U.S. Senator Takes Pro-NRA, Anti-GTA Stance

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 NEXT
 

Froggy Slayer:

an annoyed writer:
he's also advocating real steel firearms that 1: he lacks the knowledge to operate, and 2: The BIG one: DO kill people.

Actually, guns don't kill people. Bullets kill people. Honestly, these hippie types drive me up the wall.

Actually, it's not bullets, it's god who kills people. He guides these bullets where He wants them to go.

in video games people kill guns

Froggy Slayer:

I guess that we're both right, seeing as the bullet still 'kills' the person by enacting destruction on vital bodily systems. But the bullet must be launched from a gun. And the gun must be operated by a human. Ergo, all three kill people.

Bingo. Each part comprises a machine that ultimately can kill things: an operator is needed to use the firearm, and the firearm needs bullets to propel at the target. A defect in any of the three can cause something bad to happen: the operator is the most crucial pert of this machine: they identify friend and foe, they aim the firearm, and they pull the trigger. If they've got a defect, the whole damn machine has a defect. The Connecticut case was a clear case of a defect in the operator: specifically, a mental defect that SHOULD have been treated, but wasn't. What caused this defect? We don't know, and due to the shooter's suicide, we won't know. All we can do is look at the evidence. That's where people are disagreeing: some think disarming is the solution, others think getting to the root of the problem is key: the problem there is focus, and the lack of taking all factors into account. This story is but one example of such fallacy.

Funny, I don't remember Nico ever shooting up a school. Most of what I remember from GTA4 is toll booths, and as such I think it have trained me to be a far more patient and level-headed person.

That's all the counter-argument I'm willing to offer, and even then it's more than this debate deserves by now.

This reminds me of something I read awhile back. Something about a study being done from the lessons that kids learn from GTA.

Basically, young kids (under 13 years old) were allowed to play a GTA game extensively anyway they saw fit. And they asked them what lessons they learned from the game when they were done. The lessons they learned were things such as:

-Gang life is dangerous
-Guns are dangerous
-Once you begin Gang life; It's hard, almost impossible to escape
-Many gangsters die young
-If you commit crimes, the police will come after and won't stop until you are jailed or worse.

As fun as the games were to play and fun as it was to take part in the virtual violence of GTA, those kids got the point that GTA games convey. When asked what real-world lessons they can take away from their experiences with GTA, they lessons they claimed to have learned are very real and very serious stuff.

So in conclusion: Kids are smarter than this fuckwit of a politician.

publikman:
There hasn't even been a GTA released in years. You might as well blame Doom or Duck Hunt.

Leave Duck Hunt alone! That was the only game I could win! :(

We really need to find a new scape goat for all the issues we don't really want to address this is getting dull. Too bad the reason all these debates arose is now so overshadowed by the debates that no one will remember it unless they were directly involved.

Tohuvabohu:
This reminds me of something I read awhile back. Something about a study being done from the lessons that kids learn from GTA.

Basically, young kids (under 13 years old) were allowed to play a GTA game extensively anyway they saw fit. And they asked them what lessons they learned from the game when they were done. The lessons they learned were things such as:

-Gang life is dangerous
-Guns are dangerous
-Once you begin Gang life; It's hard, almost impossible to escape
-Many gangsters die young
-If you commit crimes, the police will come after and won't stop until you are jailed or worse.

As fun as the games were to play and fun as it was to take part in the virtual violence of GTA, those kids got the point that GTA games convey. When asked what real-world lessons they can take away from their experiences with GTA, they lessons they claimed to have learned are very real and very serious stuff.

So in conclusion: Kids are smarter than this fuckwit of a politician.

Do you know where I could find this study? I know a few people that would be interested to read such a thing.

This video is still relevant for all the crap news reporting we are going to get the next couple of weeks.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5uwAo8lcAC4

I think that Ronald Regan said it even better than I could.

image

And he's right; This is a topic that is not only sensitive to just about everyone, but also has a multitude of angles and inspires passionate opinions. But while we're being careful to not step on the toes of everyone from gun owners to mental health practitioners, shouldn't the same care be given to the developers and publishers of videogames? I'll leave that to you to decide.

The sad truth is it will only matter when the people that may get offended or pissed off at these statements represent a meaningful voter demography.

Listen, Internet... you know, I like you and all - but this thing you're doing sometimes, you know, pestering me with this unfathomable amount of Stupid... not cool.

Scapegoating like a true sir.

no matter what your view on guns is you have to admit blaming guns is still more valid then saying games are at fault. that assumes you have logic and are not a senator that likely to be lieing in order to gain supporters

I'm so tired of "Video games" Being a stand in for "Mental health, gun control," In discussion after a shooting.
It is disgusting how it happens every time.

LMGs have been illegal to own since the 1920s

Comments like this from a Senator do nothing to progress the debate. Heck, even the people presenting the Ban Guns argument are missing a broader point.

Short term, banning guns would resolve some crime. It wouldn't change the mass shootings though. The fact that these shooters have been able to make dangerous bombs means that if they wanted to kill a lot of people they still have viable weapons. The worst cases of mass murder have always been with bombs like the Bath School Bombing of 1927.

Long term we're in a bit of a pickle. Lets take the AR-15 as the example. Right now you can buy all the parts but 1 without a licence or check. Part of the reason for that is most of the parts have duel purposes. However, if you happen to have one of these nice 2000$ 3D printers you can just print up that missing part. The group that provides the blueprints for that part is working to get a fully printable gun. In 10 years 3D printers will be cheap enough anyone could have access to one. Cheap disposable undetectable guns are a real long term threat, and even things like the Undetectable Firearms Act of 1988 won't stop this from being developed by freelancers, or the files/blueprints from being hosted outside of the country.

We've also been dismantling our Mental Health system for the last hundred years. Mostly because it was abused with overcrowded Asylums and inhuman experimentation. But we replaced it with nothing. We don't really know how to deal with people like the VA Tech shooter who bable on and fantasize about killing people, but letting them roam around unchecked hasn't been a good idea. We can't spot every killer, but some of these shootings of late the people around them knew the person was unhinged prior.

I'd say that Video Game do cause Violent Behavior. However, it causes it in the same way Leave it to Beaver can be linked to a rise crime. Something happened when we started watching TV and it hasn't ever gone back. There isn't anything we can do about that unless we want to ban all TV with games.

It'll be nice if they could make some progress on gun control or mental health. I doubt they will.

Ahh, a good, old-fashioned, ideologically driven US political shit-storm is brewing. From the US of A to the rest of the world, sit back and enjoy the show. This has all the makings to be quite interesting.

All the credit in the world to him for admitting that banning assault weapons makes sense though. Even that is often a huge deal for the extremely pro-gun crowd to concede.

The fact is, the whole "We need guns to defend ourselves from the government" argument no longer has any basis in reality, in the age of predator drones, armored personnel carriers and other modern technologies. No group of civilians, armed with shotguns and pistols, and even civilian legal assault rifles (which are often just knock-offs of the real things made from inferior components) has any chance of "defending themselves" against a modern, professionally trained and armed military force.

While the argument to ban guns completely does have some valid points, and some good numbers from countries that have, guns are just too pervasive, both in actual numbers and in cultural significance in the US to ban completely. However, I DO believe that regulations on the types of guns and their ammunition capacities are needed. The 2nd Amendment itself calls for a "well regulated" militia (something a lot of people seem to overlook). You don't need a 30-round magazine on your rifle, you don't need a pistol that can hold 20+ rounds. Hell, I could go out today, and legally buy and own a shotgun that holds 16 shells. As cool as that is, no civilian should have that kind of sustained firepower.

Honestly, I'd be in favor of banning semi-auto handguns along with assault-rifles (although the sheer number of semi-autos basically makes that impossible). It's a whole lot harder to shoot up a room with a 6-shooter than it is with a glocke.

So yes, I support gun ownership (partly because I do believe people should have some form of self defense, and partly because it would be impossible to completely ban them at this point), but we need to have some serious, reasonable limits. The Constitution was designed to be a living document, so that it could change with the times as the nation changed with the times. The only valid reasons for owning a gun in this modern world are self-defense, recreation shooting or hunting, and the laws should be altered to reflect that.

rcs619:
Ahh, a good, old-fashioned, ideologically driven US political shit-storm is brewing. From the US of A to the rest of the world, sit back and enjoy the show. This has all the makings to be quite interesting.

All the credit in the world to him for admitting that banning assault weapons makes sense though. Even that is often a huge deal for the extremely pro-gun crowd to concede.

The fact is, the whole "We need guns to defend ourselves from the government" argument no longer has any basis in reality, in the age of predator drones, armored personnel carriers and other modern technologies. No group of civilians, armed with shotguns and pistols, and even civilian legal assault rifles (which are often just knock-offs of the real things made from inferior components) has any chance of "defending themselves" against a modern, professionally trained and armed military force.

While the argument to ban guns completely does have some valid points, and some good numbers from countries that have, guns are just too pervasive, both in actual numbers and in cultural significance in the US to ban completely. However, I DO believe that regulations on the types of guns and their ammunition capacities are needed. The 2nd Amendment itself calls for a "well regulated" militia (something a lot of people seem to overlook). You don't need a 30-round magazine on your rifle, you don't need a pistol that can hold 20+ rounds. Hell, I could go out today, and legally buy and own a shotgun that holds 16 shells. As cool as that is, no civilian should have that kind of sustained firepower.

Honestly, I'd be in favor of banning semi-auto handguns along with assault-rifles (although the sheer number of semi-autos basically makes that impossible). It's a whole lot harder to shoot up a room with a 6-shooter than it is with a glocke.

So yes, I support gun ownership (partly because I do believe people should have some form of self defense, and partly because it would be impossible to completely ban them at this point), but we need to have some serious, reasonable limits. The Constitution was designed to be a living document, so that it could change with the times as the nation changed with the times. The only valid reasons for owning a gun in this modern world are self-defense, recreation shooting or hunting, and the laws should be altered to reflect that.

A single voice of reason in a world (or at least country) gone mad.

I would help you in your quest to change your nation, but I live on an island in the Pacific and won't be of much use.

dunam:

Froggy Slayer:

an annoyed writer:
he's also advocating real steel firearms that 1: he lacks the knowledge to operate, and 2: The BIG one: DO kill people.

Actually, guns don't kill people. Bullets kill people. Honestly, these hippie types drive me up the wall.

Actually, it's not bullets, it's god who kills people. He guides these bullets where He wants them to go.

You're all wrong; it's PHYSICS which kills people. Physics is what gets the bullets to their targets in the first place, and yet for some reason authorities haven't even prosecuted him yet.

I cannot wait for his generation to die out.

Apologies to anyone with parents at that age, no harm meant. My parents are also that age, or maybe even older, but I still stand by what I said. I know idiots will still exist, bla bla bla hurr durr burr.

What the hell is about US and their guns?! Why can't they just leave them be? I'd honestly like to see a senator shot in the leg, so one could tell how much it hurts to get shot. Guns aren't useful. Why can't people see that?! @][@\[{. All this is so stupid. I can't fathom as to why they're so being so ignorant. Blast it.

erttheking:
I think that Ronald Regan said it even better than I could.

image

Well I was gonna say something similar to this but it wouldn't have been nearly as nice. Seriously, instead of trying to find some external reason for why these things happen let's place the blame squarely on the shoulders of the cunts who commit the crimes.

Grand Theft Auto is always a fair game. they lost a court for a mod, so its clearly a company that likes to take a beating.

Ldude893:

dunam:

Froggy Slayer:

Actually, guns don't kill people. Bullets kill people. Honestly, these hippie types drive me up the wall.

Actually, it's not bullets, it's god who kills people. He guides these bullets where He wants them to go.

You're all wrong; it's PHYSICS which kills people. Physics is what gets the bullets to their targets in the first place, and yet for some reason authorities haven't even prosecuted him yet.

Yes, you're right, but instead of going after physics let's go after game's physics first, after all, it's these games that teach our children about physics and without these murder simulators they won't be able to use physics at all.

Alternate Title: "U.S. Senator Joe Manchin of West Virginia confirms difficultly distinguishing reality from fantasy."

You know, I don't know of any other medium that continued to be a target after it got a rating system. At least not for this long afterwards anyway. I mean the ESRB was established in what? 93/94? And now nearly 20 years later and video games are STILL under fire. WTF??
Also this guy needs to see a doctor to get his foot removed from his mouth.

FelixG:
People need GTA about as much as they need 30 round magazines. They really dont need either, but both are fun to have!

Granted. BUT the 30 round gun can put up to 30 holes in people without reloading. GTA can't .... unless you fire it out of some sort of very high velocity cannon... TO THE LAB! *science montage*

Btw, my point is more that guns are infinitely more DIRECTLY dangerous that video games, and are not really a form of 'art'/free-speech, so I don't see how the guy can say "Gun's aren't the problem, obviously games are!". But what do I know, I'm a Brit, and apparently we can't say anything on guns... not that its apart of our plans to recolonize America... * shifty eyes*

Edit2:

Stryc9:

erttheking:
I think that Ronald Regan said it even better than I could.

image

Well I was gonna say something similar to this but it wouldn't have been nearly as nice. Seriously, instead of trying to find some external reason for why these things happen let's place the blame squarely on the shoulders of the cunts who commit the crimes.

The people who commit these crimes are dead, as are their victims. Blaming them won't achieve anything. Sometimes, society does have problems.

From what I've seen, most of the people who commit these crimes have some degree of mental illness, are typically isolated, and described as "loners" (probably not all of them fit into these groups, but hey). If a society and the individuals it is made of can be described as sane and competent, then it simply falls to them to deal with mental disease and social isolation, or face the results of it. Sorry, but that's just the way it is. No amount of individual responsibly will stop mad people from shooting other people.

I'm not saying anything daft like the victims were asking for it, or society is the problem, but I am saying the US needs to look at its society in terms of isolation and mental health if it wants to try and avoid these problems again. Gun control may also be apart of that solution.

rcs619:
The fact is, the whole "We need guns to defend ourselves from the government" argument no longer has any basis in reality, in the age of predator drones, armored personnel carriers and other modern technologies. No group of civilians, armed with shotguns and pistols, and even civilian legal assault rifles (which are often just knock-offs of the real things made from inferior components) has any chance of "defending themselves" against a modern, professionally trained and armed military force.

But they still need to pay for that modern, professionally-trained and armed military force. The amount of bullets in the clip is irrelevant. All that really is required is the illusion that anyone armed with a rifle can and should overthrow their government. Not that I promote the idea of staging an armed insurrection against a democratically-elected government, but the United States government would very, very quickly bankrupt itself if it was ever forced to deploy it's military might against the very economy that pays for it.

At the end of the day patriot missiles cost money, and if you're blowing up the people who're theoretically supposed to pay to replace the missile you just fired, then you're doing it wrong.

Technically GTA 4 COULD be about a eastern european coming to america and bowling with his cousin all the time.

But in all honesty stores that sell video games are supposed to be ID checking people if they buy a M game.

well... except for mine cause i watch kids who are clearly younger than 17 walk out with GTA4/Blops2/AC3/Halo4.

(despite the fact that i've talked to the manager and she said don't worry about it... wtf mate)

Why arent they looking at the real hearth of the problem? Mental illness....

Neither guns or games should be banned, but I see his reasoning. Guns save more lives than they take in the US. They are used thousands of times every day to protect innocents.

Grand Theft Auto is just violent entertainment. It's violent entertainment that I have a damn fun time with, but that is what it is.

rekabdarb:
Technically GTA 4 COULD be about a eastern european coming to america and bowling with his cousin all the time.

But in all honesty stores that sell video games are supposed to be ID checking people if they buy a M game.

well... except for mine cause i watch kids who are clearly younger than 17 walk out with GTA4/Blops2/AC3/Halo4.

(despite the fact that i've talked to the manager and she said don't worry about it... wtf mate)

You shouldn't worry about it from a legal standpoint. The ratings system is self-imposed by the industry. There is no legal binding to it.

Same with all media in the US actually. I think music has to have a rating on it, but you can sell any media to anyone at any age, other than pornography or outright illegal media (such as child porn or snuff films), perfectly legally.

Doug:

FelixG:
People need GTA about as much as they need 30 round magazines. They really dont need either, but both are fun to have!

Granted. BUT the 30 round gun can put up to 30 holes in people without reloading. GTA can't .... unless you fire it out of some sort of very high velocity cannon... TO THE LAB! *science montage*

*End of the montage*

Look what you did! Are you happy now?!

and Southpark called it, you guys are planning to send the redcoats back!

cidbahamut:
Oh look, it's another old and out of touch politician raving about the evils of rock 'n' roll and comic books.

Except this one's also raving about how awesome guns are.

It's sad that I heard of a man who went to a gun-shop and bought himself a mounted machine gun (because if you're an american you can buy guns from a gun-show for cheap and with no background checks). He was also a member of the nazi party, constantly wore camo gear, sported gold teeth and was always packing. When asked what he'd do if the government banned assault rifles he said "I'd like to see them take 'em from me".

You can't justify gun ownership anymore. All the Pro-guns arguements I've been hearing are "well... crimes might go up and good people will be defenseless. And other bad stuff". It's not much of an arguement, just look at the PRESENT statistics and not what you think 'might' happen if guns were banned.

"The only way to stop a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun". Right, so by that logic if a child was throwing rocks, you'd better hand out rocks to all the other children too.

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 NEXT

Reply to Thread

Log in or Register to Comment
Have an account? Login below:
With Facebook:Login With Facebook
or
Username:  
Password:  
  
Not registered? To sign up for an account with The Escapist:
Register With Facebook
Register With Facebook
or
Register for a free account here