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

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:

-machine guns
-bazookas
-tanks

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

Luigi from Luigi's Mansion

Well-Known Member

Luigi from Luigi's Mansion

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Luigi from Luigi's Mansion

Well-Known Member

Member

Report-er

Techromancer

Well-Known Member

h

All my gbatemp friends are now mods, except for me

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

ORAORAORAORA

Luigi from Luigi's Mansion

Gay twink catboy

Aspiring Game Dev

Report-er

Similar threads

Popular threads in this forum