In case you were not aware, on Thursday President Donald Trump had an hour-long meeting with Congressional leaders and video game industry leaders behind closed doors in the Roosevelt Room at the White House. Attendees included company representatives from Bethesda, Take-Two, Rockstar, and the Entertainment Software Association (ESA), as well as critics of violent media from the Parents Television Council (PTC), Media Research Council (MRC), Representative Vicky Hartzler, a Republican Congresswoman from Missouri, among others. The meeting, which the White House describes as one of many with the game industry and other stakeholders in a national discussion surrounding school shootings, was closed to the press. However, some of the attendees revealed what went down in post-meeting statements and press interviews.

The meeting kicked-off with the screening of the following 88-second video that depicts violent scenes from game franchises like Call of Duty, Sniper Elite, and Fallout:

Unlisted video from The White House’s YouTube channel​

Following the footage Rep. Hartzler said that the president would ask, “This is violent isn’t it?”, asking for comments and thoughts among those present.

"I think for many of us there, there was a shocked silence," Melissa Henson, a spokesperson for the PTC, said during a press call following the meeting. "Those from the video game industry were quick to defend [the video games] saying they were meant for a mature audience and that they weren't intended for kids to see."

“I think he’s deeply disturbed by some of the things you see in these video games that are so darn violent, viciously violent, and clearly inappropriate for children, and I think he’s bothered by that,” said Brent Bozell of the MRC.

In a press statement following the meeting, the White House added that “the President acknowledged some studies have indicated there is a correlation between video game violence and real violence. The conversation centered on whether violent video games, including games that graphically simulate killing, desensitize our community to violence.”

It is not the first time that President Trump made a connection between violence in video games and real violence. He has been quite vocal about his thoughts on the matter in the past...

Video game violence & glorification must be stopped—it is creating monsters!

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) December 17, 2012

​

... even if studies showed no correlation between the two, as the ESA pointed out: "We discussed the numerous scientific studies establishing that there is no connection between video games and violence, First Amendment protection of video games, and how our industry’s rating system effectively helps parents make informed entertainment choices."

Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.), who was also at the meeting, also acknowledged that there is no evidence linking violent video games to the tragedy in Parkland. But he said he wanted to ensure “parents are aware of the resources available to them to monitor and control the entertainment their children are exposed to.”

"The tone of the meeting was that it was for information gathering, fact finding," the PTC's Melissa Henson said. "I don't believe anyone came in there with a policy outcome in mind. The President was not walking in there with his mind already made up. I am under the impression there will be future conversations, though no next steps were discussed."

___________________________________________​

While nothing consequential went down during this specific meeting, similar ones are bound to happen, especially in the wake of increasing reports of public violence. Decisions might then be made that will have a heavy impact on the video game industry.

Views are highly divided regarding the issue of violence and video games. This will probably remain the case in the foreseeable future until a consensus is met, however unlikely that may be. But what do you think? Is there a correlation? Are there any changes that need to be made within the video game industry that can help to curb real-world violence?

 

[Navonod]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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

 

[MercilessDeth]

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.

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]

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]

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]

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 ---------------------------

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]

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]

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]

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

 

[TotalInsanity4]

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]

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]

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.

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]

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.


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.

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 ---------------------------

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]

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]

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]

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