents make informed entertainment choices."

Well that's clearly bollocks.

As for the whole videogame creating killers debate.I think violent games can sate a violent persons appetites in a safe way. But i also  think some people may think their appetites are normal from playing games
 which could potentially be dangerous. I'd say the former happens more than the latter though.


We all know why trump's taken an interest in this though. That school shooting a while ago. trump wants a scapegoat for that, while at the same time ignoring the fact that the guy was a trump supporter. And if anything incites violence it's trump"s speeches.


----------



## Kioku_Dreams (Mar 9, 2018)

dimmidice said:


> "And how our industry’s rating system effectively helps parents make informed entertainment choices."
> 
> Well that's clearly bollocks.
> 
> ...


You're actually using Trump as an excuse for how disturbed the guy was? REALLY?


----------



## dimmidice (Mar 9, 2018)

Memoir said:


> You're actually using Trump as an excuse for how disturbed the guy was? REALLY?


His speeches incite violence, he was inciting people to beat up protestors by saying he'd pay their legal fees. But no i don't think that trump caused the guy to go mental. Though the guy probably was a trump supporter because he was mental.


----------



## jt_1258 (Mar 9, 2018)

dimmidice said:


> "And how our industry’s rating system effectively helps parents make informed entertainment choices."
> 
> Well that's clearly bollocks.
> 
> ...


How is it not having them informed? It's a matter of the parents not understanding or not caring about their child playing gory violent games. Which games like cod that are known to have a lot of children playing has blatantly shown right on the box.


----------



## Old (Mar 9, 2018)

Hark - the orange dotard tweets more garbled propaganda aimed at inciting his (angry, uneducated, dickless) base! 
(Or rather, what _remains_ of his base, these days....80% Russiabots, 10% trailer court inbreeders, 10% easily conned dummies.)

Hurry, Bob, while we've still got some semblance of a democracy LEFT!


----------



## Taleweaver (Mar 9, 2018)

You have got to be kidding me...

The guy pretty much singlehandedly starts an international trade war. Let me spell that out for you:

AN

INTERNATIONAL

TRADE

WAR



There are things that could be worse on this planet (like...countries launching nucleair missiles at each other). But not much.


Yet what does he do? He is concerned about video games. FREAKING _VIDEO GAMES!!!

_
Yes, it's my hobby. Yes, I'm concerned for it. But I also have a freaking sense of perspective. Video games aren't a necessity. Countries agreeing with each other is a large kind of exponential magnitude more important.

Americans: seriously...throw that sociopath out of the white house. He has already caused some serious damage to your reputation. Please don't make it harder for his successor to just undo all his stupidity (assuming the trade war doesn't escalate into an actual one).


----------



## BlueFox gui (Mar 9, 2018)

lmao he is so fucking dumb
his retarded country have a lot of problems, some parents can't even educate their children, and what is their excuse?
"vido gaemz maek our kidz violent, their irresponsible parents and people around them have nothing with that, it's aaaaaall vedo gaemz fault"
omg
trump shouldn't exist


----------



## leon315 (Mar 9, 2018)

VIDEOGAMES don't kill people, GUNS do!


----------



## Old (Mar 9, 2018)

BlueFox gui said:


> trump shouldn't exist


----------



## DRAGONBALLVINTAGE (Mar 9, 2018)

Why would Trump blame Video Games when if you play GTA Online what do hear squeakers 

At GameStop you need a parent to buy a M rated game

see what I'm saying


----------



## jt_1258 (Mar 9, 2018)

Also, I just have to say this.

Parents: "Oh no, the games are making our children violent."
*Try's to fight the game industry while continuing to let their child play whatever the fuck they want on the ps4 s, xbox1 s, & switche s.*


----------



## Sheimi (Mar 9, 2018)

Taleweaver said:


> Americans: seriously...throw that sociopath out of the white house. He has already caused some serious damage to your reputation. Please don't make it harder for his successor to just undo all his stupidity (assuming the trade war doesn't escalate into an actual one).


If people are willing to get their heads out of their asses.


----------



## the_randomizer (Mar 9, 2018)

You know what also has violence? TV shows, books and movies. Yeah, crazy right, but video games are an easy target by stupid lobbyists looking for something to blame, what a shock.

Violent TV shows and movies, what's that?


----------



## DaTank45 (Mar 9, 2018)

jt_1258 said:


> How is it not having them informed? It's a matter of the parents not understanding or not caring about their child playing gory violent games. Which games like cod that are known to have a lot of children playing has blatantly shown right on the box.
> View attachment 117016 View attachment 117017


The real answer is bad parenting when it comes to any type of violence being consumed by children. Whether its through video games, movies, TV, internet, etc... If for some reason they censor all of the violence by these media types, what happens? Everyone just behaves and doesn't make poor decisions? The parents should be held accountable along with the children that commit these terrible acts of violence.


----------



## DrkBeam (Mar 9, 2018)

I hope to see another trailer of the last of us part 2 in the E3


----------



## Meteor7 (Mar 9, 2018)

What an absurdly ignorant way of thinking. Do they honestly think that portraying violence in a much more fluffy, abstract, and inconsequential way will dissuade people from committing those acts as opposed to the visceral depictions in that video? Of course not, because the more you abstract and remove the concept of aggression from the bloody, gory, unpleasant consequences violence will actually have, the less averse a person would be to the act altogether. It removes the guttural, putrid reaction that seeing the results of that kind of violence will invoke in people, and serve to normalize and trivialize acts like murder in the minds of those who see it. We just saw that effect right here; people were shown those acts of violence in all the gory detail and their reaction was not "hey, look at that, murder is SO COOL" it was 'stunned silence'. They were disgusted and put off by what they saw. The more dangerous act is to make those forms of violence _not_ evoke those feelings of disgust, which is apparently exactly what these backwards blowhards intend to do.


----------



## jt_1258 (Mar 9, 2018)

DaTank45 said:


> The real answer is bad parenting when it comes to any type of violence being consumed by children. Whether its through video games, movies, TV, internet, etc... If for some reason they censor all of the violence by these media types, what happens? Everyone just behaves and doesn't make poor decisions? The parents should be held accountable along with the children that commit these terrible acts of violence.


Ya, that's why I said some don't care. They just say "Here kid, have some money and grab whatever the fuck ya want." and don't look at or care about the age rating. The most leaneancy my parents ever gave was by a couple of years of the age rating or really old games like Diablo 2 that are likely to drop down in age rating if they were reevaluated by the esrb today.


----------



## the_randomizer (Mar 9, 2018)

Oh come on, everyone knows a little violence never hurt anyone


----------



## Lukerz (Mar 9, 2018)

If parents weren't stupid and didnt let there 8 year old kid play GTA this wouldn't be a problem.


----------



## KiiWii (Mar 9, 2018)

Ridiculousness.


----------



## the_randomizer (Mar 9, 2018)

Lukerz said:


> If parents weren't stupid and didnt let there 8 year old kid play GTA this wouldn't be a problem.



Whether or not parents aren't be responsible, the government has no right (or any government) to parent children for them. It's not their job to control what other people do, it's just an excuse to let people not be responsible.


----------



## Old (Mar 9, 2018)

DaTank45 said:


> The real answer is bad parenting when it comes to any type of violence being consumed by children. Whether its through video games, movies, TV, internet, etc... If for some reason they censor all of the violence by these media types, what happens? Everyone just behaves and doesn't make poor decisions? The parents should be held accountable along with the children that commit these terrible acts of violence.



Parenting/guidance is the answer.  But, nope, we're instead offered brilliant gems of wisdom such as:  "B-b-BUt MoR gUNz n skOOl GUD! giEv TAehCRS GNZZ!!!"

Tragically, creatures like the dotard & the G(L)OP are greedy vampiric monsters that exist solely to accumulate $$$ and leech souls.  It's only gotten worse post-Nixon, to the point where most of 'em will now FLAGRANTLY boast of their evil acts, publicly.  Paul Ryan?  The evil tortoise Mitch?  'Pedo Roy' Moore?  Guess what, Millennials and Gen Z -- these Putin drones/wicked bastards don't *give a SHIT about you*.  You're merely the next generations of cattle for them to feed on, for as long as they remain in 'power'....


----------



## Navonod (Mar 9, 2018)

leon315 said:


> VIDEOGAMES don't kill people, GUNS do!


No. People kill people. A gun can't get up on it's own and shoot someone. Just like a fork can't get up and make someone overweight.


----------



## jt_1258 (Mar 9, 2018)

DrGreed said:


> No. People kill people. A gun can't get up on it's own and shoot someone. Just like a fork can't get up and make someone overweight.


Till the day comes that we get robots that are allowed to shoot bullets


----------



## RivenMain (Mar 9, 2018)

To the people defending the industry, realize that children's minds are not developed. With the development of VR and everything feeling real in our minds like we are inside the game consider the outcome of children that have access to this. Don't think just of your own selves. For me I see it as demented. I remember a few gta kids at my school and they shared anger issues like the world hated them. Us killing in game may dwell the pain of life, but to some it's not enough.
I'm sure a majority of gamers have at some point been effected by a game or tv show. Wanting to be that character or portray them in someway. The same exists in violent games. There's a reason old folks may see shooting games as a incentive for joining the army etc. And there's probably some truth within it.


----------



## Navonod (Mar 9, 2018)

jt_1258 said:


> Till the day comes that we get robots that are allowed to shoot bullets


You think our brightest minds would give robots guns? I can see a possible military use but I highly doubt that's something we have to worry about. And even then it's the robot killing with a weapon. Not a gun shooting people on it's own.


----------



## the_randomizer (Mar 9, 2018)

DrGreed said:


> No. People kill people. A gun can't get up on it's own and shoot someone. Just like a fork can't get up and make someone overweight.



Guns killing people is the stupidest argument I've ever heard against them. Know what else can be used to kill people? Knifes, improvised explosive devices, C-4, cars, so why don't we ban those next? Or better yet, we can always ban people


----------



## Navonod (Mar 9, 2018)

the_randomizer said:


> Guns killing people is the stupidest argument I've ever heard against them. Know what else can be used to kill people? Knifes, improvised explosive devices, C-4, cars, so why don't we ban those next? Or better yet, we can always ban people


I know right? People are dumb.


----------



## the_randomizer (Mar 9, 2018)

DrGreed said:


> I know right? People are dumb.



If guns kill people, spoons made me fat.


----------



## Navonod (Mar 9, 2018)

RivenMain said:


> To the people defending the industry, realize that children's minds are not developed. With the development of VR and everything feeling real in our minds like we are inside the game consider the outcome of children that have access to this. Don't think just of your own selves. For me I see it as demented. I remember a few gta kids at my school and they shared anger issues like the world hated them. Us killing in game may dwell the pain of life, but to some it's not enough.
> I'm sure a majority of gamers have at some point been effected by a game or tv show. Wanting to be that character or portray them in someway. The same exists in violent games. There's a reason old folks may see shooting games as a incentive for joining the army etc. And there's probably some truth within it.


That's why parents shouldn't let their kids play such video games. It's the parents fault for not doing research on a video game like they should.


----------



## chrisrlink (Mar 9, 2018)

whats next? banning Pokemon cause it teaches animal fighting while winning bets (oh wa-.......) (trying to be ironicly funny here not serious)

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------



DrGreed said:


> That's why parents shouldn't let their kids play such video games. It's the parents fault for not doing research on a video game like they should.



exactly maybe trump should work on those damn loot crates but he won't cause it geneates money for capitalism


----------



## Navonod (Mar 9, 2018)

chrisrlink said:


> whats next? banning Pokemon cause it teaches animal fighting while winning bets (oh wa-.......) (trying to be ironicly funny here not serious)


I've always seen Pokemon as a more violent dog fight. But the cartoon down plays it as friendship and happiness in fairy tail land. Great games though.


----------



## the_randomizer (Mar 9, 2018)

Another day, another pointless political meeting in DC as another attempt to tell us what to do *yawn*

"We're too lazy to parent our children, we'll let the government do it, we can trust them!"


----------



## jt_1258 (Mar 9, 2018)

chrisrlink said:


> whats next? banning Pokemon cause it teaches animal fighting while winning bets (oh wa-.......) (trying to be ironicly funny here not serious)
> 
> --------------------- MERGED ---------------------------
> 
> ...


https://www.forbes.com/sites/erikka...t-coming-to-china-any-time-soon/#3a8a8833681e


----------



## the_randomizer (Mar 9, 2018)

jt_1258 said:


> https://www.forbes.com/sites/erikka...t-coming-to-china-any-time-soon/#3a8a8833681e



Well, it's China, they have stupid regulations on video games despite being a big bootleg hotspot for video games. Hmm, what a shock.


----------



## chrisrlink (Mar 9, 2018)

well i say he lost A LOT of votes for 2020 just with this shit (both by Gamers,dev and CEO's of game companies)


----------



## jt_1258 (Mar 9, 2018)

the_randomizer said:


> Well, it's China, they have stupid regulations on video games despite being a big bootleg hotspot for video games. Hmm, what a shock.


Like splatoon being portable before spl2oon


----------



## RivenMain (Mar 9, 2018)

DrGreed said:


> That's why parents shouldn't let their kids play such video games. It's the parents fault for not doing research on a video game like they should.


It's not are they allowed, if you tell a kid not to do something it's just gonna make them curious why not. And like Lion king if it isn't thorough they'll do it. if it's late night x files well your sleeping. Or closing their web browser when you walk into the room. They'll find a way the importance is making it harder for those children to have access in the beginning. Passwords waking a computer, high shelves.

When I learned how to delete my browsing history ( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°) lol


----------



## the_randomizer (Mar 9, 2018)

jt_1258 said:


> Like splatoon being portable before spl2oon



Who knows, China is still very strict on games. Yet they let people pirate them like no tomorrow.



RivenMain said:


> It's not are they allowed, if you tell a kid not to do something it's just gonna make them curious why not. And like Lion king if it isn't thorough they'll do it. if it's late night x files well your sleeping. Or closing their web browser when you walk into the room. They'll find a way the importance is making it harder for those children to have access in the beginning. Passwords waking a computer, high shelves.



So WTF should the government try to parent when they themselves think they're infallible?


----------



## chrisrlink (Mar 9, 2018)

jt_1258 said:


> https://www.forbes.com/sites/erikka...t-coming-to-china-any-time-soon/#3a8a8833681e



that deals with security concerns aka preventing China from being mapped (to prevent a strategic overthrow both by citizens and Foreing Governments)


----------



## APartOfMe (Mar 9, 2018)

People are singling out video games, when violence is everywhere. Tv shows, movies, books, the news, even flipping billboards these days. It's not just video games that desensitize people. They might be a part of it, but they're not the sole reason. If your going to go after video games for being too violent, than you also have to go after everything else.


----------



## jt_1258 (Mar 9, 2018)

RivenMain said:


> It's not are they allowed, if you tell a kid not to do something it's just gonna make them curious why not. And like Lion king if it isn't thorough they'll do it. if it's late night x files well your sleeping. Or closing their web browser when you walk into the room. They'll find a way the importance is making it harder for those children to have access in the beginning. Passwords waking a computer, high shelves.


That's why you must be strict and actually password protect stuff to keep the child from doing stuff while your out of the room and software similar to what schools use for keeping and eye on the child, though I feel like a young child shouldn't be let loose on the internet without a parent supervising them anyway.
EDIT: it's suppose to be shouldn't, not should


----------



## MasterJ360 (Mar 9, 2018)

Wasn't the school shooter a supremacist? If you think about it most of the mass shooters are not sure about the Las Vegas incident, but the one at South Carolina's church was one also
Yet we are falling back on Video game violence as the culprit. I'm still trying to figure how this man even made this far into office.


----------



## chrisrlink (Mar 9, 2018)

Problem is how far will this shit go M,T,E10?


----------



## HaloEliteLegend (Mar 9, 2018)

All this sudden talk about violence in video games (when it was already beaten to death in 2006-2013) is just politicians trying to deflect from actual issues regarding gun control to prevent angering the NRA and receive their sweet lobbyist money. I'm not suggesting anything policy-related, but it's blatantly obvious video games are just the scapegoat here so bought and paid for politicos can avoid doing anything substantive.


----------



## the_randomizer (Mar 9, 2018)

MasterJ360 said:


> Wasn't the school shooter a supremacist? If you think about it most of the mast shooters are not sure about the Las Vegas incident, but the one at South Carolina's church was one also
> Yet we are falling back on Video game violence as the culprit. I'm still trying to figure how this man even made this far into office.



Ask the people who managed to narrow it down to two assclowns as candidates.


----------



## MasterJ360 (Mar 9, 2018)

the_randomizer said:


> Ask the people who managed to narrow it down to two assclowns as candidates.


Or the Russians


----------



## Old (Mar 9, 2018)

MasterJ360 said:


> Wasn't the school shooter a supremacist? If you think about it most of the mass shooters are not sure about the Las Vegas incident, but the one at South Carolina's church was one also
> Yet we are falling back on Video game violence as the culprit. I'm still trying to figure how this man even made this far into office.



"Man", LOL!  You mean bloated, coked-out dementia baby.


----------



## ThisIsDaAccount (Mar 9, 2018)

Trump's just finding excuses so he doesn't have to pass gun control laws. I don't even think there's evidence Nicolas Cruz liked games


----------



## Navonod (Mar 9, 2018)

RivenMain said:


> It's not are they allowed, if you tell a kid not to do something it's just gonna make them curious why not. And like Lion king if it isn't thorough they'll do it. if it's late night x files well your sleeping. Or closing their web browser when you walk into the room. They'll find a way the importance is making it harder for those children to have access in the beginning. Passwords waking a computer, high shelves.
> 
> When I learned how to delete my browsing history ( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°) lol


Read that wrong. Still get on to your kids. Be strict and punish them for not listening.


----------



## chrisrlink (Mar 9, 2018)

jt_1258 said:


> That's why you must be strict and actually password protect stuff to keep the child from doing stuff while your out of the room *and software similar to what schools use for keeping and eye on the child*, though I feel like a young child should be let loose on the internet without a parent supervising them anyway.



I've seen kids as young as 10 know what VPN'S are so it could be futile depending on how tech savy the child is


----------



## the_randomizer (Mar 9, 2018)

MasterJ360 said:


> Or the Russians



Couldn't care less about their involvement.



chrisrlink said:


> I've seen kids as young as 10 know what VPN'S are so it could be futile depending on how tech savy the child is



Then don't buy them games.


----------



## DaTank45 (Mar 9, 2018)

Maybe you should have to be deemed suitable to raise children and have to get a license... lol


----------



## Old (Mar 9, 2018)

Presented without further comment:


----------



## chrisrlink (Mar 9, 2018)

DrGreed said:


> Do you even know how robotics work? You program it for one or a handful of things. Robots don't randomly learn things. If that was the case your toaster would be shooting up schools.



China is researching AI skynet will be upon us in some form


----------



## jt_1258 (Mar 9, 2018)

chrisrlink said:


> I've seen kids as young as 10 know what VPN'S are so it could be futile depending on how tech savy the child is


do you think a vpn hides a video recording of what's going on that's recorded over the lan


----------



## Navonod (Mar 9, 2018)

chrisrlink said:


> China is researching AI skynet will be upon us in some form


I read that comment wrong earlier. X) 
But China needs to calm down. I'm not ready to fight robots.


----------



## chrisrlink (Mar 9, 2018)

What I really worry about is the DMCA being strenghed by trump to where even the end user of cfw/hacks would be arrested


----------



## RivenMain (Mar 9, 2018)

So WTF should the government try to parent when they themselves think they're infallible?[/QUOTE]
I mean laws in the u.s are based on the stupidest of people. Though for a long time most bloody games were exclusive to Japan version only. 



jt_1258 said:


> That's why you must be strict and actually password protect stuff to keep the child from doing stuff while your out of the room and software similar to what schools use for keeping and eye on the child, though I feel like a young child should be let loose on the internet without a parent supervising them anyway.
> 
> it makes me glad you feel that way. I feel the same too.


----------



## Old (Mar 9, 2018)

chrisrlink said:


> China is researching AI skynet will be upon us in some form



Some say that the very same AI that makes our video game enemies increasingly challenging will be our undoing....


----------



## the_randomizer (Mar 9, 2018)

RivenMain said:


> So WTF should the government try to parent when they themselves think they're infallible?


I mean laws in the u.s are based on the stupidest of people. Though for a long time most bloody games were exclusive to Japan version only.[/QUOTE]

And remind me again why people insist we trust the government? They don't want what's best for us, just for them to get more money.


----------



## Deleted User (Mar 9, 2018)

Video games don't cause violence, atleast, not to those mentally capable of understanding that these are games, and only that.
Evidence suggests kids aren't affected, well, mostly.

However, I do think not enough is being done to stop young kids from playing these games. The particular problem can be made as air tight as possible, if it weren't for 1 single factor: The parents buying the games for them.

Without getting some sort of system in place which punishes parents for giving their kids these games, nothing will change.

Fuck, games like CoD THRIVE on parents buying their 10/14 year old kids these games. Cut the kids (technically) illegal possession of these games, and watch their sales drop like crazy.


----------



## the_randomizer (Mar 9, 2018)

StarGazerTom said:


> Video games don't cause violence, atleast, not to those mentally capable of understanding that these are games, and only that.
> Evidence suggests kids aren't affected, well, mostly.
> 
> However, I do think not enough is being done to stop young kids from playing these games. The particular problem can be made as air tight as possible, if it weren't for 1 single factor: The parents buying the games for them.
> ...



Or just don't buy said games for their kids, in this case, the parents are utter thick-headed morons for even propagating it.


----------



## Tony_93 (Mar 9, 2018)

Let me get this straight... Donald Trump isn't against guns because he thinks videogames are the problem instead? LOL


----------



## Old (Mar 9, 2018)

Tony_93 said:


> Let me get this straight... Donald Trump isn't against guns because he thinks videogames are the problem instead? LOL



Nah, he isn't against guns because he's *owned* by two terrorist organizations:  The NRA & the Putin regime.


----------



## ThisIsDaAccount (Mar 9, 2018)

chrisrlink said:


> What I really worry about is the DMCA being strenghed by trump to where even the end user of cfw/hacks would be arrested


If it's any reassurance I have serious doubt Trump knows enough about any of this to actually pass any policies


----------



## Deleted User (Mar 9, 2018)

the_randomizer said:


> Or just don't buy said games for their kids, in this case, the parents are utter thick-headed morons for even propagating it.


That's exactly it. It's pretty much the sole problem. If parents are ignoring the big fucking 18-ONLY, EXTREME VIOLENCE AND GORE, MURDER, EXPLOSIONS & PROSTITUTION, there's really nothing anyone can really do.


----------



## Owenge (Mar 9, 2018)

This makes me worried about the future because "yes let's blame the games since we have nothing else to blame"


----------



## the_randomizer (Mar 9, 2018)

StarGazerTom said:


> That's exactly it. It's pretty much the sole problem. If parents are ignoring the big fucking 18-ONLY, EXTREME VIOLENCE AND GORE, MURDER, EXPLOSIONS & PROSTITUTION, there's really nothing anyone can really do.



Therefore the government has no right to stick their nose in others' business.


----------



## Old (Mar 9, 2018)

ThisIsDaAccount said:


> If it's any reassurance I have serious doubt Trump knows enough about any of this to actually pass any policies



He doesn't.  He's currently in the throes of advanced dementia & decades worth of raging coke addiction.  A baaaaad combo.

Also, he's on borrowed time and even he knows it at this point.  He might narrowly avoid dying in Federal prison by spilling his (ample) guts, but most of his cohorts and fellow sociopaths will live out their days behind bars.


----------



## MasterJ360 (Mar 9, 2018)

the_randomizer said:


> Or just don't buy said games for their kids, in this case, the parents are utter thick-headed morons for even propagating it.


Well we can squabble about parents ignoring the content ratings on games, but in reality the games are not putting the guns in their hands. Movies and TV shows even lyrical music also have violence but for some reason video games seems to be thrown under the bus
as the primary cause. Toy guns and hunting rifles would make more sense in this case but Trump isn't going blame those things.


----------



## the_randomizer (Mar 9, 2018)

MasterJ360 said:


> Well we can squabble about parents ignoring the content ratings on games, but in reality the games are not putting the guns in their hands. Movies and TV shows even lyrical music also have violence but for some reason video games seems to be thrown under the bus
> as the primary cause. Toy guns and hunting rifles would make more sense in this case but Trump isn't going blame those things.



All the more reason for parents not buying said games or movies for their kids.


----------



## Kioku_Dreams (Mar 9, 2018)

MasterJ360 said:


> Well we can squabble about parents ignoring the content ratings on games, but in reality the games are not putting the guns in their hands. Movies and TV shows even lyrical music also have violence but for some reason video games seems to be thrown under the bus
> as the primary cause. Toy guns and hunting rifles would make more sense in this case but Trump isn't going blame those things.


Not even just Trump. Video games have been under fire for a LONG time now.

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------



Old said:


> He doesn't.  He's currently in the throes of advanced dementia & decades worth of raging coke addiction.  A baaaaad combo.
> 
> Also, he's on borrowed time and even he knows it at this point.  He might narrowly avoid dying in Federal prison by spilling his (ample) guts, but most of his cohorts and fellow sociopaths will live out their days behind bars.


Cocaine is a hell of a drug.


----------



## Pluupy (Mar 9, 2018)

I haven't watched tv many years, since I was little, I guess...but some years ago I remember seeing these shows on TruTV about "Repo" people, who only did cars for some reason. It was a really violent show where every person they repo'd a car from would try to assault the repo men or argue. Those nights I had nightmares of people fighting too. 

I don't get dreams like that for video games. Video games are very fake; unbelievable, and predictable. NPCs always stand around with one expression and just shmutz around for no purpose. Real humans aren't like that. Even kids aren't stupid enough to mistaken games for reality. It is nothing but a scape goat for society to point the finger to when they can't come up with a reason why little Bobby shot up the school.


----------



## TheWolfLord (Mar 9, 2018)

RivenMain said:


> To the people defending the industry, realize that children's minds are not developed. With the development of VR and everything feeling real in our minds like we are inside the game consider the outcome of children that have access to this. Don't think just of your own selves. For me I see it as demented. I remember a few gta kids at my school and they shared anger issues like the world hated them. Us killing in game may dwell the pain of life, but to some it's not enough.
> I'm sure a majority of gamers have at some point been effected by a game or tv show. Wanting to be that character or portray them in someway. The same exists in violent games. There's a reason old folks may see shooting games as a incentive for joining the army etc. And there's probably some truth within it.



I rarely post and am not exactly here to argue but here's my two cents for people who are bored.

I can safely say I have never been negatively influenced by make-believe fantasy entertainment, regardless of the medium. 

The old quip about 'telling the difference between fantasy and reality' is all that needs to be said. Blaming a form of entertainment/art because some people are weak minded is ridiculous. I just don't agree that the industry should have to be curtailed by the small percentage of people who are so mentally handicapped that they can't understand the difference between real life and what they see on a screen. At that point, you may as well call for the complete censure of all forms of expression because some person somewhere might potentially, maybe, get an idea that might not have otherwise been present in their underdeveloped mind.

That was harsh of me but I think it's fair. As long as no actual lifeforms are being hurt in the creation of the game, as long as their are no victims, then devs should have free reign.

What someone does with that product after the fact is on them alone.

Now on to the issue of kids.

I'm not convinced kids aren't capable of being exposed to these sorts of games without being damaged. But regardless, parents need to do their job. If the parents haven't properly educated their children by the time they can actually understand what's happening in the games then that is on them, not the industry. If you are going to let your kid drink that sort of juice, you better be sure they understand the divide between game and the real world. That they first lay the building blocks for a respectable human being. 

Too often, people don't know how to parent. My parents never let me out of their sight when I was young so I wasn't about to fall in a Gorilla enclosure or get snatched up by some predator. I was also ingrained with old school values and made to understand the world as it is so I wasn't about to think something in a videogame transferred outside of it. Who else will really take the time to teach responsibility, consequences for ones actions, etc for your child if not you yourself? That sort of simple foundation will go a long way in grounding a child. 

Maybe what we as a society should really focus on is the importance of the family unit and providing a stable and secure environment for the little ones? Our societal issues are certainly complicated though I think the basic relationship between, and attitudes towards, men and women are probably worth considering more than the effect of videogames.



DrGreed said:


> I've always seen Pokemon as a more violent dog fight. But the cartoon down plays it as friendship and happiness in fairy tail land. Great games though.



Parents did make that argument back in the 90's-early 2000's. Not surprised if it will rear it's ugly head again.

Someone find out if Michael Vick once dreamed about being a Pokemon Master.


----------



## Axmand (Mar 9, 2018)

IMHO this meeting it was for:

 "look we are the heads of the videogame industry, we know about violence and everything else in videogames but dont worry we will take care of it just dont stick too much you nose into the thread"


----------



## tech3475 (Mar 9, 2018)

Axmand said:


> IMHO this meeting it was for:
> 
> "look we are the heads of the videogame industry, we know about violence and everything else in videogames but dont worry we will take care of it just dont stick too much you nose into the thread"



I thought it was Trump who wanted the meeting?


----------



## Axmand (Mar 9, 2018)

Who ever that wanted the meeting...


----------



## Noctosphere (Mar 9, 2018)

Wtf violence in video doesnt need to be stopped
Its parent who buy adult game to their kid who must be stopped
Plus, its not because i play violent video game that ill become a shooter...
Player of violent video game  that became shooter represent a minority of those player
I played gta for the first time when i was around 8. I didnt shoot anyone ...
So please, stop saying violent video game must be banned
Hey, maybe we should ban pokemon game? Humans who make their pets fight against others pets... right?


----------



## Bimmel (Mar 9, 2018)

Is this a new topic or a Trump port from 2009? If so, then no buy for me.


----------



## Kioku_Dreams (Mar 9, 2018)

The irony in this thread is astounding.


----------



## Hyborix3 (Mar 9, 2018)

Murica'


----------



## FAST6191 (Mar 9, 2018)

I seems I was a bit optimistic. I thought around the time Jack Thompson got himself disbarred that this kind of nonsense was over.

Equally "some studies show"... I was not in particular need of more evidence that the guy cherry picks things like that but oh well. Does also make his constant cries of fictitious journalistic communiqués ring that much more hollow as well. On the other hand guess he has learned that part of being a politico, maybe he will even learn some of the rest before all is said and done.



Lukerz said:


> If parents weren't stupid and didnt let there 8 year old kid play GTA this wouldn't be a problem.


Still remember the time we let my friend's 6 year old daughter play Just Cause 3. She tried to drive nicely down the road.
That said what problems is an 8 year old playing GTA likely to experience as a result?



the_randomizer said:


> Guns killing people is the stupidest argument I've ever heard against them. Know what else can be used to kill people? Knifes, improvised explosive devices, C-4, cars, so why don't we ban those next? Or better yet, we can always ban people


I should know better but fuck it.
It is less that they are the only thing that is able to kill someone and more that they make it a hell of a lot easier, for basically anybody as well, and don't afford much chance to allow cooler heads to prevail. With that in place some then wonder as to their merit in modern society and extent the of the availability.
Your statement there risks being an overly simplistic reduction.


----------



## samcambolt270 (Mar 9, 2018)

we've already proven mathematically that without further evidence, you cannot prove that video games cause kids to be violent. All you need to understand is two statistical concepts, and I'll explain both.

1: Correlation does not equal causation. The rate of ice cream sales in the summer often correlates with the number of murders in that area(for real, not a joke), does that mean that Ice cream sales cause murder, or that murder causes ice cream sales? NO! thats stupid! Two statistics correlating can mean that they both rely on a similar factor, one thing caused both, or nothing at all! Number can just correlate sometimes.
The P(A|X) is not the same as the P(X|A). This sounds complicated but it isnt. P(A|X) simply means "the probability of event A occurring given that event X has already occurred." We can prove mathematically that the inverse of a probability is not the same. When someone uses evidence like "out of 500 violent kid crimes, 300 of them played violent video games" and uses that to try and prove that violent video games cause violence, they are using fallacious inverse evidence. I'll boil the "proof" to an equation. I'll use C as "committed a crime" and V as "played violent video games." When someone uses the previously mentioned evidence, they are saying that P(V|C) = 300/500. In other words, the probability of "having played a violent video game" given that they have ALREADY COMMITTED a violent crime is high, and this is the only thing that evidence can prove. If you want to prove that violent video games cause kids to commit crimes, you need different evidence, namely the inverse, P(C|V) or the probability of committing a violent crime given that you have played a violent video game. In that case, you would need a random sample containing solely kids who have played violent video games, and how many of those have committed violent crimes. Of course kids who have already committed violent crimes have a tendency to partake in violent media, so its a given that many kids who commit violent crimes would have played violent video games. You could get very similar biased "evidence" by saying "of the 500 kids surveyed who committed violent crimes, 480 of them ate breakfast!  BREAKFAST CAUSES VIOLENCE CONFIRMED!!1!" Of course, they'd never acknowledge this, since it wouldnt match their biased messages.


----------



## the_randomizer (Mar 9, 2018)

FAST6191 said:


> I seems I was a bit optimistic. I thought around the time Jack Thompson got himself disbarred that this kind of nonsense was over.
> 
> Equally "some studies show"... I was not in particular need of more evidence that the guy cherry picks things like that but oh well. Does also make his constant cries of fictitious journalistic communiqués ring that much more hollow as well. On the other hand guess he has learned that part of being a politico, maybe he will even learn some of the rest before all is said and done.
> 
> ...



And people wonder why I have reservations in voicing my opinions at all.


----------



## SG854 (Mar 9, 2018)

What exactly do they wish to accomplish with this meeting? Kids are already prevented from buying M rated games. What more can they do? The next step would be to ban violence in video games. Or better educate the public about ESRB ratings. Which I'm pretty sure parents should know by now what ESRB is.



Old said:


> Parenting/guidance is the answer.  But, nope, we're instead offered brilliant gems of wisdom such as:  "B-b-BUt MoR gUNz n skOOl GUD! giEv TAehCRS GNZZ!!!"
> 
> Tragically, creatures like the dotard & the G(L)OP are greedy vampiric monsters that exist solely to accumulate $$$ and leech souls.  It's only gotten worse post-Nixon, to the point where most of 'em will now FLAGRANTLY boast of their evil acts, publicly.  Paul Ryan?  The evil tortoise Mitch?  'Pedo Roy' Moore?  Guess what, Millennials and Gen Z -- these Putin drones/wicked bastards don't *give a SHIT about you*.  You're merely the next generations of cattle for them to feed on, for as long as they remain in 'power'....



People would rather be at work then be around their kids to raise them. Women fought to work a job like a man. And man wants to work too. They rather be at work working in a cubicle, then be around the people they care about which is their kids to raise them. Assuming they care about their kids. So we have a generation of kids not being raised by their biological parents and instead raised by video games and tv to baby sit them till the parents come home. No one is considering stay at home parent.


----------



## netovsk (Mar 9, 2018)

I thought he had no bounds when it came down to whats "good for the economy, creates american jobs".

It was all a smoke screen for some bizarre agenda then it seems.


----------



## FAST6191 (Mar 9, 2018)

While that is true I place a bit more stock in the people doing research.

Hard results from psychology and sociology in the same way I can test the effects of... adding 20% by weight of Lithium to an alloy on its resulting mechanical properties are not going to happen. There are however things like regression testing (you hold, or find somewhere where it was held by whatever means*, everything else the same and remove/alter one element and see what happens), and you are also afforded things like quizzing people, FMRI scans, other sensors and such on those having just played or some 30 days later, twin studies and more besides.

*I am sure some county somewhere did not get a shipment, has too poor internet... something to make the availability and consumption of games drop.

As far as I was aware people did just that though and said "no effect we can see", as did others doing various meta analysis type studies.



the_randomizer said:


> And people wonder why I have reservations in voicing my opinions at all.


Because you don't want to back them up?


----------



## the_randomizer (Mar 9, 2018)

FAST6191 said:


> While that is true I place a bit more stock in the people doing research.
> 
> Hard results from psychology and sociology in the same way I can test the effects of... adding 20% by weight of Lithium to an alloy on its resulting mechanical properties are not going to happen. There are however things like regression testing (you hold, or find somewhere where it was held by whatever means*, everything else the same and remove/alter one element and see what happens), and you are also afforded things like quizzing people, FMRI scans, other sensors and such on those having just played or some 30 days later, twin studies and more besides.
> 
> ...



Because I'm cynical of all political discussions and politicians. What good does gun control do when people never want to agree on anything, the government sure as hell can't be entrusted to do it.


----------



## FAST6191 (Mar 9, 2018)

the_randomizer said:


> Because I'm cynical of all political discussions and politicians. What good does gun control do when people never want to agree on anything, the government sure as hell can't be entrusted to do it.


That seems to be two different things.

I too have a hard time believing "public service" is currently a thing, and maybe never even was one. That said "run what you brung"/"use the tools you have available" is a thing so why not play anyway.

People having different tolerances for risk will see them never agree entirely, can still make positive steps though.


----------



## the_randomizer (Mar 9, 2018)

FAST6191 said:


> That seems to be two different things.
> 
> I too have a hard time believing "public service" is currently a thing, and maybe never even was one. That said "run what you brung"/"use the tools you have available" is a thing so why not play anyway.
> 
> People having different tolerances for risk will see them never agree entirely, can still make positive steps though.



I just fail to see why people are blaming guns when guns are good or as bad as their users. They should blame the psychopaths, not the guns.


----------



## Lumince (Mar 9, 2018)

Blame the idiotic parents that just buy any M rated game for their 11 year old just so they stop whining that they want it. I played GTA  when I was 8. EIGHT. I haven't shot up any schools?!?!? I was taught that it was just a game and that it was very wrong to be doing those things in reality. Parents either need to learn to not buy said games for their children, OR TEACH THEM RIGHT FROM WRONG. Lazy parents.....
Children should NOT be able to play this crap anyways. Get them the hell out of my lobbies.


----------



## ThisIsDaAccount (Mar 9, 2018)

the_randomizer said:


> Guns killing people is the stupidest argument I've ever heard against them. Know what else can be used to kill people? Knifes, improvised explosive devices, C-4, cars, so why don't we ban those next? Or better yet, we can always ban people


My personal opinion is that some guns are for self defense while others are clearly not. If you have a handgun in your house in case someone comes in to rob you, thsts self defense. If you hsve a semi-automatic rifle, there's no self defense use that can't be accomplished by simply replacing it with a handgun. The only use I can think of that a semi automatic rifle has over a handguns is that they kill multiple people quicker, which does not help with self defense, it only helps in the offensive. 

For a more obvious example (not aimed at you, just for clarifying my point for others reading this), a tank can't kill people without someone driving it. Even though that's true, I still support banning tanks, because no one will own a tank unless they want to kill a lot of people. Same with a semi automatic rifle. 

I will agree tho that people are the root of the problem, which is why we need mental health reform as well.


----------



## the_randomizer (Mar 9, 2018)

ThisIsDaAccount said:


> My personal opinion is that some guns are for self defense while others are clearly not. If you have a handgun in your house in case someone comes in to rob you, thsts self defense. If you hsve a semi-automatic rifle, there's no self defense use that can't be accomplished by simply replacing it with a handgun. The only use I can think of that a semi automatic rifle has over a handguns is that they kill multiple people quicker, which does not help with self defense, it only helps in the offensive.
> 
> For a more obvious example (not aimed at you, just for clarifying my point for others reading this), a tank can't kill people without someone driving it. Even though that's true, I still support banning tanks, because no one will own a tank unless they want to kill a lot of people. Same with a semi automatic rifle.
> 
> I will agree tho that people are the root of the problem, which is why we need mental health reform as well.



And yet neither side will agree with anything, always backbiting, pointing fingers, neither side wants to agree with anything. Handguns, yes, I agree, good self defense, but WTF needs an AR-15 to defend themselves? No one.


----------



## EDMIRE (Mar 9, 2018)

thank god the switch is region free so if anything does go down in the future i'll just order my damn 'violent' games from another country.


----------



## ThisIsDaAccount (Mar 9, 2018)

the_randomizer said:


> And yet neither side will agree with anything, always backbiting, pointing fingers, neither side wants to agree with anything. Handguns, yes, I agree, good self defense, but WTF needs an AR-15 to defend themselves? No one.


Agreed. I believe the second amendment is on our constitution for good reason, but no one needs an AR 15 unless they're going on a killing spree. Like you said, it's sad that everyone seems to think there's a problem but that politicians won't stand up for what the common folk want.


----------



## FAST6191 (Mar 9, 2018)

the_randomizer said:


> I just fail to see why people are blaming guns when guns are good or as bad as their users. They should blame the psychopaths, not the guns.


Didn't I already cover that?
People do blame the psychopaths/user, indeed I don't think I have ever seen people say it was not their fault. It is however that firearms make it rather more easy that gives us a discussion.

I am quite large, physically fit and have some training. I rock up with my hockey stick intending to do damage to a crowd and I might get three or four people in before I am too tired and get tackled.
Give me a rifle and provided I can handle the recoil the count will be far higher, and I will walk away not especially tired. Indeed someone not especially fit, not very strong and with minimal tuition could probably get themselves a fairly high score.

The question is then given those things might firearms then be worth limiting so as to lessen the harm potential? It can be shown to have happened elsewhere when they employed controls. What limitations are to be put in place, what problems it will cause (are firearms particularly useful devices for the modern world? If they are then would stripping them cause harms beyond that which might be acceptable?) and how to enact any changes are then all up for discussion.


----------



## dimmidice (Mar 9, 2018)

jt_1258 said:


> How is it not having them informed? It's a matter of the parents not understanding or not caring about their child playing gory violent games. Which games like cod that are known to have a lot of children playing has blatantly shown right on the box.
> View attachment 117016 View attachment 117017


Oh sorry i did not see this post. The reason i said bollocks is because it said "effectively" and well it's not effective when most parents don't know or don't care about the ratings system. The ratings system obviously isn't to blame for that, lazy parents are.


----------



## the_randomizer (Mar 9, 2018)

FAST6191 said:


> Didn't I already cover that?
> People do blame the psychopaths/user, indeed I don't think I have ever seen people say it was not their fault. It is however that firearms make it rather more easy that gives us a discussion.
> 
> I am quite large, physically fit and have some training. I rock up with my hockey stick intending to do damage to a crowd and I might get three or four people in before I am too tired and get tackled.
> ...



I'm all for limiting and having tougher restrictions, mental health background checks, criminal records, make it a lot harder for people to get firearms.


----------



## dpad_5678 (Mar 9, 2018)

Keep this orange asspenguin away games. He's constantly almost getting us into a nuclear war with North Korea, while him and his entire cabinet is being investigated for treason. 
AND WE'RE WORRIED ABOUT VIDEO GAMES.

Let's put this in retrospect: Call of Duty, in all of its games, it has sold over 50 million copies. Don't tell me even ONE PERCENT of ONE PERCENT of those customers became violent IRL.


----------



## FAST6191 (Mar 9, 2018)

dimmidice said:


> Oh sorry i did not see this post. The reason i said bollocks is because it said "effectively" and well it's not effective when most parents don't know or don't care about the ratings system. The ratings system obviously isn't to blame for that, lazy parents are.


What effect does playing such games have on kids though?


----------



## Xzi (Mar 9, 2018)

Not that long ago Donald Trump was going to do a whole lot about gun control.  Then the NRA glared at him and he immediately bitched out.  Now when the next shooting happens, they're gonna point to this video game meeting like it was supposed to have accomplished something.  It's completely disingenuous bullshit.

The rest of the world plays the same games.  Yet there are countries with zero gun deaths a year on average.  I am _shocked_ to find out you can't kill nearly as many people with digital guns as you can with real ones.  _SHOCKED_ I tell you!


----------



## RedBlueGreen (Mar 9, 2018)

Video games don't cause violence. Otherwise a bunch of people who've played violent games would be going around shooting and cutting people up. But that doesn't happen. Media teaching children bad things is just an excuse used by kids who get caught doing something wrong and parents who can't be bothered to actually parent their children. Of course these kinds of people can't take responsibility so they look for a scapegoat, whether it's music, video games, TV and movies, or other people.


StarGazerTom said:


> Video games don't cause violence, atleast, not to those mentally capable of understanding that these are games, and only that.
> Evidence suggests kids aren't affected, well, mostly.
> 
> However, I do think not enough is being done to stop young kids from playing these games. The particular problem can be made as air tight as possible, if it weren't for 1 single factor: The parents buying the games for them.
> ...


I don't think a game's rating is a legal restriction. Otherwise you'd be asked for ID to buy M rated games. I think it's like a TV show's rating where it's the minimum recommended age the media is suitable for.


----------



## I_AM_L_FORCE (Mar 9, 2018)

dimmidice said:


> "And how our industry’s rating system effectively helps parents make informed entertainment choices."
> 
> Well that's clearly bollocks.
> 
> ...


Way to take a deranged probably retarded maniac and blame it on Trump, like you do with everything else. And you ironically were talking about scapegoats as well! Haha!

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------



dpad_5678 said:


> Keep this orange asspenguin away games. He's constantly almost getting us into a nuclear war with North Korea, while him and his entire cabinet is being investigated for treason.
> AND WE'RE WORRIED ABOUT VIDEO GAMES.
> 
> Let's put this in retrospect: Call of Duty, in all of its games, it has sold over 50 million copies. Don't tell me even ONE PERCENT of ONE PERCENT of those customers became violent IRL.


North Korea want to denuke and negotiate with him now, actually.


----------



## Xzi (Mar 9, 2018)

*snip*

TBH I don't think even Trump's supporters thought he was dumb enough to go after video games, but here we are.  His cross-country "piss everybody off" tour couldn't have ended properly without attacking gamers first.


----------



## GerbilSoft (Mar 9, 2018)

RedBlueGreen said:


> I don't think a game's rating is a legal restriction. Otherwise you'd be asked for ID to buy M rated games. I think it's like a TV show's rating where it's the minimum recommended age the media is suitable for.


In the US, this is correct. Game ratings (*and* movie ratings) are completely voluntary. Practically all stores enforce movie ratings, and most stores enforce game ratings, though you can usually find an employee who looks the other way.

In some other countries, including the UK and Australia, game and movie ratings *are* legally enforceable.


----------



## Deleted User (Mar 9, 2018)

I think that most of the people commenting here are strongly biased in favor of video games because this is a gaming forum.


----------



## Xzi (Mar 9, 2018)

Memoir said:


> You will find that with any political affiliation.


Perhaps, but the leadership shows the direction the parties are moving in, and Trumpism is something fairly new.



leafeon34 said:


> I think that most of the people commenting here are strongly biased in favor of video games because this is a gaming forum.


Also because people aren't beating others to death in mass at schools with a SNES cartridge.  The focus on video games isn't even real, it's only a distraction they're using to try and take heat off guns and the NRA.


----------



## Captain_N (Mar 9, 2018)

Doesn't playing Mario kart make you want to toss shells and bananas at other drivers on the high way? I use drift boosts to pass drivers on I-95 all the time.....
Its forbidden to blame the lack parenting or bad parenting. We cant go there. The government cant control bad parenting. They can control guns and video games tho....


----------



## RedBlueGreen (Mar 9, 2018)

leafeon34 said:


> I think that most of the people commenting here are strongly biased in favor of video games because this is a gaming forum.


I think most reasonable people would regardless of where the question was asked.

I don't think that guns should be banned because of shootings. I think the correct thing to do is limit who can get an automatic weapon and punish people who don't use weapons responsibly (including parents if a child uses their gun to commit a shooting). I don't own any guns, I've never used a gun, and I'm not an American. There's a difference between rationally supporting or opposing something and just going overboard and blaming something irrelevant.

Canada has some pretty heavy gun control and the metropolitan cities like Toronto and Vancouver have a big problem with gun violence. The problem is that a lot of those guns are illegal (as in not legally obtained, or to regulation like guns that have been modified) so you have a bunch of guns that you can't track. 

So again, it's not the object in question that's the problem, it's the user.


----------



## Kioku_Dreams (Mar 9, 2018)

Xzi said:


> Perhaps, but the leadership shows the direction the parties are moving in, and Trumpism is something fairly new.
> 
> 
> Also because people aren't beating others to death in mass at schools with a SNES cartridge.  The focus on video games isn't even real, it's only a distraction they're using to try and take heat off guns and the NRA.


Only if you're blind. Obama had his fair share of retardation.


----------



## Xzi (Mar 9, 2018)

Memoir said:


> Only if you're blind. Obama had his fair share of retardation.


Obama's Democrats were nothing like Trump's Republicans are, that's a very false equivalency.  Then again there's no president in history who can match up to Trump's incompetence.  Most of his staff do not even have permanent security clearances.

In a survey among history experts, Obama was in the top ten best presidents, and Trump was ranked worst for his time in office so far:

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news...-worst-president-ever-obama-top-10/353024002/


----------



## kuwanger (Mar 9, 2018)

We must ban access to <blank> because kids could get access to them and kill people.  Is <blank> guns or video games?  Btw, the reason politicians are convinced that repeated training in violence conditions can desensitize people to violence is precisely because that's what the military does to get soldiers to actually kill people.  People have a natural aversion to killing.  So, it's little wonder people who go through conditioning to fire in a specific environment who feel they're in a similar environment later might have PTSD.  That and actual war (and generally killing/witnessing killing) is, you know, very traumatic.

So, it seems to me the worry is that children will become better killers but not soldiers under the yolk of government?  Or that as a rule a small but substantial number of people are capable of killing without remorse and video games are a means of training?  That last point is very not true because "life is not like a video game".  Regardless, it's bizarre that people who bring up violent video games talk of children as blood thirsty killers but when guns are brought up its invariably accidental deaths of children and claims that adults are the problem.

PS - All the actual evidence is children are likely to be victims of either accidents with guns or homicide by adults.  As a previous thread brought up, the CDC does give enough details to outline the degree of which is which nor does it track how much of this is from domestic disputes.   Regardless, even if tomorrow we enacted rules that made it illegal for children to play violent video games, it would do nothing to change the absurd scapegoating of video games.  Just like banning "assault rifles" would not change scapegoating of guns.  Politicians are bullshit kings.


----------



## Old (Mar 9, 2018)

Captain_N said:


> Doesn't playing Mario kart make you want to toss shells and bananas at other drivers on the high way? I use drift boosts to pass drivers on I-95 all the time.....



I hear ya.  Why, just the other day I became *SO* engrossed while playing RE:Revelations that I just couldn't take my EYES off my wife's jiggling ass for the rest of the night!  It was just 'AWFUL', I tell ya!





And another time, back in the early-80s, I became *SO* obsessed with/influenced by Pac-Man that I ended up shaving my head, painting it bright yellow, and binging on PEZ until I began seeing colorful enchanted ghosts!!


----------



## RedBlueGreen (Mar 9, 2018)

kuwanger said:


> Regardless, even if tomorrow we enacted rules that made it illegal for children to play violent video games, it would do nothing to change the absurd scapegoating of video games. Just like banning "assault rifles" would not change scapegoating of guns. Politicians are bullshit kings.


Not just politicians, but any ignorant person who blames something instead of the people behind the actions. Yeah an automatic firearm can down a bunch of people at once (and I do believe those should be restricted), but any weapon could be used kill people.


----------



## dpad_5678 (Mar 9, 2018)

I_AM_L_FORCE said:


> Way to take a deranged probably retarded maniac and blame it on Trump, like you do with everything else. And you ironically were talking about scapegoats as well! Haha!
> 
> --------------------- MERGED ---------------------------
> 
> ...


Doesn't matter. Before he was exchanging insults and threats with one of the least tempermenttal countries in the world with NUKES! What a stupid thing to do!


----------



## Xzi (Mar 9, 2018)

RedBlueGreen said:


> Not just politicians, but any ignorant person who blames something instead of the people behind the actions. Yeah an automatic firearm can down a bunch of people at once (and I do believe those should be restricted), but any weapon could be used kill people.


It's not about guns themselves but the ridiculously easy access we give to guns in the US.  We're cannibalizing ourselves for the profit of the NRA, but nobody wants to point out a gun sales lobby controlling government as an obvious problem.


----------



## dimmidice (Mar 9, 2018)

FAST6191 said:


> What effect does playing such games have on kids though?


i wouldn't let kids under 13 play GTA V for example though. As to the effects nobody knows. But hey if you're gonna say that every kid of any age should be able to play any video game then we should also let them watch any movie restricting ages.


----------



## kuwanger (Mar 9, 2018)

dimmidice said:


> i wouldn't let kids under 13 play GTA V for example though



How about "The Joy of Sex"?  What's the proper age for "The Joy of Sex"?  Should we limit access children's access to their own sexual organs until they're 18 because their misuse could result in life long problems?  Where's the call for more chastity belts?

PS - Sorry if it sounds like I'm picking on you.  I don't see people talking so passionately about children and their access to their porn, the idea that a rating board is someone part of the solution, nor that the whole teen pregnancy thing--which funny enough like guns is also often an adult on child thing--being something worthy of marches and discussions in the White House.  Not that I'd trust Trump around teenage girls.


----------



## dimmidice (Mar 9, 2018)

kuwanger said:


> How about "The Joy of Sex"?  What's the proper age for "The Joy of Sex"?  Should we limit access children's access to their own sexual organs until they're 18 because their misuse could result in life long problems?  Where's the call for more chastity belts?
> 
> PS - Sorry if it sounds like I'm picking on you.  I don't see people talking so passionately about children and their access to their porn, the idea that a rating board is someone part of the solution, nor that the whole teen pregnancy thing--which funny enough like guns is also often an adult on child thing--being something worthy of marches and discussions in the White House.  Not that I'd trust Trump around teenage girls.


What an insane leap you took there. That's all i have to say about that.


----------



## Ericthegreat (Mar 9, 2018)

DrGreed said:


> No. People kill people. A gun can't get up on it's own and shoot someone. Just like a fork can't get up and make someone overweight.


That's so stupid, everyone knows people are overweight because mcdonalds exist.


----------



## Old (Mar 9, 2018)

dimmidice said:


> What an insane leap you took there. That's all i have to say about that.



I know, right?  Random gun violence/massacres = genitalia and their potential "misuse" (whatever the fuck that means, lol) ??

Talk about archaic levels of sexual repression!


----------



## kuwanger (Mar 9, 2018)

dimmidice said:


> What an insane leap you took there. That's all i have to say about that.



How is it an insane leap?  I think it's a very legitimate question on what age you think children should have access to video games/movies/books about sex.  I mean, there's some thought involved that you don't want sub-13 year olds having access to GTA V because they're too immature for it, right?  Meanwhile, there's clearly some idea that access to GTA V might lead to violence against others, specifically encouraging the use of guns/vehicles/etc.  Well, you can to some degree ban children from those things, but you can't do the same with their bodies.



Old said:


> Talk about archaic levels of sexual repression!



There's safe ways to use guns and vehicles, right?  And playing games doesn't automatically lead to violence or sex, right?  So, uh, who are we repressing and why?


----------



## Xzi (Mar 9, 2018)

Ericthegreat said:


> That's so stupid, everyone knows people are overweight because mcdonalds exist.


People (including the president) eat too much McDonald's, and stupid people get their hands on semi or fully automatic weapons for the same reason: the US education system sucks, in some states even more than others.  By design ofc, whenever Republicans are given the choice for Secretary of Education, it's always someone who knows nothing about education like Betsy DeVos.


----------



## kuwanger (Mar 9, 2018)

Sorry for posting so frequently here, but my point is foster care sucks.  And teen pregnancy is a non-trival factor in at least some cases of children being put into foster care.  So, a broken home can lead to a "cycle" of a recurring problem.  Oh, and school shootings.

Now, if you can figure out a meaningful way of fixing the whole clusterfuck that is teen pregnancy, foster care, mental health/development issues, and what to do about parental failures before it's 15 years in and a teenager is basically fucked, I'm all ears.  Even if fixing all of that did absolutely nothing to reduce the incident of school shootings, I'd say it would be a net positive.


----------



## FAST6191 (Mar 9, 2018)

kuwanger said:


> Btw, the reason politicians are convinced that repeated training in violence conditions can desensitize people to violence is precisely because that's what the military does to get soldiers to actually kill people.


The military thing is fascinating to me and has been since it was brought to my attention some years back. That said are games similar to what is done in such scenarios though? I am sure we have all had something like a carefully set up story time ruined by well timed fart. Conditioning that serious is a somewhat more delicate affair (also a lot louder).
To that end I would have to wonder if such people are being even more disingenuous.

*snipped quote to trashed post*



dimmidice said:


> i wouldn't let kids under 13 play GTA V for example though. As to the effects nobody knows. But hey if you're gonna say that every kid of any age should be able to play any video game then we should also let them watch any movie restricting ages.


I find age restrictions for content to be a rather odd affair and not one I can place anywhere near the stock in that some people seem to. Part of that is people seem rather incapable of elaborating upon the effects such a thing might have. The other big part of that is wildly, to say the least, differing definitions about what contents might be "harmful", most amusingly to me being the charges of realism where if I were to start somewhere I would come completely the other way and wonder why a-team firing and no blood is not restricted.


----------



## ThisIsDaAccount (Mar 9, 2018)

Xzi said:


> Obama's Democrats were nothing like Trump's Republicans are, that's a very false equivalency.  Then again there's no president in history who can match up to Trump's incompetence.  Most of his staff do not even have permanent security clearances.
> 
> In a survey among history experts, Obama was in the top ten best presidents, and Trump was ranked worst for his time in office so far:
> 
> https://www.usatoday.com/story/news...-worst-president-ever-obama-top-10/353024002/


I don't like Trump either, but we've had far worse Presidents, by a long shot. Just as a reminder:

1) Harding was a corrupt motherfucker, he and his associates bled the government dry
2) FDR went around locking up every Japanese person he could find just cuz they were Japanese (imagine Trump doing that to Muslims)
3) Andrew Jackson defied the Supreme Court and kicked every native off their land.


And, all 3 of those guys were super popular. The fact that we can see Trump for who he is, even when he did less horrid stuff that the above 3, means we've come a long way.


----------



## kuwanger (Mar 9, 2018)

FAST6191 said:


> The military thing is fascinating to me and has been since it was brought to my attention some years back. That said are games similar to what is done in such scenarios though?



In reality, I doubt it.  Like you say, the reality of life and even the most dedicating training of a game are quite different, so most likely a person would immediately snap out of any actual attempt.  Ie, only people who had practiced parts of in life and had a desire to do it in the first place would seem liable to follow through.  Now, if it were training in a video game for a drone pilot...

Somewhat related, here's a somewhat related story for those who wish to think of the children:  The Gift Bearer.


----------



## Boured (Mar 9, 2018)

I've never had a problem with Trump, but this is honestly something I would have never thought he would say. It's honestly really dumb for him to think something like this. It isn't the 80's anymore, we've been over this.


----------



## Deleted-355425 (Mar 9, 2018)

Ericthegreat said:


> That's so stupid, everyone knows people are overweight because mcdonalds exist.



He's right though.


----------



## zeveroth (Mar 10, 2018)

This is the same crap politicians and other uninformed individuals have been trying for years. Just a way to deflect. 



BlueFox gui said:


> lmao he is so fucking dumb
> his retarded country...
> trump shouldn't exist


I cut the other jabber in your quote. 
You know that the US isn't the only country with problems, right? May not have the same problems we have but they have bad problems non the less. No country is perfect. 
I do agree with you that trump shouldn't exist. He is a big POS. Three more years and we can decide again. Truth be told, most world leaders suck. Although most are just puppets for the greater evil. Politicians aren't normal everyday folks. 

Our world is corrupt from local governments to world governments. People may say it's just a tin foil theory. Just wake up, they are ruining society.  Not much we can do anyway, right?


----------



## BlueFox gui (Mar 10, 2018)

zeveroth said:


> This is the same crap politicians and other uninformed individuals have been trying for years. Just a way to deflect.
> 
> 
> I cut the other jabber in your quote.
> ...


bla bla bla i know dude
every country has problems that need to be solved, but NOW we are talking about THIS certain problem


----------



## Tigran (Mar 10, 2018)

I blame pants for the violence.


Not to mention the Bible is damned violent.


----------



## Tigran (Mar 10, 2018)

SG854 said:


> What exactly do they wish to accomplish with this meeting? Kids are already prevented from buying M rated games. What more can they do? The next step would be to ban violence in video games. Or better educate the public about ESRB ratings. Which I'm pretty sure parents should know by now what ESRB is.
> 
> 
> 
> People would rather be at work then be around their kids to raise them. Women fought to work a job like a man. And man wants to work too. They rather be at work working in a cubicle, then be around the people they care about which is their kids to raise them. Assuming they care about their kids. So we have a generation of kids not being raised by their biological parents and instead raised by video games and tv to baby sit them till the parents come home. No one is considering stay at home parent.




It's less they want to work, but they -have- to work simply to afford rent and food.2


----------



## m_babble (Mar 10, 2018)

Must have been surreal. Wish they'd have streamed it.


----------



## Viri (Mar 10, 2018)

Do I believe video games can make a sane person go on a shooting spree? Nah. 

Do I believe a video game can perhaps assist a mentally unstable with a feel of a school shooting? Perhaps. I mean the V-tech shooter and the Columbine shooters used first person shooters to give them a "feel" of a school shooting. One of the Columbine shooters even made a game of their school in an FPS.
Does that mean, "OMG BAN ALL VIOLENT VIDEO GAMES AHHHHHHHH" Fuck no, lol. 

I believe this just shows that we need better mental health programs. Because, if they don't use a video game, they're just going to use a movie or another thing to motivate or give them a feeling for a shooting. Hell, they can go paint ball shooting to get a better feel of it, than playing a video games.

Also, I said it before, but the rating system is nearly useless. No parents seem to give a flying fuck about it. "Jimmy wants his new CoD, even though it's rated M..., but if I don't buy it for him, he'll be a loser towards his friends :/". It's not exactly the fault of the rating system, but shit parenting, but it's not the gov's job to parent your kid.

Oh, and  I look forward to the refusal to ban video games, and for the gov to go the cigarette route. Soon we'll have dead school shooting victims on the boxes of video games, and no more video game ads!  Oh, and maybe they'll tax video games to the moon!


----------



## markehmus (Mar 10, 2018)

According to the Bible (if you are into that nonsense) *Cain killed Able without evil music , violent movies or Grand Theft Auto V*.
... tale as old as time .

*we are who we are .. the fukn nutcase with the gun in school is who he is.*


and this prejudice joker for a president thinks he can fix the world by building a wall and/or telling us what games he thinks we should play.

we need a gameshow host to tell Trump "youre fired"... but really who'd be any better , there is no 1 cure for so many fuktup people ..

..*.dont touch my video games *, i anit hurt anyone in 30 years .... and im pretty sure the other guy started it
(he threw the 1st punch anyway) when i did... and even then i didnt kill him,

but i sure loved my violent gsmes ... Double Dragon was my favorite back then and neither it or Ozzy's 'devil music' would seduce me into hurting someone
or s*hoot up a school .. thats just loonitics*


----------



## TesseractStorm (Mar 10, 2018)

Tigran said:


> I blame pants for the violence.
> 
> 
> Not to mention the Bible is damned violent.



Oh yeah. The Old Testament God routinely racked up body counts that'd put even the most dedicated COD players to shame. I'd have to look it up but I recall him offing a million people in a single act, to say nothing of how many the Flood might have killed. 

Then there's something in Psalms {137:9} about "Happy shall he be that taketh and dasheth thy little ones  against the stones." 

That's pretty f'd up. I don't know of any games that involve smashing kids to death against rocks. Maybe some indie game or mods but very few if any.


----------



## Xzi (Mar 10, 2018)

ThisIsDaAccount said:


> I don't like Trump either, but we've had far worse Presidents, by a long shot.


I don't disagree, but I'd say he's a shoe-in for the top ten worst at least.  Especially by the time he leaves office, when everybody realizes he was nothing but Putin's useful stooge.


----------



## Tigran (Mar 10, 2018)

TesseractStorm said:


> Oh yeah. The Old Testament God routinely racked up body counts that'd put even the most dedicated COD players to shame. I'd have to look it up but I recall him offing a million people in a single act, to say nothing of how many the Flood might have killed.
> 
> Then there's something in Psalms {137:9} about "Happy shall he be that taketh and dasheth thy little ones  against the stones."
> 
> That's pretty f'd up. I don't know of any games that involve smashing kids to death against rocks. Maybe some indie game or mods but very few if any.



You forgot the "ripping the wombs from women." 

Or the plagues that killed innocent people because he set it up so that the pharaoh wouldn't accept the deals.. in order to put out the plagues.


----------



## Xabring (Mar 10, 2018)

the_randomizer said:


> Whether or not parents aren't be responsible, the government has no right (or any government) to parent children for them. It's not their job to control what other people do, it's just an excuse to let people not be responsible.





DrGreed said:


> No. People kill people. A gun can't get up on it's own and shoot someone. Just like a fork can't get up and make someone overweight.





epickid37 said:


> People are singling out video games, when violence is everywhere. Tv shows, movies, books, the news, even flipping billboards these days. It's not just video games that desensitize people. They might be a part of it, but they're not the sole reason. If your going to go after video games for being too violent, than you also have to go after everything else.





jt_1258 said:


> How is it not having them informed? It's a matter of the parents not understanding or not caring about their child playing gory violent games. Which games like cod that are known to have a lot of children playing has blatantly shown right on the box.
> View attachment 117016 View attachment 117017





jt_1258 said:


> Also, I just have to say this.
> 
> Parents: "Oh no, the games are making our children violent."
> *Try's to fight the game industry while continuing to let their child play whatever the fuck they want on the ps4 s, xbox1 s, & switche s.*




Apathy IS the true source of all this. This hate stuff is just result of this apathy.
What we can learn from this? If you have children, CARE about them, don't just HAVE them.

But when do mankind learn?


----------



## Subtle Demise (Mar 10, 2018)

Video games, much like TV and movies and music have actually become much more conservative in recent years. Not sure why, but I think it's just an attempt to cash on a wider audience.  Just look at the Borderlands series: in the first one, your opponents would burn to death, lose limbs, get corroded by acid, among other things in gruesome detail. Now the sequel (and pre-sequel) comes along and tones all of that way down. Even as early as the early 2000s, the remake of Conker's Bad Fur Day, Live and Reloaded, actually censored more of the script than the N64 original. In the US, television has more words censored than in years past and far more than what's even legally necessary. I have seen shows where the word "ass" was bleeped out.

To make it short, this was totally unnecessary and a waste of everyone's time. The game industry has been regulating itself for many years now without issue, until some bozo comes along and decides they need more federal power to control one of the few facets of life we still have freedom over. And the gamers were worried about Hillary, lmfao.


----------



## Navonod (Mar 10, 2018)

Xabring said:


> Apathy IS the true source of all this. This hate stuff is just result of this apathy.
> What we can learn from this? If you have children, CARE about them, don't just HAVE them.
> 
> But when do mankind learn?


People wont learn. This is going to cycle for a million more generations before everyone starts owning up to their own mistakes.


----------



## TotalInsanity4 (Mar 10, 2018)

DrGreed said:


> No. People kill people. A gun can't get up on it's own and shoot someone. Just like a fork can't get up and make someone overweight.


If you're going to do the tired old "gun to fork/spoon" analogy, at least make it proper... If one were to do a proper comparison between the two, a fork would be equivalent to a bullet, and the gun itself would be equivalent to a deep fryer


----------



## Navonod (Mar 10, 2018)

TotalInsanity4 said:


> If you're going to do the tired old "gun to fork/spoon" analogy, at least make it proper... If one were to do a proper comparison between the two, a fork would be equivalent to a bullet, and the gun itself would be equivalent to a deep fryer


Fine. A nail gun then?


----------



## austin5623 (Mar 10, 2018)

In my state, _The Hunger Games_ is _required_ reading for 8th grade. A book where 24 people are put into an arena to kill each other (and if you haven't read the book, which just about everyone has, it doesn't hold out on details of the deaths) and two people make it back. Other books like _The Red Kayak_ where a teenager's two friends drill holes into the bottom of a (you guessed it) a red kayak as a cruel joke, but they kill a 3 year old boy and cause his mother to have horrible depression afterwards. Once again, _required reading. _


----------



## TotalInsanity4 (Mar 10, 2018)

DrGreed said:


> Fine a nail gun then?


I mean, if you want to go with a direct comparison, I guess. But a) a nail gun has a range limited to how far the hose reaches from an air compressor, and b) the primary purpose of a nail gun is to drive nails into a construction project, and they are typically only given to people who are qualified and understand the impact (ba dum tss) of what happens between the wall/project and their trigger finger (i.e. don't point it at people)


----------



## Navonod (Mar 10, 2018)

TotalInsanity4 said:


> I mean, if you want to go with a direct comparison, I guess. But a) a nail gun has a range limited to how far the hose reaches from an air compressor, and b) the primary purpose of a nail gun is to drive nails into a construction project, and they are typically only given to people who are qualified and understand the impact (ba dum tss) of what happens between the wall/project and their trigger finger (i.e. don't point it at people)


There are battery powered, cordless nail guns. But my point is that any tool can be used as a weapon. Guns are a tool and can be used for other things besides killing.


----------



## ThisIsDaAccount (Mar 10, 2018)

DrGreed said:


> There are battery powered, cordless nail guns. But my point is that any tool can be used as a weapon. Guns are a tool and can be used for other things besides killing.


That's certainly true, but for semi automatic rifles specifically, there isn't much use other than killing people. For self defense, you only need a handgun.

Granted, there should be an exception for military personel but they can get the guns from the military.


----------



## Navonod (Mar 10, 2018)

ThisIsDaAccount said:


> That's certainly true, but for semi automatic rifles specifically, there isn't much use other than killing people. For self defense, you only need a handgun.
> 
> Granted, there should be an exception for military personel but they can get the guns from the military.


I know responsible adults who have semi automatic rifles for stress relief (when nothing else works) and some recreational purposes. What do you say to them?
If you don't like automatic rifles then don't buy one. Simple.


----------



## ThisIsDaAccount (Mar 10, 2018)

DrGreed said:


> I know responsible adults who have semi automatic rifles for stress relief (when nothing else works) and some recreational purposes. What do you say to them?
> If you don't like automatic rifles then don't buy one. Simple.


I 100% believe you when you say they can be good for stress relief, but if the only use for them is stress relief then banning them is warranted. For all we know, shooting a bazooka can be good stress relief too, but they're still illegal for good reason.


----------



## porkiewpyne (Mar 10, 2018)

DrGreed said:


> I know responsible adults who have semi automatic rifles for stress relief (when nothing else works) and some recreational purposes. What do you say to them?
> If you don't like automatic rifles then don't buy one. Simple.


By that logic, we should all be allowed to have bombs. It's not for killing. It's for stress relief. 

Just because everything can kill you doesn't mean you stop trying to minimise risk.


----------



## TotalInsanity4 (Mar 10, 2018)

DrGreed said:


> Guns are a tool and can be used for other things besides killing.


Uh... Can you give me an example of something you can do with a modern firearm that doesn't involve killing or maiming?


----------



## Navonod (Mar 10, 2018)

ThisIsDaAccount said:


> I 100% believe you when you say they can be good for stress relief, but if the only use for them is stress relief then banning them is warranted. For all we know, shooting a bazooka can be good stress relief too, but they're still illegal for good reason.





porkiewpyne said:


> By that logic, we should all be allowed to have bombs. It's not for killing. It's for stress relief.
> 
> Just because everything can kill you doesn't mean you stop trying to minimise risk.


Hey as long as your responsible I don't care what anyone owns. I'm sure there are a handful of people in possession of explosives but they are responsible enough to keep them put away until they find a need for them. But regardless of the law people will find a way to obtain what ever they want. People should start learning the signs of people becoming a potential threat and call the proper authorities.


----------



## ThisIsDaAccount (Mar 10, 2018)

DrGreed said:


> Hey as long as your responsible I don't care what anyone owns. I'm sure there are a handful of people in possession of explosives but they are responsible enough to keep them put away until they find a need for them. But regardless of the law people will find a way to obtain what ever they want. People should start learning the signs of people becoming a potential threat and call the proper authorities.


Some people willing find a way but many others won't. Nicolas Cruz was literally a kid who lived in a Florida suburb an hour away from me, he didn't access to any sort of black market, he bought the AR-15 at a gun shop. If AR-15s had been banned, there would be 17 more kids in that school right now.


----------



## Navonod (Mar 10, 2018)

ThisIsDaAccount said:


> Some people willing find a way but many others won't. Nicolas Cruz was literally a kid who lived in a Florida suburb an hour away from me, he didn't access to any sort of black market, he bought the AR-15 at a gun shop. If AR-15s had been banned, there would be 17 more kids in that school right now.


No. There needs to be an age limit and a required license to buy a gun.

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------



TotalInsanity4 said:


> Uh... Can you give me an example of something you can do with a modern firearm that doesn't involve killing or maiming?


A quick google search and....
*
Collecting:* There are many gun collectors out there. Some that have no other reason for owning a gun other than collecting and others like collecting and shooting. Rare guns can be worth thousands of dollars. 

*Conversation:* Some people just like to sit around and BS about their guns. When someone gets a new gun they usually like to show it off to some of their friends. So what's wrong with that. 

*Sporting:* Target shooting is a great sport and done everyday by thousands of people. There is also combat shooting which a lot of people enjoy.

*Hunting:* Meat is a food source; We all have to eat. Some people like to hunt their own meat. Meat packers shoot those cows and pigs too. Does anyone put down a gun for that?

*Self Defense:* One never know when or where he/she is going to be in a situation where they will need to defend themselves from a fatal attack. This could be on the street on even in your own home. Face it, we need to be able to protect ourselves and we have that right to do that. 

*Defense for Others:* Here's a scenario. Suppose you're walking past a dark alley and notice some guy holding this a knife at some ladies throat. He is trying to remove her clothing and she is terrified. Being the good citizen that you are and carrying your gun, you decide you're not going to allow this to happen. It turns out that you just had to shoot this guy because he made an attempt to stab you. You just stopped a rape and/or a murder. The lady clings onto you as you wait for the police to arrive. So who was to know that this lady was a Anti-Gun-Nut. 

*Just Plain Having Fun:* How many gun owners like to just go out and shoot em up. Go out to the desert or wherever and shoot at cans or anything they see (of course being lawful about it). Plinking is fun and lots of people do it. I have even known some people to pick up some of the trash they shot at left by others. So tell me how that is bad. 

Found here http://forum.opencarry.org/forums/showthread.php?89148-Guns-are-not-only-for-killing-people.


----------



## ThisIsDaAccount (Mar 10, 2018)

DrGreed said:


> No. There needs to be an age limit and a required license to buy a gun.
> 
> [



Those are necessary but they simply aren't enough. Stephen Paddock, the Las Vegas shooter, would've passed both of those.


----------



## TesseractStorm (Mar 10, 2018)

DrGreed said:


> There are battery powered, cordless nail guns. But my point is that any tool can be used as a weapon. Guns are a tool and can be used for other things besides killing.



Really? In what way? 

Target shooting? Practice for killing.
Hunting? Killing.
Defense? Either killing or threatening to kill. Though the latter is stupid, if your situation is dire enough to warrant pulling a gun, you'd best be committed to using it. Also helps if you've got the judgment to understand when to draw and when to defuse the situation, pity so few do...

A gun is a weapon and this ridiculous attitude that it isn't is part of what gets people killed. 

I'm not saying guns are evil. I just think we need to relearn respect for what these things truly are, weapons designed to kill. 

That means sensible controls. Making sure those who own guns know how to securely store them and to use them safely. Making sure military grade weapons aren't in the hands of civilians.

 Seems ridiculous that it's more work to maintain the right to drive than the right to walk around with a gun. Heck some states will let you get concealed carry permits with less hassle than a driver's license. You can be blind and suffer from seizures and still buy a gun. Good luck getting that far with the DMV.


----------



## Navonod (Mar 10, 2018)

ThisIsDaAccount said:


> Those are necessary but they simply aren't enough. Stephen Paddock, the Las Vegas shooter, would've passed both of those.


Obviously very strict tests, background checks, and questioning would be necessary before handing over a license. lol
You guys are making it difficult on your selves by thinking to hard.

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------



TesseractStorm said:


> Really? In what way?
> 
> Target shooting? Practice for killing.
> Hunting? Killing.
> ...


I've said what I'm about to say to many times to count.* Proper training, tests, and background checks* would help a lot among other things. Taking automatic guns from responsible gun owners isn't going to stop the criminals from getting them.

Even if it stops criminals or makes it harder, they will go to the next best thing. Shotguns. If not shotguns then hand guns. If not guns at all then knifes.


----------



## ThisIsDaAccount (Mar 10, 2018)

DrGreed said:


> Obviously very strict tests, background checks, and questioning would be necessary before handing over a license. lol
> You guys are making it difficult on your selves by thinking to hard.


Paddock wasn't a criminal. The guy's only other example of law breaking was a speeding ticket or something like that. 

As for checking mental health, it isn't exact. Take a look at this experiment, which showcases the potential for false positives and false negatives. In the experiment, people first pretended to be psychologically unwell and then admitted they were fine, only to be kept in a hospital anyway. Another hospital then claimed they wanted to do the experiment themselves, and when they did they caught 20 impostors. In reality, none of them were impostors.

The problem with mental checks is that the science simply isn't there yet. You have the potential not only to miss some people, but also the possibility of infringing the second amendment rights of legitimate gun owners if those checks are then expanded to all guns. I support passing legislation to take guns from people who have already been discovered to have problems (after due process) but mandating mental checks before every gun purchase will be an infringement on the second amendment rights of some people. It's much more straight to the point to just ban semi automatic rifles, and will actually be less of of a problem than what you proposed.


----------



## Navonod (Mar 10, 2018)

ThisIsDaAccount said:


> Paddock wasn't a criminal. The guy's only other example of law breaking was a speeding ticket or something like that.
> 
> As for checking mental health, it isn't exact. Take a look at this experiment, which showcases the potential for false positives and false negatives. In the experiment, people first pretended to be psychologically unwell and then admitted they were fine, only to be kept in a hospital anyway. Another hospital then claimed they wanted to do the experiment themselves, and when they did they caught 20 impostors. In reality, none of them were impostors.
> 
> The problem with mental checks is that the science simply isn't there yet. You have the potential not only to miss some people, but also the possibility of infringing the second amendment rights of legitimate gun owners if those checks are then expanded to all guns. I support passing legislation to take guns from people who have already been discovered to have problems (after due process) but mandating mental checks before every gun purchase will be an infringement on the second amendment rights of some people. It's much more straight to the point to just ban semi automatic rifles, and will actually be less of of a problem than what you proposed.


I know that but there were signs that no body picked up on. Paddock's gun purchases spiked significantly between October 2016 and September 28, 2017; he purchased over 55 firearms, the majority of them rifles, according to Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives. He also purchased a number of firearm-related accessories. Prior to that, he purchased approximately 29 firearms between 1982 and September 2016, mainly handguns and shotguns.

Obviously copied and pasted from the wiki. But no one noticed or questioned Paddock at the time of him hoarding guns? This is the kind of signs people should be looking for and investigating regardless of who gets offended. 

Edit: Also taking all kinds of drugs at the same time.


----------



## ThisIsDaAccount (Mar 10, 2018)

DrGreed said:


> I know that but there were signs that no body picked up on. Paddock's gun purchases spiked significantly between October 2016 and September 28, 2017; he purchased over 55 firearms, the majority of them rifles, according to Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives. He also purchased a number of firearm-related accessories. Prior to that, he purchased approximately 29 firearms between 1982 and September 2016, mainly handguns and shotguns.
> 
> Obviously copied and pasted from the wiki. But no one noticed or questioned Paddock at the time of him hoarding guns? This is the kind of signs people should be looking for and investigating regardless of who gets offended.


Thsts true but it's not hard to come up with a legitimate use as a cover. In the last page, you mentioned collecting as a legitimate gun use. Paddock's gun purchases could be explained by saying he developed an interest in collection. 

All in all, there really isn't a guarantee that he couldn't have passed the checks you bring up.


----------



## Navonod (Mar 10, 2018)

ThisIsDaAccount said:


> Thsts true but it's not hard to come up with a legitimate use as a cover. In the last page, you mentioned collecting as a legitimate gun use. Paddock's gun purchases could be explained by saying he developed an interest in collection.
> 
> All in all, there really isn't a guarantee that he couldn't have passed the checks you bring up.


You're still missing the key word. "Investigate". I'm not saying look at him once and say they check out. There would need to be a follow up and so on.


----------



## ThisIsDaAccount (Mar 10, 2018)

DrGreed said:


> You're still missing the key word. "Investigate". I'm not saying look at him once and say they check out. There would need to be a follow up and so on.


Repeated checks wouldn't hold up in court, they would clearly violate the right to privacy, which is a right the Supremw Court claims is upheld by the Constitution. 

I don't think your thinking about this completely wrong, but all of your proposals best around the bush. Banning semi automatic rifles is 100% the best way to do it in terms of least amount of rights violated.


----------



## TotalInsanity4 (Mar 10, 2018)

DrGreed said:


> *Collecting:* There are many gun collectors out there. Some that have no other reason for owning a gun other than collecting and others like collecting and shooting. Rare guns can be worth thousands of dollars.


You can collect literally anything else, too. That is clearly not the primary purpose of a firearm, and I think we both know this one's an excuse at best



> *Conversation:* Some people just like to sit around and BS about their guns. When someone gets a new gun they usually like to show it off to some of their friends. So what's wrong with that.


See above



> *Sporting*: Target shooting is a great sport and done everyday by thousands of people. There is also combat shooting which a lot of people enjoy.


This is probably the only "fair" answer you gave in this response, but restricting gun ownership would not prevent people from using guns provided by the facility they shoot at while they are there



> *Hunting:* Meat is a food source; We all have to eat. Some people like to hunt their own meat. Meat packers shoot those cows and pigs too. Does anyone put down a gun for that?


That's killing. I'm not interested in the semantics of whether hunting is morally good or bad (I personally have nothing against it), but you're just reinforcing that a gun's primary (and really, only) purpose is to kill



> *Self Defense:* One never know when or where he/she is going to be in a situation where they will need to defend themselves from a fatal attack. This could be on the street on even in your own home. Face it, we need to be able to protect ourselves and we have that right to do that.


Threatening to kill



> *Defense for Others:* Here's a scenario. Suppose you're walking past a dark alley and notice some guy holding this a knife at some ladies throat. He is trying to remove her clothing and she is terrified. Being the good citizen that you are and carrying your gun, you decide you're not going to allow this to happen. It turns out that you just had to shoot this guy because he made an attempt to stab you. You just stopped a rape and/or a murder. The lady clings onto you as you wait for the police to arrive. So who was to know that this lady was a Anti-Gun-Nut.


Same as above



> *Just Plain Having Fun:* How many gun owners like to just go out and shoot em up. Go out to the desert or wherever and shoot at cans or anything they see (of course being lawful about it). Plinking is fun and lots of people do it. I have even known some people to pick up some of the trash they shot at left by others. So tell me how that is bad.


Believe it or not, I lived in a desert for a couple of years and did find enjoyment in using a rifle to shoot prairie dogs and glass insulators. Doesn't change the fact that there are hundreds of other ways to entertain oneself, especially when considering that one could go to a target practice facility and do the exact same thing but in safer conditions. Plus, shooting cans could be categorized as a blatant misuse of the weapon


----------



## Navonod (Mar 10, 2018)

Again. Banning a weapon wont stop people from shooting up people were ever they choose. You might as well ban any and all guns along with your kitchenware and hardware tools.


----------



## TotalInsanity4 (Mar 10, 2018)

DrGreed said:


> Again. Banning a weapon wont stop people from shooting up people were ever they choose. You might as well ban any and all guns along with your kitchenware and hardware tools.


And ban murder, while you're at it, since criminals will just break the law and do it anyway

Oh... Wait...


----------



## Navonod (Mar 10, 2018)

TotalInsanity4 said:


> And ban murder, while you're at it, since criminals will just break the law and do it anyway
> 
> Oh... Wait...


This has been my point the whole time.


----------



## ThisIsDaAccount (Mar 10, 2018)

DrGreed said:


> Again. Banning a weapon wont stop people from shooting up people were ever they choose. You might as well ban any and all guns along with your kitchenware and hardware tools.


Not everyone has access to the black market, so it will stop some people. The majority, in fact. All of the past mass shooters who used them bought them legally. 

Furthermore, the same can be said for everything you're advocating for. If you force mental checks on every purchase, you won't stop them all, and you'll block some legitimate citizens from purchasing due to false positives. Furthermore, routine checking amounts to a violation of privacy. 

I'm not saying to ban all guns. I would hate that to happen. Just ban the ones that cause mass shootings in the hands of people who legally bought them and we can call it a day.


----------



## TotalInsanity4 (Mar 10, 2018)

DrGreed said:


> This has been my point the whole time.


I worded it poorly, but what I'm trying to get across is that while, no, banning heavy firearms isn't going to completely get rid of crime, it WILL stop at least a portion of it and will make it easier for law enforcement to move in earlier.


----------



## ThisIsDaAccount (Mar 10, 2018)

TotalInsanity4 said:


> I worded it poorly, but what I'm trying to get across is that while, no, banning heavy firearms isn't going to completely get rid of crime, it WILL stop at least a portion of it and will make it easier for law enforcement to move in earlier.


This is my argument as well, with the added point that it's actually the route that will violate the _least_  Second Amendment rights.


----------



## kuwanger (Mar 10, 2018)

DrGreed said:


> Banning a weapon wont stop people from shooting up people were ever they choose.



If the only acceptable solution is one that's 100% foolproof, I guess we shouldn't worry about North Korea having nuclear weapons*.  For that matter, we shouldn't even bother to guard are only stockpile of nuclear weapons.  Or ban civilians from owning nuclear weapons, since everything in your list would apply there.  Same with most weapons.  I can only imagine the joy of a video game that was all about collecting the various makes and models of nuclear weapons and delivery devices.  So long as we don't see any blood, we can launch WWIII and it can be G rated!

* For the record, I think North Korea has as much right to nuclear weapons as the US, Russia, France, the UK, India, Pakistan, and Israel.  For all the efforts to reduce the nuclear arms stockpile, the history of first surface "tests" of nuclear arms to the repeated situations where WWIII nearly happened, to the concerns of what sort of mental instability it would take to actually launch a nuclear weapon--be it the President down to the actual person at the bottom--, it's disturbing how many people don't recognize how close we still are to midnight.  Oh, and yea, the people with the launch keys are supposed to go through extensive training and checks for mental illness.  Funny how we've yet to have an accidental launch from that but mental checks for guns is just a non-starter.  Then again, if there have been instances where one mentally unstable person tried to launch and their partner stopped them, do you think the government would acknowledge it?


----------



## Navonod (Mar 10, 2018)

ThisIsDaAccount said:


> Not everyone has access to the black market, so it will stop some people. The majority, in fact. All of the past mass shooters who used them bought them legally.
> 
> Furthermore, the same can be said for everything you're advocating for. If you force mental checks on every purchase, you won't stop them all, and you'll block some legitimate citizens from purchasing due to false positives. Furthermore, routine checking amounts to a violation of privacy.
> 
> I'm not saying to ban all guns. I would hate that to happen. Just ban the ones that cause mass shootings in the hands of people who legally bought them and we can call it a day.


The way I see it, if you're acting out of the ordinary you need to be monitored. And seriously there are cameras at every stop light or anywhere else you could imagine. Your internet is being monitored as well. Also I never said mental checks would be needed for every gun purchase. Maybe around a license renewal and if they want to be butt hurt about it then so be it. You can't make everyone happy.


----------



## Randy95354 (Mar 10, 2018)

I dont see what the big deal is sounds like hes just saying some games are too violent for kids and they are wouldnt want my 8 year old playing games cussing and dismembering bodies so they need to be more restricted like porn makes sense.


----------



## Navonod (Mar 10, 2018)

kuwanger said:


> If the only acceptable solution is one that's 100% foolproof, I guess we shouldn't worry about North Korea having nuclear weapons*.  For that matter, we shouldn't even bother to guard are only stockpile of nuclear weapons.  Or ban civilians from owning nuclear weapons, since everything in your list would apply there.  Same with most weapons.  I can only imagine the joy of a video game that was all about collecting the various makes and models of nuclear weapons and delivery devices.  So long as we don't see any blood, we can launch WWIII and it can be G rated!
> 
> * For the record, I think North Korea has as much right to nuclear weapons as the US, Russia, France, the UK, India, Pakistan, and Israel.  For all the efforts to reduce the nuclear arms stockpile, the history of first surface "tests" of nuclear arms to the repeated situations where WWIII nearly happened, to the concerns of what sort of mental instability it would take to actually launch a nuclear weapon--be it the President down to the actual person at the bottom--, it's disturbing how many people don't recognize how close we still are to midnight.  Oh, and yea, the people with the launch keys are supposed to go through extensive training and checks for mental illness.  Funny how we've yet to have an accidental launch from that but mental checks for guns is just a non-starter.  Then again, if there have been instances where one mentally unstable person tried to launch and their partner stopped them, do you think the government would acknowledge it?


You're just escalating what I said. Good try though. There is a really good reason people shouldn't have nukes or any weapon of mass destruction. lol 
Nukes are built with the intent of death and destruction and have no other use with out harming the planet.


----------



## ThisIsDaAccount (Mar 10, 2018)

DrGreed said:


> The way I see it, if you're acting out of the ordinary you need to be monitored. And seriously there are cameras at every stop light or anywhere else you could imagine. Your internet is being monitored as well. Also I never said mental checks would be needed for every gun purchase. Maybe around a license renewal and if they want to be butt hurt about it then so be it. You can't make everyone happy.


Everything that you mention is a flagrant violation of the constitutional right to privacy, and should not be happening (regardless of whether it is currently happening, some of which it is). It's a bigger slap in the face to law abiding citizens than just banning semi automatic rifles. 

Just out of curiousity, which of these do you think should be banned for personal use and commercial sales:

-machine guns 
-bazookas
-tanks


----------



## Xzi (Mar 10, 2018)

Randy95354 said:


> I dont see what the big deal is sounds like hes just saying some games are too violent for kids and they are wouldnt want my 8 year old playing games cussing and dismembering bodies so they need to be more restricted like porn makes sense.


We've already got the ESRB and it's on parents to keep kids from playing M rated games.  So in other words he's proposing no change, and is trying to point the finger for gun violence at games while simultaneously sucking off the NRA.


----------



## TotalInsanity4 (Mar 10, 2018)

Xzi said:


> We've already got the ESRB and it's on parents to keep kids from playing M rated games.  So in other words he's proposing no change, and is trying to point the finger for gun violence at games while simultaneously sucking off the NRA.


That


----------



## kuwanger (Mar 10, 2018)

DrGreed said:


> You're just escalating what I said. Good try though. There is a really good reason people shouldn't have nukes or any weapon of mass destruction. lol



The same could be said for machine guns.  Or land mines.  Or bombs in general.  Or armored tanks.  And I'm talking all people, include the military.  Seriously, it's unclear to me why we consider some chemicals, some biological life, et WMDs.  Sure, hypothetically they could be.  They're more uncontrollable area of effect weapons with potential chain reaction areas.  Strap a machine gun to a robot and you have something similar.  Strap a machine gun to a mentally unstable enough person, and it's questionable what you have.



DrGreed said:


> Nukes are built with the intent of death and destruction and have no other use with out harming the planet.



You do realize that's the argument behind what guns are for, right?  Besides, they could be used for a variety of things without "harming the planet"--think things like extreme fracking.  Not that we actually care about "harming the planet".  We sometimes care about harming life on the planet, but usually only if it'll effect us.  But if we really care about it, we'd get rid of nuclear weapons because inherently the only way to verify a nuclear weapon is to do some degree of actual testing of the actual nuclear device.  Ie, we set off one out of every 100 or 1000 every so many decades.  Everything else and we're just crossing our fingers that our computer models and diagnosis tests are accurate.  If all we've got is potential duds that we can't ever verify, then why are we even bothering with the ruse and spending all the money?

Regardless, if you can acknowledge that nukes shouldn't be owned by civilians, then really any argument on a purpose of guns to overthrow a corrupt government go out the window.  Same thing with the use of nukes merely as a deterrent because if it supposedly works against other governments, it should work between civilians and government.  At some level, their existent hinges upon the notion that the collateral damage from their potential use is acceptable because "the other" would be perfectly willing to use them.  Well, that's also why we can't ban guns, right?


----------



## Navonod (Mar 10, 2018)

ThisIsDaAccount said:


> Everything that you mention is a flagrant violation of the constitutional right to privacy, and should not be happening (regardless of whether it is currently happening, some of which it is). It's a bigger slap in the face to law abiding citizens than just banning semi automatic rifles.
> 
> Just out of curiousity, which of these do you think should be banned for personal use and commercial sales:
> 
> ...


Honestly who would need a live tank? No one. A decommissioned tank is fine I suppose. Same with a bazooka. Again this comes down to responsibility either way and the many other things I've repeated too many times. As for Commercial use, bazookas are unnecessary unless maybe a mining company wanted one? But they have other explosive alternatives already. Tanks no use because it is unrealistic to go on a family picnic in one. Mainly for collectors with a lot of money to blow stuff up for fun or maybe you could use it to crush vehicles at junk yards but there are other machines for that purpose. Honest answer None. Necessary to own one or all? No.

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------



kuwanger said:


> The same could be said for machine guns.  Or land mines.  Or bombs in general.  Or armored tanks.  And I'm talking all people, include the military.  Seriously, it's unclear to me why we consider some chemicals, some biological life, et WMDs.  Sure, hypothetically they could be.  They're more uncontrollable area of effect weapons with potential chain reaction areas.  Strap a machine gun to a robot and you have something similar.  Strap a machine gun to a mentally unstable enough person, and it's questionable what you have.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Can you destroy an entire Country with a single bullet? No.


----------



## kuwanger (Mar 10, 2018)

DrGreed said:


> Honestly who would need a live tank? No one.



Girls und Panzer fans who want to recreate war games.  Their "live" shells need not be destructive but the ability would still have to be there to be realistic.  Seriously, though, "need" is not the standard.  If it were, we'd have people proving they "need" a gun.



DrGreed said:


> Can you destroy an entire Country with a single bullet? No.



So, how many bullets are people allowed to have?  Maybe Chris Rock's suggestion of have a massive tax on bullets would be okay according to your argument.  Btw, would killing a certain religious leader as part of a small country count as "destroy an entire Country"?  If an idea about the lack of a need for the religion that leader represents spread, could "destroy an entire Country" be an excuse to ban that idea?  Or is this a discussion about knocking over buildings?  Could MOAB destroy an entire Country full of buildings?

Meanwhile, most chemical and biological weapons couldn't destroy an entire Country (or its populace) with a single vial.  The wind is too fickle for that.


----------



## Navonod (Mar 10, 2018)

kuwanger said:


> Girls und Panzer fans who want to recreate war games.  Their "live" shells need not be destructive but the ability would still have to be there to be realistic.  Seriously, though, "need" is not the standard.  If it were, we'd have people proving they "need" a gun.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



As many as they want? You can't fit it all in one gun anyway. I'm talking about irreparable damage and radiation that would take years or decades to clean up. If it's some cult then I'm sure they'd move on or reelect depending on how their system worked. I never mentioned anything about chemicals or biological weapons. Pretty sure everyone agrees that those are unnecessary anyway.

Edit: Regarding the "need" comment. I was poking fun at the question.


----------



## ArugulaZ (Mar 10, 2018)

Funny, the video game reps didn't seem to get a chance to offer their own opinions. Was this a meeting or a kangaroo court?


----------



## mikey420 (Mar 10, 2018)

So more of the president being a dipshit who knows pretty much nothing.....


----------



## Navonod (Mar 10, 2018)

mikey420 said:


> So more of the president being a dipshit who knows pretty much nothing.....


That's what people said about Obama. But when election time came, everyone all the sudden loved him.


----------



## kuwanger (Mar 10, 2018)

DrGreed said:


> As many as they want? You can't fit it all in one gun anyway.



Belt fed weapons can feed commonly 50 to 300 rounds.  Strap it to a vehicle and the limit could obviously be a lot higher.



DrGreed said:


> I'm talking about irreparable damage and radiation that would take years or decades to clean up. If it's some cult then I'm sure they'd move on or reelect depending on how their system worked.



You ever heard of Superfund sites?  If that's effectively tolerable--as in virtually no one was arrested and the government took up the clean-up--then nuclear arms for clearing mountains would seem okay.  Look at the current situation with nuclear waste:  large retainer pools that won't be habitable for a long time.  Moving it all to one site in the middle of the desert only moves the problem.  I guess it's okay if the decade long clean up is a known side-effect?  Because that goes back to using nuclear bombs to level mountains--at least using some of test firings to do something useful.



DrGreed said:


> I never mentioned anything about chemicals or biological weapons. Pretty sure everyone agrees that those are unnecessary anyway.



Bug bombs.  Genetically engineered viruses for mosquitoes.  We're not above using chemical weapons and biological life forms upon other species.  We're really only hesitant about their military use because they have prolonged exposure effect and can't be deployed in a confined fashion.  If we overcame those limitations, it's unclear to me why we'd suddenly say it's not okay to have.  This is fundamentally why tear gas is used on civilians even though tear gas was considered a WMD--and it's still unclear if it still is or it only counts when not used in a "civilian" non-lethal intent.

Even so, we frown upon poisoning people.  We want evidence of the act not a potentially hidden danger.  Guns also debilitate and are fast acting, which is probably the biggest desire for a gun over any other sort of range weapon.  For actual hunting, dynamite fishing and a quick acting gas poison that only effected the game I was after would be preferable to a gun.  Not very "sporting" but the point is to effective kill a large amount of meat mass and maintain as much as possible the integrity of each animal--very hit and miss with the dynamite fishing.



DrGreed said:


> Edit: Regarding the "need" comment. I was poking fun at the question.



Great.  Perhaps you should stop using words like "unnecessary" as a basis for things, then, unless all of your posts are just jokes.  Most weapons are unnecessary.  One can contrive excuses for them but guns, tanks, and nuclear arms aren't tools like a knife.  The level of necessary for guns and hunting is in the ballpark of a few rounds at most and a really low fire rate--a three or four rounds per minute.

I imagine a lot of wealthy people would love to drive around in a junk yard crushing cars or going out to the desert play war games, just like going to shooting ranges and firing weapons is also a wealthy person's hobby--especially if using a machine gun.  Big game hunting used to be the same thing.  Now hunting in general is sited, although I don't think that's reasonably what most guns are for--unless they're playing the most dangerous game.

I guess what I'm getting at is, what actually is your criteria for banning different weapons?  Is it just the hypothetical body count over a short period of time?  The ease of deployment in mass killing or just killing in general?  The high accessibility to the poor and uneducated, or would be it okay if it's a rich man's weapon?  The necessity of the weapon itself in daily life or just the hypothetical necessity of the weapon some time in the future?  The possible non-weapon uses or the common actual non-weapon uses?  Not that it really matters, but I don't think you or most people have a really good idea of what your actual standards are.


----------



## Account-ant (Mar 10, 2018)

Meanwhile, in america


----------



## porkiewpyne (Mar 10, 2018)

DrGreed said:


> Hey as long as your responsible I don't care what anyone owns. I'm sure there are a handful of people in possession of explosives but they are responsible enough to keep them put away until they find a need for them. But regardless of the law people will find a way to obtain what ever they want. People should start learning the signs of people becoming a potential threat and call the proper authorities.


And therein lies the problem. We live in an age where eating TidePod for lulz is a thing. Let that sink in. I don't think thinking rationally and being responsible is exactly the strong points of more than a few people. We are only as strong as our weakest link and unfortunately, said weak link requires the rest of us to make some sacrifices in order to minimise risk. In an ideal world, we would not even need explicit laws especially one that restricts an aspect if everybody will do their part but we all know that is not happening any time soon.


----------



## FAST6191 (Mar 10, 2018)

DrGreed said:


> As many as they want? You can't fit it all in one gun anyway. I'm talking about irreparable damage and radiation that would take years or decades to clean up.


So you have now arrived at a limit of harm you are willing to risk rather than effectively infinite (reasons for this possibly due to the use cases mentioned before being so very nice or whatever). Some however would seem to want to go further still in limitations and thus we have scope for a debate. Care to start thrashing out the framework for it?



ThisIsDaAccount said:


> Repeated checks wouldn't hold up in court, they would clearly violate the right to privacy, which is a right the Supremw Court claims is upheld by the Constitution.


Yet you can demand someone take a driving test again after various medical events, possibly up to and including mental health (I don't know full US regs here). I would see it as fairly analogous.


----------



## RedBlueGreen (Mar 10, 2018)

Since the last 3 or so pages have turned into a debate about guns I'm gonna say this again: guns don't cause shootings and video games don't cause violence. A normal well adjusted person isn't going to become a homicidal maniac from playing video games and guns in the hands of responsible people aren't going make people shoot up schools or work places. The solution isn't to ban all guns but to restrict access to automatic weapons. You can defend your home with a handgun or shotgun and use a rifle to hunt. Automatic weapons like assault rifles are designed to kill a lot of people at once and that's what they do. Which is why we should restrict them to military and law enforcement.

And obviously do background checks to minimize the risk of dangerous people getting firearms.

But ban all guns and you have an issue. Somebody breaks into your house with a weapon (whether it's a gun, axe, machete, etc) and now you have no weapon to defend yourself. If somebody breaks in and has a weapon they're not carrying it to scare you, they have it to use if they're caught. Without a gun you can't stop them. You're not going to be able to grab a knife or bat and fight them off in some epic showdown because you'll die.


----------



## Subtle Demise (Mar 10, 2018)

RedBlueGreen said:


> Automatic weapons like assault rifles are designed to kill a lot of people at once and that's what they do. Which is why we should restrict them to military and law enforcement.


Until military and law enforcement become the enemy, which was why the second amendment was created in the first place.


----------



## migles (Mar 10, 2018)

i love (ok i hate it, gets me angry) how people craft presentations and carefully show just one side of the things, most of the stuff out of the context...
fallout 4, made it into that list, it barely has anything violent in it, the most violence i get from it is fightning deathclaws, a fake monster that reminds me of a dinosaur...
the fallout part is basically the player just decided to rampage in a friendly npc... lets blame the videogames if the person decides to play the game like shit
and like every fallout or elder scrolls, the blood and explosion is all but realistic lol...

however i do agree the call of duty goes sometimes a little too far in the "violent realistic drama scene" thing..

PS. where is gta in the video? this game is always present in every "ban videogames drama" did rockstar payed it off?


----------



## Tigran (Mar 10, 2018)

DrGreed... Answer this.


Why the fuck is the USA the only 1st world country in the whole fucking world to have this problem?

Are you saying Mental illness is restricted to the US? And what constitutes a sing of mental illness? Getting pissed off once or twice? Obsessive collecting of something? Cause those are pretty much the only clues you'd have. By the way.. the background checks -YOU- want would be illegal anyways since it would be patient/doctor privilege.


----------



## auntnadia (Mar 10, 2018)

Mary Whitehouse (80’s British conservative politician) did the same thing (compilation of violent scenes) in the UK to promote censorship of movies, which resulted in much overhype and the infamous “video nasties”. Most of those nasties are now freely available completely uncut and often certified for people under 18 with no apparent negative effect on society. For those who don’t know the story, it spiralled to the point where films were being censored just because of a title. Famously, a comedy called “bloodbath in the house of death”, which is certified PG was banned. Bad films would pretend to be violent just to get some publicity. It was a pointless waste of time and money and people even went to prison because of the nonsense for supplying “explicit” and “harmful” material.

Censorship will always be unjustified. Books are no longer censored at all in the UK and again, there’s no apparent harmful effect on society. 

Quit electing idiots who like the sound of their own voice and want to blame larger problems on small groups because of their own lazy prejudice. Violence isn’t caused by immigrant communities, ethnic minorities, video games, movies, art..... It’s caused by society. Improve the lives of everyday folk so there aren’t whole towns and communities struggling to afford to eat. Educate people on real science and facts, not things you just made up to sound authoritative. What does Donald know of video games?


----------



## Ritsuki (Mar 10, 2018)

The biggest problem with this debate is that they're asking themselves the wrong questions IMHO. 

We can have that same debate over pornography, movies, guns, hell, even about public speeches or what you see in the news. 

The real problem IMHO is availability of these games for children or already violent people. Yes, if a 7y/o kid plays GTA several hours per days, there's a chance that he will have a different view on violence.

 Now that videogames is part of popular culture, we need to teach people (and more importantly, kids and parents) how to properly deal with that kind of thing. For example, I've been watching Hokuto no Ken (very violent Japanese cartoon), playing Mortal Kombat, Time Crisis and things like Resident Evil since I'm 6. But I used to do it in secret because my parents always told me that violence was not good, etc ... (I'll pass my mom's sermons haha) So in my head, violence = bad. And today I've never been in a fight, never had any problems with the police, or anything. I'm just your average Joe.


----------



## Navonod (Mar 10, 2018)

kuwanger said:


> Belt fed weapons can feed commonly 50 to 300 rounds.  Strap it to a vehicle and the limit could obviously be a lot higher.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Well first off the conversation was about guns. Not nukes or any biological  weapon. Secondly you're worried about things that will never happen to you in your life time. My whole argument has been agreeing with better gun control while letting collectors collect what they want. Most collectors don't even shoot their guns take the laws very seriously. Just because I have a different opinion from you doesn't been I lack any intelligence on the situation. Go ahead and ban semi autos so I can watch the news one day only to see someone used a shotgun to kill a classroom and then people start calling for a shotgun ban then people will have this same argument all over again.

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------



Tigran said:


> DrGreed... Answer this.
> 
> 
> Why the fuck is the USA the only 1st world country in the whole fucking world to have this problem?
> ...


I can think of a few reasons. A lot of the American people are soft cry babies that let word hurt them or get to involved with politics to were it drives them mad because they can't handle it. Religion is another factor. The whole "God told me to do it". It's common sense really if you think about it. But that's just a few. To lazy to pump out the rest on a phone.

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------



porkiewpyne said:


> And therein lies the problem. We live in an age where eating TidePod for lulz is a thing. Let that sink in. I don't think thinking rationally and being responsible is exactly the strong points of more than a few people. We are only as strong as our weakest link and unfortunately, said weak link requires the rest of us to make some sacrifices in order to minimise risk. In an ideal world, we would not even need explicit laws especially one that restricts an aspect if everybody will do their part but we all know that is not happening any time soon.


Clearly you missed were I agree with better gun control. I disagree with the ban. Yeah I know there are dumb individuals eating soap. I know how stupid a lot of people are. So don't talk to me like I'm dumb. Thanks.


----------



## DinohScene (Mar 10, 2018)

boohoo Videogames makes children violent.
30 years ago, it was television who made children violent.
50 years before that, it was rock and roll.
90 years ago, it was alcohol and jazz.

Old hags always blame new things.
Never ending cycle.


----------



## froggestspirit (Mar 10, 2018)

I only really play nintendo games and pokemon, so whatever


----------



## porkiewpyne (Mar 10, 2018)

DrGreed said:


> Clearly you missed were I agree with better gun control. I disagree with the ban. Yeah I know there are dumb individuals eating soap. I know how stupid a lot of people are. So don't talk to me like I'm dumb. Thanks.


If you want to have a discussion, then you have to be prepared to be challenged. You made a sweeping statement about how Item X should not be banned because people enjoy them, while disregarding associated risks. I was never trying to belittle you. How you want to interpret my post is on you. It's not about whether I agree with the banning of guns or otherwise (which I do not, because I personally prefer having tighter restrictions etc, the same as yourself but that is beside the point), my post was point out the flaw in your argument by extrapolating it to other items.


----------



## Navonod (Mar 10, 2018)

porkiewpyne said:


> If you want to have a discussion, then you have to be prepared to be challenged. You made a sweeping statement about how Item X should not be banned because people enjoy them, while disregarding associated risks. I was never trying to belittle you. How you want to interpret my post is on you. It's not about whether I agree with the banning of guns or otherwise (which I do not, because I personally prefer having tighter restrictions etc, the same as yourself but that is beside the point), my post was point out the flaw in your argument by extrapolating it to other items.


I've never disregarded any risks. I'm arguing that banning semi automatics wont stop school shootings. I am prepared to be challenged as you can see I've entertain questions and scenarios brought up by other users. I could have ignored those but I choose to give my answer and how I thought about it. Apparently it wasn't what they wanted. Maybe I could have worded it better. Also you'll have to excuse me assuming your opinion over my lack of smarts. I've been here long enough debating with people that assume you're stupid if you have a different opinion. Quotes like "let that sink in" are belittling to me. As in I'm not thinking like normal human being. That said I've seen really good arguments here but I just can't agree with banning one type of weapon when it opens doors to banning the rest when one jackass decides they want to kill people. We are already on camera 24/7 outside in the world. What would a little check up on a persons medical history and the guns they own hurt? Better to have investigated a potential threat to other humans than one person getting upset about questioning them. They will get over it. We've had so many cases were someone should have reported a threat when they saw it before an attack happened but they were to afraid to call it in and be called racists and that they were profiling.


----------



## ThisIsDaAccount (Mar 10, 2018)

DrGreed said:


> Honest answer None. Necessary to own one or all? No.


That's the same with semi-autos. They lack enough legitimate uses to justify their legality when they can cause so much harm. No one (or better said, very few people) needs one. 

Also, you can obtain machine guns in the black market too, yet you never see mass shootings with machine guns - they all occur with legally bought semi automatic rifles, even though machine guns are more efficient in mass murder. That's why I don't buy the "they'll still be around" argument.


----------



## Navonod (Mar 10, 2018)

ThisIsDaAccount said:


> That's the same with semi-autos. They lack enough legitimate uses to justify their legality when they can cause so much harm. No one (or better said, very few people) needs one.
> 
> Also, you can obtain machine guns in the black market too, yet you never see mass shootings with machine guns - they all occur with legally bought semi automatic rifles, even though machine guns are more efficient in mass murder. That's why I don't buy the "they'll still be around" argument.


That's because it's impossible to report on everything that happens in our country. You do know reporters or a news cast picks a chooses their stories yeah? Just because you don't hear about it, it doesn't mean it didn't happen. I wont find proof for you because google is available.


----------



## Tigran (Mar 10, 2018)

DrGreed said:


> I can think of a few reasons. A lot of the American people are soft cry babies that let word hurt them or get to involved with politics to were it drives them mad because they can't handle it. Religion is another factor. The whole "God told me to do it". It's common sense really if you think about it. But that's just a few. To lazy to pump out the rest on a phone.




Well you are right there.. America is full of crybabies. people pissed that blacks, hispanics, LGBTQ, Non-christians are starting to get rights. That they no longer control what kind of people can go into what kind of bar, can't control what goes on in other peoples bedrooms.

Unfortunately... those are the idiots most likely to buy guns.


----------



## Navonod (Mar 10, 2018)

Tigran said:


> Well you are right there.. America is full of crybabies. people pissed that blacks, hispanics, LGBTQ, Non-christians are starting to get rights. That they no longer control what kind of people can go into what kind of bar, can't control what goes on in other peoples bedrooms.
> 
> Unfortunately... those are the idiots most likely to buy guns.


My argument isn't for those kind of people. And they are most likely the ones who would shoot up a place. I find those type of people to be mental anyway. Like what I do in my personal life shouldn't effect them but it keeps them up at night because their sky daddy said that it was bad. Still shouldn't keep good people from owning a semi automatic rifle if they choose to do so. You could use what I said against me but those are the type of people we should be watching anyway.


----------



## ThisIsDaAccount (Mar 10, 2018)

DrGreed said:


> That's because it's impossible to report on everything that happens in our country. You do know reporters or a news cast picks a chooses their stories yeah? Just because you don't hear about it, it doesn't mean it didn't happen. I wont find proof for you because google is available.


That's fair, but I doubt it wouldn't go on the news that a mass shooter got a machine gun on the black market. Most investigate journalists would drool over something like that


----------



## PerfectB (Mar 10, 2018)

Sometimes I feel like I was the only one growing up whose parents paid attention to the ratings on games.  I wasn't allowed to purchase M-rated games outside of a few exceptions until I was in high school.  I'm not sure if it affected me much, as I was able to play a lot of M-rated games at my friends' houses, but nowadays my collection is primarily M-rated games (other than my Nintendo titles).  Hard to say if my tastes changed as I got older or if that's just what the industry is primarily putting out now.

But on the topic of guns, my mother was paralyzed and my great aunt was injured in a workplace shooting a number of years ago (I'm hesitant to post too much detail because the Wikipedia article contains their real names).  The shooter was a disgruntled ex-employee who had probably never played a video game in his life, although this was before even Mortal Kombat was a thing.  The kind of person who can point a gun at innocent people and pull the trigger for any reason other than self-defense is, to put it simply, an evil person who is not capable of thinking through how many lives they affect in the process.  It's not even the people that are killed, injured, or had their lives permanently changed like my mother who was paralyzed; it impacts friends, family, and loved ones in an irreversible way as well.  My grandfather (her father) lost his faith for a long time after the incident, and often spoke to me in my younger years about what kind of god would allow that to happen to innocent people.  He found god again before he passed away, but I'll never forget how angry he was for such a long time after the incident.

Even though it happened when I was very young, I was somewhat forced at an early age to learn about violence and the evil deeds people are capable of.  I often think the panic disorder I see a doctor for is sourced in that incident in a way, as without my medicine I am often very nervous in large crowds of people and at crowded places.  I never wear headphones in public because I have an impulsive need to be aware of my surroundings at all times.  Nobody in my family is anti-gun and my uncle even owns a gun shop but they are definitely something that deserve healthy respect and safety for their ability to impact lives.  I don't think Call of Duty or any other violent software title has the capability to turn an otherwise functional person into a killer, just like comic books and movies don't.  A rational, well-adjusted person can tell the difference between the fantasy of a competitive war game and the reality of what happens when you harm innocent people.  And if a person can't tell that difference, then I really hope they get the help they need.  I know firsthand how people can be impacted by senseless acts of real-life violence and it's definitely not something anybody should ever have to deal with.



ThisIsDaAccount said:


> That's the same with semi-autos. They lack enough legitimate uses to justify their legality when they can cause so much harm. No one (or better said, very few people) needs one.
> 
> Also, you can obtain machine guns in the black market too, yet you never see mass shootings with machine guns - they all occur with legally bought semi automatic rifles, even though machine guns are more efficient in mass murder. That's why I don't buy the "they'll still be around" argument.



I hate to put you on the spot here, because I don't typically like to debate much about guns given my experiences.  But I do have to point out that fully automatic machine guns are not more efficient for mass murder, and I see that misconception pop up a lot.  Unlike their representation in movies and games, the high rate of fire empties clips very quickly and accuracy is very negatively affected by recoil.  When you pull the trigger on a fully automatic weapon and hold it, you end up with an empty firearm basically pointed at the sky.  The fully automatic functionality of military-grade weapons is primarily used for suppressing fire, keeping the other side behind cover so that troops can move into more favorable positions and such.

Of course, I'm definitely not advocating for fully automatic firearms to be available to the general public, but the accuracy of semi-automatic weapons will always be preferred by somebody looking to inflict the maximum amount of real harm.  And unfortunately that's what a lot of these people are looking to do--inflict the most amount of harm.


----------



## TotalInsanity4 (Mar 10, 2018)

Subtle Demise said:


> Until military and law enforcement become the enemy, which was why the second amendment was created in the first place.


No. No it wasn't. It was made so that our country would have an organized defensive force against outside Invaders should the need arise. The second amendment, contrary to popular belief, actually says virtually nothing about an individual's unlimited rights to a firearm outside of their right to use one in the context of a militia


----------



## Old (Mar 10, 2018)

PerfectB said:


> Sometimes I feel like I was the only one growing up whose parents paid attention to the ratings on games.  I wasn't allowed to purchase M-rated games outside of a few exceptions until I was in high school.  I'm not sure if it affected me much, as I was able to play a lot of M-rated games at my friends' houses, but nowadays my collection is primarily M-rated games (other than my Nintendo titles).  Hard to say if my tastes changed as I got older or if that's just what the industry is primarily putting out now.
> 
> But on the topic of guns, my mother was paralyzed and my great aunt was injured in a workplace shooting a number of years ago (I'm hesitant to post too much detail because the Wikipedia article contains their real names).  The shooter was a disgruntled ex-employee who had probably never played a video game in his life, although this was before even Mortal Kombat was a thing.  The kind of person who can point a gun at innocent people and pull the trigger for any reason other than self-defense is, to put it simply, an evil person who is not capable of thinking through how many lives they affect in the process.  It's not even the people that are killed, injured, or had their lives permanently changed like my mother who was paralyzed; it impacts friends, family, and loved ones in an irreversible way as well.  My grandfather (her father) lost his faith for a long time after the incident, and often spoke to me in my younger years about what kind of god would allow that to happen to innocent people.  He found god again before he passed away, but I'll never forget how angry he was for such a long time after the incident.
> 
> Even though it happened when I was very young, I was somewhat forced at an early age to learn about violence and the evil deeds people are capable of.  I often think the panic disorder I see a doctor for is sourced in that incident in a way, as without my medicine I am often very nervous in large crowds of people and at crowded places.  I never wear headphones in public because I have an impulsive need to be aware of my surroundings at all times.  Nobody in my family is anti-gun and my uncle even owns a gun shop but they are definitely something that deserve healthy respect and safety for their ability to impact lives.  I don't think Call of Duty or any other violent software title has the capability to turn an otherwise functional person into a killer, just like comic books and movies don't.  A rational, well-adjusted person can tell the difference between the fantasy of a competitive war game and the reality of what happens when you harm innocent people.  And if a person can't tell that difference, then I really hope they get the help they need.  I know firsthand how people can be impacted by senseless acts of real-life violence and it's definitely not something anybody should ever have to deal with.



So sorry to hear about your mom and your aunt.  A terrible thing to be forced to go through, for all involved.


----------



## TotalInsanity4 (Mar 10, 2018)

DrGreed said:


> Well first off the conversation was about guns. Not nukes or any biological  weapon. Secondly you're worried about things that will never happen to you in your life time. My whole argument has been agreeing with better gun control while letting collectors collect what they want. Most collectors don't even shoot their guns take the laws very seriously. Just because I have a different opinion from you doesn't been I lack any intelligence on the situation. Go ahead and ban semi autos so I can watch the news one day only to see someone used a shotgun to kill a classroom and then people start calling for a shotgun ban then people will have this same argument all over again.


So you want to start something like a collector's license, where people who have one can only collect decommissioned antique weaponry?

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------



DrGreed said:


> That's because it's impossible to report on everything that happens in our country. You do know reporters or a news cast picks a chooses their stories yeah? Just because you don't hear about it, it doesn't mean it didn't happen. I wont find proof for you because google is available.


I'd imagine that we'd hear about it on a national level if an automatic weapon was used in a mass shooting, SPECIFICALLY because that would be huge news


----------



## Navonod (Mar 10, 2018)

TotalInsanity4 said:


> So you want to start something like a collector's license, where people who have one can only collect decommissioned antique weaponry?


No. If it's not a functioning weapon then there would be no point in having a license to own a decommissioned weapon. Now if they were functional then yes. But I would want a more thought out and effective mental test to be done before handing out a license.


----------



## ThisIsDaAccount (Mar 10, 2018)

PerfectB said:


> I hate to put you on the spot here, because I don't typically like to debate much about guns given my experiences.  But I do have to point out that fully automatic machine guns are not more efficient for mass murder, and I see that misconception pop up a lot.  Unlike their representation in movies and games, the high rate of fire empties clips very quickly and accuracy is very negatively affected by recoil.  When you pull the trigger on a fully automatic weapon and hold it, you end up with an empty firearm basically pointed at the sky.  The fully automatic functionality of military-grade weapons is primarily used for suppressing fire, keeping the other side behind cover so that troops can move into more favorable positions and such.
> 
> Of course, I'm definitely not advocating for fully automatic firearms to be available to the general public, but the accuracy of semi-automatic weapons will always be preferred by somebody looking to inflict the maximum amount of real harm.  And unfortunately that's what a lot of these people are looking to do--inflict the most amount of harm.


Interesting, thanks for the information. Since you seem to know more about the topic of guns and their role in mass shootings than I do, do you think that semi automatic rifles should be legal, legal only to certain people (maybe military personnel, or whoever else you think may need one), or banned in most if not all cases?

Also, feel free not answer, I understand if you don't want to step into a political discussion.


----------



## Ritsuki (Mar 10, 2018)

Remember when that topic was about video games ? Because I don't


----------



## TotalInsanity4 (Mar 10, 2018)

Ritsuki said:


> Remember when that topic was about video games ? Because I don't


The topic was never really about video games if we're being honest, this is just a "smoke and mirrors" effort from the White House so they can say "look! We hear you! Trump is doing something!"


----------



## Tigran (Mar 10, 2018)

TotalInsanity4 said:


> The topic was never really about video games if we're being honest, this is just a "smoke and mirrors" effort from the White House so they can say "look! We hear you! Trump is doing something!"



Exactly.. The entire thing is an effort to distract people from the NRA.


----------



## FAST6191 (Mar 11, 2018)

RedBlueGreen said:


> Since the last 3 or so pages have turned into a debate about guns I'm gonna say this again: guns don't cause shootings and video games don't cause violence. A normal well adjusted person isn't going to become a homicidal maniac from playing video games and guns in the hands of responsible people aren't going make people shoot up schools or work places. The solution isn't to ban all guns but to restrict access to automatic weapons. You can defend your home with a handgun or shotgun and use a rifle to hunt. Automatic weapons like assault rifles are designed to kill a lot of people at once and that's what they do. Which is why we should restrict them to military and law enforcement.
> 
> And obviously do background checks to minimize the risk of dangerous people getting firearms.
> 
> But ban all guns and you have an issue. Somebody breaks into your house with a weapon (whether it's a gun, axe, machete, etc) and now you have no weapon to defend yourself. If somebody breaks in and has a weapon they're not carrying it to scare you, they have it to use if they're caught. Without a gun you can't stop them. You're not going to be able to grab a knife or bat and fight them off in some epic showdown because you'll die.



They don't cause mass casualties but they sure make it easier and lower the bar of entry into the club.

Fully auto could be a line in the sand, however in terms of rounds on target in a given timeframe a semi auto rifle can do pretty well and may even be preferable to a skilled marksman.

Equally if the extraordinarily unlikely scenario someone breaks into your house with the intention of hurting you is the best you have then you are going to be facing an uphill struggle.



Subtle Demise said:


> Until military and law enforcement become the enemy, which was why the second amendment was created in the first place.


Is it still relevant today? Get a few hundred of your mates to line up in late 1700s and you can do well. Get several hundred of your mates today and the helicopter that takes you all out probably won't have ever seen you.


----------



## Subtle Demise (Mar 11, 2018)

FAST6191 said:


> They don't cause mass casualties but they sure make it easier and lower the bar of entry into the club.
> 
> Fully auto could be a line in the sand, however in terms of rounds on target in a given timeframe a semi auto rifle can do pretty well and may even be preferable to a skilled marksman.
> 
> ...


It's all about guerrilla tactics these days. The guys overseas have all that technology and training, and they're still getting taken out by car bombs and AKs.

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------



TotalInsanity4 said:


> No. No it wasn't. It was made so that our country would have an organized defensive force against outside Invaders should the need arise. The second amendment, contrary to popular belief, actually says virtually nothing about an individual's unlimited rights to a firearm outside of their right to use one in the context of a militia


And a militia is far differnet than the actual military. The US militia is an organization of citizens with the intent of defending the populace from a total government takeover. If individuals were stripped of their rights to carry weapons, that would make a militia illegal too, since a militia is a civilian fighting force, and not a government one.


----------



## TotalInsanity4 (Mar 11, 2018)

Subtle Demise said:


> The US militia is an organization of citizens with the intent of defending the populace from a total government takeover.


That is not even remotely correct, at least in the context of the Constitution


----------



## Subtle Demise (Mar 11, 2018)

TotalInsanity4 said:


> That is not even remotely correct, at least in the context of the Constitution


https://www.vox.com/2016/8/22/12559364/second-amendment-tyranny-militia-constitution-founders


----------



## Dr.Hacknik (Mar 11, 2018)

Video games isn't the issue. Bad parenting is and will always be. Even if games aren't involved.


----------



## TotalInsanity4 (Mar 11, 2018)

Subtle Demise said:


> https://www.vox.com/2016/8/22/12559364/second-amendment-tyranny-militia-constitution-founders





> In Federalist No. 46, James Madison reassured the public that the many checks and balances in the Constitution — the separation of powers between the executive, legislative, and judicial branches, for example — made it very unlikely that a tyrant could seize power. If a tyrant did, he would speedily be deposed by the state governments, who would lead the armed people in the militias.





> Madison wrote, "the existence of subordinate governments, to which the people are attached, and by which the militia officers are appointed, forms a barrier against the enterprises of ambition, more insurmountable than any which a simple government of any form can admit of." By "simple," Madison meant a unitary government, such as France, as opposed to the US Constitution’s system of dividing sovereignty between the federal government and the states.


Sounds like the National Guard, my dude.
(Edit: The article even says exactly that at the end lol


> In a modern sense, the organized portion of the state militia is the State National Guard, and the unorganized portion of the militia is able-bodied males. So we might think of today’s mechanism as governors, hopefully with legislative backing, calling forth whatever parts of their state militias were considered appropriate under the circumstances. As in Madison’s day, militiamen by themselves can rarely defeat a professional army in direct battle. But in modern times as in Madison's day, neither can a professional army always succeed in imposing a dictator’s will throughout a vast and well-armed country.


)

A militia wasn't people running around willy nilly just keeping guns in their houses to fight The Goberment, they were an organized group that towns and states had to defend the nation against invaders in a pre-military time. The whole "anti-tyranny" thing was just a side benefit


----------



## Blue Sun (Mar 11, 2018)

I honestly feel like we need a complete cracking down and weeding out on the majority of the government and its citizens (however unlikely that is to happen). Both are proving to be highly incompetent right now.


----------



## Juggalo Debo (Mar 11, 2018)

dimmidice said:


> "And how our industry’s rating system effectively helps parents make informed entertainment choices."
> 
> Well that's clearly bollocks.
> 
> ...


Wow..... really..... What about antifa and all the mainstream media paying ppl to go and violently protest against  our President? Why is it always Trump causes this and Trump causes that??? I'm a Trump supporter and a gamer..... but  I'm not out killing a bunch of ppl or hurting ppl in anyway unlike the snowflakes that can' handle the real world when everything isn't handed to them!


----------



## TotalInsanity4 (Mar 11, 2018)

Juggalo Debo said:


> Wow..... really..... What about antifa [...] I'm a Trump supporter


No.


----------



## Navonod (Mar 11, 2018)

TotalInsanity4 said:


> No.


Lol. Why no? Even if it is off topic Antifa is a violent group. Might as well be terrorists. You can't just say their violence is okay because you agree with them politically.


----------



## Old (Mar 11, 2018)

Juggalo Debo said:


> Wow..... really..... What about antifa and all the mainstream media paying ppl to go and violently protest against  our President?



1. This is a long disproven farce.  It's simply not factual.
2. The dotard isn't "our president", he's a sociopathic pedophile rapist that was placed in the White House by Vladimir Putin.  Fact.
3. ANTIFA is anti-fascist/anti-nazi.  This is a good thing.  My father slaughtered (righteously) nazis during WWII and was correct in doing so.  
4. Get help.  Preferably psychotherapy.  And turn off fox 'news' (lol), Alex Jones, and other mind/soul-rotting trash.

Have a great day!


----------



## Navonod (Mar 11, 2018)

Old said:


> 1. This is a long disproven farce.  It's simply not factual.
> 2. The dotard isn't "our president", he's a sociopathic pedophile rapist that was placed in the White House by Vladimir Putin.  Fact.
> 3. ANTIFA is anti-fascist/anti-nazi.  This is a good thing.  My father slaughtered (righteously) nazis during WWII and was correct in doing so.
> 4. Get help.  Preferably psychotherapy.  And turn off fox 'news' (lol), Alex Jones, and other mind/soul-rotting trash.
> ...


Please don't spread bs as if it's fact. For now Trump is our president and until he is found guilty of what ever people claim him to guilty of he will be my and your President if you're American. Every president has gone through a cycle of accusations with out any real proof of the claims just because people disliked them for what ever reason.


----------



## Old (Mar 11, 2018)

DrGreed said:


> Please don't spread bs as if it's fact. For now Trump is our president and until he is found guilty of what ever people claim him to guilty of he will be my and your President if you're American. Every president has gone through a cycle of accusations with out any real proof of the claims.



As with every drumpf drone, you are completely clueless and deluded.  You've been conned.  When Bob & his team bring the hammer down, there will be unprecedented indictments and prison sentences.  All will be revealed and brought to justice.  

Rather than risk being banned during my first week here, I'll excuse myself from any further interaction with you.


----------



## Navonod (Mar 11, 2018)

Old said:


> As with every drumpf drone, you are completely clueless and deluded.  You've been conned.  When Bob & his team bring the hammer down, there will be unprecedented indictments and prison sentences.  All will be revealed and brought to justice.
> 
> Rather than risk being banned during my first week here, I'll excuse myself from any further interaction with you.


I will admit I prefer Trump over Hillary. But that doesn't mean I worship every word he says. Like the whole blaming video games for gun violence or violence all together thing is stupid. Again. Just because I have a different opinion of you, it doesn't mean I'm less educated than you. Have some respect for the people showing you respect.


----------



## kuwanger (Mar 11, 2018)

DrGreed said:


> Go ahead and ban semi autos so I can watch the news one day only to see someone used a shotgun to kill a classroom and then people start calling for a shotgun ban then people will have this same argument all over again.



No doubt they will.  But the same argument used today to not allow people to own tanks, most explosives, etc are why people want to ban semi-automatic rifles and the like:  they have no practical use and those collectors who want them should either have them rendered inoperative or they should have extensive enough mental checks to at least decrease the odds of them merely using that as a pretext for a planned rampage.

Yes, the talk about banning semi-automatics stopping school shootings is ridiculous.  But if one can acknowledge that there is some limit on what people can own and require licensing of some sort for their use/collection or an outright ban, then the question is what the standard is.  Guns are but one type of arms, so it makes no sense to give them a free pass or limit the discuss to them.  Now, if you personally believe semi-automatically should be allowed, then it'd be nice to know specifically why you find them different than full automatics, cannons, etc.  Again, it's not that you have to answer to me, but it's good to know for yourself where you stand and why.

Personally?  I'm inclined to support the notion of required training for any arm with progressively more difficult licensing for each.  Whether that goes as far as allowing civilians to own WMDs?  It's really hard to say.  If I acknowledge that the military is allowed as some level to own such things and the military is made of people, then it's hard to argue that civilians are magically different; they just need to have the same rigorous standards that we acknowledge is necessary for the military to be in charge of such weapons as well.  As for things like tanks, warplanes, etc?  Sure, those definitely should be legal because there definitely are people in rural enough places that can responsibly play with them.  The standard for arm ownership isn't "can I use this in a crowded apartment complex". 



			
				DrGreed said:
			
		

> I will admit I prefer Trump over Hillary. But that doesn't mean I worship every word he says. Like the whole blaming video games for gun violence or violence all together thing is stupid.



Don't worry, that's the position Hillary took too.  Most politicians (and people in general) love scapegoats.


----------



## Navonod (Mar 11, 2018)

kuwanger said:


> Now, if you personally believe semi-automatically should be allowed, then it'd be nice to know specifically why you find them different than full automatics, cannons, etc.  Again, it's not that you have to answer to me, but it's good to know for yourself where you stand and why?


They aren't different. I think a responsible level head adults should be able to enjoy their hobbies collecting guns or shooting them at inanimate objects for stress and anxiety relief. I know exactly where I stand on this matter otherwise I wouldn't be here debating. I'm not a clueless child contrary to popular belief.


----------



## TotalInsanity4 (Mar 11, 2018)

DrGreed said:


> Lol. Why no? Even if it is off topic Antifa is a violent group. Might as well be terrorists. You can't just say their violence is okay because you agree with them politically.


I'm not going to say that members under the antifa movement AREN'T violent, and I absolutely don't condone their violence and destruction of property as a means of garnering attention, but you also need to realize they are just that; a movement. There is no organization under any kind of authority, so people are free to do whatever under the umbrella term "Antifa". You also need to understand that Antifa is a direct result of a rising pro-fascism presence in America. Weed out the fascists and Antifa will go home.

As for "no", I was specifically trying to shut him down before he got started. None of what he said is relevant to the conversation, he's just trying to move the topic to something he's more comfortable with by shifting the blame to something completely unrelated


----------



## kuwanger (Mar 11, 2018)

DrGreed said:


> I'm not a clueless child contrary to popular belief.



So, they're wrong about the clueless part or the child part?  j/k  So, you have your own beliefs on what's acceptable and others have a different standard.  That's it, really.


----------



## Navonod (Mar 11, 2018)

kuwanger said:


> So, they're wrong about the clueless part or the child part?  j/k  So, you have your own beliefs on what's acceptable and others have a different standard.  That's it, really.


Yes which is why I'm debating. I'm not saying anyone is right or wrong. Even though I honestly believe my was is better.


----------



## Lacius (Mar 11, 2018)

Opposes and gets rid of net neutrality
Wants to crack down on digital piracy
Says video games are in part responsible for gun massacres
GBATemp users prefer him over Clinton, 37.8% to 30.0%.
Am I the only one who's confused?


----------



## Navonod (Mar 11, 2018)

Lacius said:


> Opposes and gets rid of net neutrality
> Wants to crack down on digital piracy
> Says video games are in part responsible for gun massacres
> GBATemp users prefer him over Clinton, 37.8% to 30.0%.
> Am I the only one who's confused?


Lol. It is funny to think about. But lets be honest. Piracy is wrong and illegal whether you feel guilty or not so that makes sense to fight against it.


----------



## Lacius (Mar 11, 2018)

DrGreed said:


> Lol. It is funny to think about. But lets be honest. Piracy is wrong and illegal whether you feel guilty or not so that makes sense to fight against it.


I'm not arguing against that, but Trump's active rhetoric on the subject should upset a lot of GBATemp users regardless, which was my point.


----------



## Navonod (Mar 11, 2018)

Lacius said:


> I'm not arguing against that, but Trump's active rhetoric on the subject should upset a lot of GBATemp users regardless, which was my point.


I get that. And obviously everyone is upset about it. Hopefully we can put an end to that mess or find ways around it.


----------



## Subtle Demise (Mar 12, 2018)

TotalInsanity4 said:


> You also need to understand that Antifa is a direct result of a rising pro-fascism presence in America. Weed out the fascists and Antifa will go home.


Except contrary to the name, antifa is a fascist group, using violence to enforce their particular belief.


----------



## TotalInsanity4 (Mar 12, 2018)

Subtle Demise said:


> Except contrary to the name, antifa is a fascist group, using violence to enforce their particular belief.


----------



## Subtle Demise (Mar 12, 2018)

TotalInsanity4 said:


> View attachment 117279


So the only difference is what side of the political spectrum they are on. Morally, they are both scum.


----------



## TotalInsanity4 (Mar 12, 2018)

Subtle Demise said:


> So the only difference is what side of the political spectrum they are on. Morally, they are both scum.


The specific difference is authoritarianism. If you want to talk about specific violent Antifa protesters, they'd probably fall more under the "anarchist" category, which is about as far from fascism as you can get


----------



## Subtle Demise (Mar 12, 2018)

TotalInsanity4 said:


> The specific difference is authoritarianism. If you want to talk about specific violent Antifa protesters, they'd probably fall more under the "anarchist" category, which is about as far from fascism as you can get


No, they want a specific world view to be the norm. Anarchy would allow the Neo-Nazis to say what they want to say. Libertarianism is about as close you're going to get to anarchy without stepping into complete lawlessness.


----------



## TotalInsanity4 (Mar 12, 2018)

Subtle Demise said:


> No, they want a specific world view to be the norm. Anarchy would allow the Neo-Nazis to say what they want to say. Libertarianism is about as close you're going to get to anarchy without stepping into complete lawlessness.


Now you're just splitting hairs


----------



## Kioku_Dreams (Mar 12, 2018)

TotalInsanity4 said:


> Now you're just splitting hairs


Politics...


----------



## Subtle Demise (Mar 12, 2018)

TotalInsanity4 said:


> Now you're just splitting hairs


How so?

Anyway, I thought the topic was was video game violence (seriously? It's not 1992 anymore!), and somehow the topic became about antifa vs the skinheads.


----------



## Navonod (Mar 12, 2018)

Subtle Demise said:


> How so?
> 
> Anyway, I thought the topic was was video game violence (seriously? It's not 1992 anymore!), and somehow the topic became about antifa vs the skinheads.


I thought they would lock up this thread like 9-10 pages ago. I guess the debate was somewhat okay and a bit civil with minor name calling.


----------



## Kioku_Dreams (Mar 12, 2018)

Subtle Demise said:


> How so?
> 
> Anyway, I thought the topic was was video game violence (seriously? It's not 1992 anymore!), and somehow the topic became about antifa vs the skinheads.


... Cuz Trump...


----------



## orangy57 (Mar 12, 2018)

man at least show some glory kills from the new DooM smh


----------



## Nerdtendo (Mar 12, 2018)

Taleweaver said:


> You have got to be kidding me...
> 
> The guy pretty much singlehandedly starts an international trade war. Let me spell that out for you:
> 
> ...


Jokes on you. We caused enough damage to our reputation WAY before Trump was inaugurated.


----------



## Blue Sun (Mar 12, 2018)

My ma used to let me play the Moral Kombat and Saints Row games all the time and I came out just fine (at least not murderously violent if nothing else). Granted and ironically, I had a heavily sheltered and Christian-rooted upbringing long before I began to play those kinds of games but still. I still think we need a heavy upheaval of general society (hopefully not too violent but I'd expect it to be anyhow) since we can't seem to agree on what the most central root problem is and start over from less shaky foundations. Probably a bit too extreme nowadays.


----------



## Taleweaver (Mar 12, 2018)

Nerdtendo said:


> Jokes on you. We caused enough damage to our reputation WAY before Trump was inaugurated.


Can't really argue with that.  I never understood why the republican party allowed a trashtalking bully with no political experience whatsoever to become a candidate in the first place. Or why the NRA is hellbent to keep picturing America as a country of gun nuts. Or why W. decided to demonize and then attack Iraq. Or...

Well...and so on. It's just that with this guy, we get examples on an almost daily basis.


----------



## 3DSPoet (Mar 12, 2018)

I'm just gonna leave this here....different decade, same circus....

https://www.stuffyoushouldknow.com/blogs/people-thought-dungeons-dragons-satanic.htm


----------



## Old (Mar 12, 2018)

3DSPoet said:


> I'm just gonna leave this here....different decade, same circus....
> 
> https://www.stuffyoushouldknow.com/blogs/people-thought-dungeons-dragons-satanic.htm



I clearly remember that whole nonsensical scene.  I don't recall all of the specifics, but apparently some college kids dropped some bad acid, bugged out, and started 'playing' D&D for *real*; going down into the sewers, attacking each other, and other such bullshit.  One of the cases was highly dramatized in the flick 'Mazes and Monsters'.
Meanwhile, my older brothers & their friends were like:


----------



## 3DSPoet (Mar 14, 2018)

Yep.  There's always something that's the cause of this stuff.  I guess it's easier blaming video games or D&D or guns*, even...than to accept that some people are just already monsters with screwed up brains.

*I do not, nor am I likely to ever own a gun.  No inanimate object ever killed anyone without some other force affecting it, though.

So...  Video games don't encourage people to kill other people, Screwed up, socio/psychopathic people kill people.


----------



## PerfectB (Mar 17, 2018)

ThisIsDaAccount said:


> Interesting, thanks for the information. Since you seem to know more about the topic of guns and their role in mass shootings than I do, do you think that semi automatic rifles should be legal, legal only to certain people (maybe military personnel, or whoever else you think may need one), or banned in most if not all cases?
> 
> Also, feel free not answer, I understand if you don't want to step into a political discussion.



I don't mind discussing my thoughts on the matter, for those willing to listen.  It is unfortunate that I have some of the knowledge I do, as it was primarily gained from research I've done on my own about the shooting my family was involved in and reading through the court documents and things of that nature.  I just tend to avoid political topics because in this country it can often seem like both sides are too entrenched to see eye to eye with each other or compromise on their positions.  Maybe it's like that everywhere and I'm just ignorant of world politics but it seems especially prevalent in the US, anyway.

I will say that the firearm my mother was shot with was a semi-automatic AK-47 style weapon, which fires a 7.62x39mm round, versus the AR-15 styled weapons that you hear about in many of the more recent mass shootings which is a .223 caliber rifle.  I won't claim that I'm a huge expert on the intricacies of guns, but the style weapon she was shot with fires a larger round and has the potential cause more damage per round at the expense of greater recoil; hence the large exit wound she received that damaged her spinal cord.  The shooter also had multiple other guns including semi-automatic 9mm pistols and was in possession of multiple high-capacity magazines for his rifle.

The reason I provide this level of detail is to point out that many rifles that have the appearance of a hunting rifle rather than the militarized/police-grade appearance of an AR-15 are .223 caliber so it's hard for me to say something such as "let's ban them outright" as you get into very tricky territory there.  Do we ban all .223 rifles?  Do we ban rifles that fire larger caliber bullets as well?  What is the criteria we would use to decide if a weapon is an "assault" weapon or a "hunting rifle"?  There's a lot of people of the opinion that we should get rid of the AR-15 style rifles altogether, since they appear to be the number one choice for modern mass murderers but if we did so my worry is that they would just switch to using the "next best thing" so to speak.

Previous assault weapon bans have not entirely taken into account, in my opinion, the stats (for lack of a better word) of the firearms the government wants to restrict us from owning, but instead the appearance of the guns.  I think lawmakers need to get expert opinions on weapons before they start banning or restricting certain types of firearms (and those experts should not be NRA lobbyists).

In short, it's a topic I'm a bit undecided on.  I certainly agree that better background checks, removing loopholes for gun show sales, and more regulation of semi-automatic weapons would be beneficial, as well as banning accessories like bump stocks (which increase the rate of fire) and high-capacity magazines.  I've yet to hear an informed argument as to why a civilian would ever need 30 or more rounds of ammunition loaded into their rifle at one time.  Even when hunting with a shotgun there are regulations as to how many shells you can have loaded at once, and sometimes hunters are stopped by DNR officers and asked to empty the rounds from the firearm to make sure they are in compliance.  Why regulations like that seemingly don't apply to rifles as well is beyond me.

Although, if we went down the path of banning semi-automatic rifles, a bolt-action or lever-action rifle is perfectly adequate for hunting.


----------



## FAST6191 (Mar 17, 2018)

Some of those restrictions are rather US centric and amusingly the UK, which we can all agree is rather more restrictive, lacks much of those -- straight pulls, any stock you like, not sure about capacities offhand but it is going to be more if there are restrictions.

The hunting shotgun thing is probably the same reason for the weapon type restrictions at various times of year as it could in theory then make it too easy to hunt animals (in turn reducing population too much) if you are allowed to go hunting with everything in your favour.

Calibre/caliber isn't the whole story -- powder loads, weapon design (smooth bore vs rifled, whether the round just spins or tumbles) and round type beyond that (see hollowpoint vs other options) all influence things. Or if you prefer https://www.pewpewtactical.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/01/Common-Bullet-Sizes-1024x568.jpg and base article it comes from https://www.pewpewtactical.com/bullet-sizes-calibers-and-types/
The LR in .22lr stands for long rifle and you can see it being rather smaller than a 9mm pistol round (which can also be fired out of a MP5/UMP if you wanted to go that way). That might be a bit disingenuous though as the .223 you mention I would probably know as a 5.56 instead and is on the larger side in that list.
In any case you are unlikely to be able to outrun it and skin is a woeful choice of armour. This then leads to a lot of discussion about things that could be done if restricting and what might be ineffective. This then leads to broad restrictions proposed and either then getting blocked as it is gets called a unilateral affront, or some concession gets made and funnels the ne'er do wells down that path instead.
High capacities you can types of shooting like simulated engagement rather than just plinking targets. That said how many are spray and pray into a crowd these days (same question I guess also applies to the bump stocks*)? Practice for a little while and do inverse taped magazines and your break in fire is minimal if your capacities are limited.

*for those not familiar semi auto refers to when your weapon fires one round per squeeze of the trigger and chambers the next one. Bump stocks are made such that the recoil of the previous shot aids in pulling the trigger for the next one while still technically being a semi auto weapon. Drops your accuracy somewhat but rounds do fly quicker.


----------



## ThisIsDaAccount (Mar 18, 2018)

PerfectB said:


> I don't mind discussing my thoughts on the matter, for those willing to listen.  It is unfortunate that I have some of the knowledge I do, as it was primarily gained from research I've done on my own about the shooting my family was involved in and reading through the court documents and things of that nature.  I just tend to avoid political topics because in this country it can often seem like both sides are too entrenched to see eye to eye with each other or compromise on their positions.  Maybe it's like that everywhere and I'm just ignorant of world politics but it seems especially prevalent in the US, anyway.
> 
> I will say that the firearm my mother was shot with was a semi-automatic AK-47 style weapon, which fires a 7.62x39mm round, versus the AR-15 styled weapons that you hear about in many of the more recent mass shootings which is a .223 caliber rifle.  I won't claim that I'm a huge expert on the intricacies of guns, but the style weapon she was shot with fires a larger round and has the potential cause more damage per round at the expense of greater recoil; hence the large exit wound she received that damaged her spinal cord.  The shooter also had multiple other guns including semi-automatic 9mm pistols and was in possession of multiple high-capacity magazines for his rifle.
> 
> ...


Thanks a lot, this is a lot of good info!


----------



## huntertron1 (Mar 18, 2018)

*bangs head on table*
why do you not look at ratings. you always look at the rateing. heck 20% of the time its just parents letting them because they dont know where the rating is, or there dumb enough to let them play. and example my 8 year old cousin. i won't let him play T or M rated games. but my grandmother lets him play it with all the sound turned down. *bangs head really hard* just read the label. i bet 50 % of parents see this instead of the whole box. if people ignores the rating then why does the ESRB exist they rate to help define the age range of certain games. rant done. *bangs head till skull broke*


----------



## FAST6191 (Mar 18, 2018)

huntertron1 said:


> *bangs head on table*
> why do you not look at ratings. you always look at the rateing. heck 20% of the time its just parents letting them because they dont know where the rating is, or there dumb enough to let them play. and example my 8 year old cousin. i won't let him play T or M rated games. but my grandmother lets him play it with all the sound turned down. *bangs head really hard* just read the label. i bet 50 % of parents see this instead of the whole box. if people ignores the rating then why does the ESRB exist they rate to help define the age range of certain games. rant done. *bangs head till skull broke*



I am still not clear on what harm might be done to a developing mind by allowing them play a game outside the (incredibly variable within a country, never mind compared to others) age rating given to it.


----------



## TotalInsanity4 (Mar 18, 2018)

FAST6191 said:


> I am still not clear on what harm might be done to a developing mind by allowing them play a game outside the (incredibly variable within a country, never mind compared to others) age rating given to it.


I think it comes down to parent preference, but an argument might be made that young (like lower grade school) minds are particularly impressionable when it comes to what they find "normal," and that particularly violent games need to wait until brains have developed a bit more.

That's COMPLETELY conjecture, though, I have no imperical evidence backing that up (other than personally seeing what happens when spoiled/bratty kids play online shooters)


----------



## FAST6191 (Mar 18, 2018)

As far as online shooters then https://www.penny-arcade.com/comic/2004/03/19 + "the game creates the fanbase*"

*classic example being DOTA/moba type affairs. As a bad player tanks a match, the mechanics are obtuse as you like (with such things seemingly being clamoured for by the player base) and player rankings are visible to others it necessarily leads to exclusionary/elitist practices.

Equally I would argue for an inverse of the blood/gore scale -- having seen people see the real results of a fight over the years the blood less/wound free thing espoused by much media seems almost entirely backwards from where I sit (I am not sure where completely over the top gore would sit). Reserve the "cartoon"/a-team firing stuff for those that know better.

I am aware of the arguments, however the lack of evidence, historical precedents, massive inconsistencies between countries (barring certain genetic traits which I doubt manifest in a useful way here medicine mostly works on all people, all over the world) and adherence to age meaning something (I don't magically gain something on my 18th birthday, nor has anybody else, unless they meant 17 in those countries where 17 is the thing) means I am inclined to ignore it pending worthwhile evidence.


----------



## Redhorse (Jun 11, 2018)

And we are all aware that all video games are filled with bloody violence./Sarc.
ie Wario Ware etc..


----------



## APartOfMe (Jun 11, 2018)

Redhorse said:


> And we are all aware that all video games are filled with bloody violence./Sarc.
> ie Wario Ware etc..


Nice necro


----------



## Condarkness_XY (Jun 20, 2018)

Is any good gonna come of this? I don't think so. President Dumbass is hellbent on screwing the industry just like he's hellbent on screwing all Americans.


----------

