NRA Likens Videogames to "the Filthiest Form of Pornography"

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 NEXT
 

captainfluoxetine:

Loop Stricken:
The NRA would appear to be very silly people indeed.
...but then I'm English and, as far as I've been told, am utterly unqualified to talk about guns whatsoever.

it does however make you fully qualified to talk about the merits of not owning guns.

Well, I can certainly attest to not having been shot to death, as well as not knowing anyone who's been shot to death.
Or indeed, at all.

This, in a place where my own dear mother could tell me who to talk to in a pub, if I so wanted to obtain one. A gun that is, not a getting shot to death.

People wonder why, despite being a gun owner and my ardent support for responsible gun ownership I want nothing to do with the NRA or it's leadership. I'm going to point to this if it's ever asked.

And really? Citing Mortal Kombat, Mr. La Pierre? 1994 called, they'd like to have you back now.

Gods, Mortal Kombat stopped being shocking before I graduated HS....

Formica Archonis:
Is there an organization that supports the Second Amendment that hasn't gone full retard? I'd like to join them.

Pink Pistols, though it's oriented towards self defense and ownership by LGBT's.

tkioz:
Yanks man... yanks... Seriously Americans I get you're not all like that, but can you get these guys to shut up? They are driving down the collective IQ of the planet every time they open their mouths.

We try, but considering the underlying right wing Christian fundamentalism in this country, we can't quite keep it dead whenever we think we've killed it.

ThriKreen:

Ronack:
Let's look at some interesting fact:

Violent Videogames in Europe: Yes
Gun Violence in Europe: Minimal

Violent Videogames in America: Yes
Gun Violence in America: Accounts for the vast majority of the world's percentage in violent deaths due to guns.

NRA: 0 - Ronack: 1

You forgot:

Violent Videogames in Canada: Yes
Culture most in similarity: USA
Media consumption most in similarity: USA
Gun control laws: Yes
Gun Violence in Canada: Minimal

Implying we don't have gun control in the US.

Remember children; Gun Control =/= Gun Banning.

Really? You'd think the NRA would be experienced in having people place unnecessary blame on the object of your pastime. Oh well, guess not. Better blame video games!

"And here's another dirty little truth that the media try their best to conceal: There exists in this country a callous, corrupt and corrupting shadow industry that sells, and sows, violence against its own people,"

Hrm.. The gun industry?

Father Time:

DataSnake:
This analogy doesn't really hold up. It's a lot easier to brew moonshine or grow weed than it is to make your own AR-15.

Meth crack or cocaine then.
Or ivory. There aren't many elephants in the U.S..

Meth and crack are notoriously easy to make yourself, and to make cocaine from coca plants all you'd need are a high school level understanding of chemistry and some raw materials available at any hardware store. By contrast, a homemade firearm is nowhere near as deadly as an AR-15 or M4; the only one even remotely comparable is the WWII-era STEN, which still required welding equipment and needed professionally-made ammo (which in turn would require injection molding tools), as well as suffering from poor accuracy, massive recoil and frequent jamming.

cerebus23:
Have you seen how our federal government acts? Any wonder why some of us take that 2nd amendment right fairly seriously.

You do know the government has tanks, missiles and flying killbots, right?

GunsmithKitten:

Formica Archonis:
Is there an organization that supports the Second Amendment that hasn't gone full retard? I'd like to join them.

Pink Pistols, though it's oriented towards self defense and ownership by LGBT's.

Better than nothing, I suppose. Little more focused than I was aiming for (HA!) but hey, any non-crazy port in a storm.

What the F-ing frack?! I don't know who at NRA thought this was a good idea, but he must've (not should've) shot his brains out by mistake before making such an idiotic comment. If this came from ANYBODY else, I would've taken a liberal point of view and say "well, violence in games could lead to if such or such and such...". But coming from the NRA, this sounds as the biggest bullshit I've ever heard. Look you NRA imbeciles, we kill pixels with pixel rounds. EVEN if some wacko thinks that CoD is the will of God and he should kill somebody, he couldn't do it if he didn't have a real assault rifle FROM YOU. I've played the worst of the worst and enjoyed it too. But since I've never had a gun in my hands, the thought of doing that shit for real has never crossed my mind.

There's a joke about their highly prolific love of extremely phallic objects in here somewhere.

I would liken Nathan Drake to Buck Angel...Other than that I would need some time to find equivalents for 2 girls 1 cup, 4 girls finger-painting, the great american challenge, etc.

Seriously though, no. Many video game players/ owners don't even own guns and want nothing to do with weaponry of any kind unless it utilizes lasers or giant keys. This doesn't matter though, it's not like they can get a government ban on violent games. Nor can they prove a true link between gaming and violent people. Crazy is always Crazy, Violent is always Violent no matter what the stimuli. Hell, you could probably prove the shooter was a fan of Barney as a 3 year old...why not try banning Barney?

Verlander:
Remember guys, gun ownership is a "right" ;)

I'm not entirely sure how this even gets to this stage. You can't shoot someone without a gun. How difficult is that? Most countries have the hang of it by now, and the ones that don't have shootings instead.

First off, yes, it is a right, and it "shall not be infringed". Right there in the Constitution.

This is actually one of those things that pisses me off about our dominant political parties in the US -- you effectively have to choose which guaranteed Constitutional rights you care about, because only one party cares about the 2nd, and it largely doesn't care for the 1st.

While you can't shoot someone without a gun, you can certainly stab, bludgeon, or blow them up without one, all using things that would be basically impossible to ban and requiring only slightly more planning.

mjc0961:
Says the gun nuts who actually had a hand in causing this tragedy while video games are 100% not responsible. I don't think "ban teh gunz" will solve the problem of shootings by any means, but on the other side of the coin, it doesn't help that clowns like these try to keep it so you can walk into Walmart and get guns in the same building where you do your Christmas shopping for your kids. (And yeah, I'm sure Walmart follows all the laws and whatnot, but come on why does Walmart have a gun section of all things?)

Because nothing places a restriction on selling toys, clothing, food, electronics and guns in the same building, and a giant megacorp like WalMart sees the sales generated by selling guns as greater than the sales lost by doing so? A big grassroots push to boycott WalMart specifically because they sell guns with a bit of media attention might make them change their mind on that front, but ultimately it all comes down to money -- people who want to buy guns & ammo (especially ammo) at Wal Mart and people who are neutral on the matter generate more money than people who refuse to shop there because they sell guns & ammo cost them.

Honestly I used to be semi-supportive of the NRA. Sure they're right wing, but guns happen to be the only issue I lean towards the right with. So I always thought I could count on the NRA to protect my right to own a gun. Always count on them to make sure that I could adequately protect myself, so when somebody attempts to commit a violent crime against me, I don't have to just LET them.

But just when I thought of the NRA as a friend, now they're coming after me? Screw you NRA. It didn't matter to me that most of your supporters are right wing idiots who hold the wrong opinions about every other topic, as long as you were protecting my gun interests. Why'd you have to go and ruin things between us? Now it's personal.

I personally believe that the biggest problem is neither video games(obviously), nor availability of guns, but in the fact that there's no damn system in place to correctly diagnose and deal with severe mental health issues, and the fact that the country is so shittily managed as a whole, I mean look at how their economy is doing compared to Canada right now, and guess what, we have a decent health care system eh.

Think about it, do you want crazy nutters to kill people and get all out of control? If your answer is no, then maybe it'd be a good idea to put a system in place for the propper institutionalization and treatment of people with the problems that are at the root of a lot of these things... Cuz right now, in most cases, those with problems like that are left to wander in society degrading constantly, until they commit a crime, and are locked away in PRISON, so until one of em goes straight up mental, they're out there, with access to firearms, and no medication like walking bombs waitin to be set off.

Just makes sense to deal with that kinda thing is all.

Oh NRA, you always find new and interesting ways to disappoint me.

I think Doomy McDoom is right, though. The mental health care system needs an overhaul. That is not to say that will solve all the major incidents of gun violence, but it would probably help with some of the underlying causes.

Also, the face it takes something like this for people to actually give a shit about gun regulation and oversight/mental health is kind of sad.

Oooooohhh I'm so excited!
Usually when someone accuses video games of causing problems, I read it and say: "These people are wrong, but there is some truth in their claims." I usually have to consider both sides of an argument wholly.
But this time, finally, there is a slam of against video games that had no high ground, and was simply an illogical and antiquated diversion.
I can actually feel righteously indignant towards something without affecting my Paragon rating. This is a rare treat for me.

You can't compare Splatterhouse to porno, because I can buy Splatterhouse at Walmart, despite the fact that I can find softcore photos in the game as unlockables. . .
I'm just wondering what they're suggesting, because they're giving too much credit to these fantastically "Responsible Gun Owners" that I have only heard so much about. Not everyone is as sane as this imaginary man, because it's simply math: People who have guns in their household are more likely to be the victims of a shooting than in households that don't have guns. . . so shut up, NRA, the gunfire is coming from inside the house.

I don't think banning guns is good, but I think that banning freedom of speech is a horrible idea.

aattss:
I don't think banning guns is good, but I think that banning freedom of speech is a horrible idea.

Then you're going to love their next trick. The gun ownership supporters want someone deported from the US for using Freedom of Speech:
http://news.yahoo.com/us-petition-deport-piers-morgan-hits-31-400-112219264.html

Apparently they're quite selective about which parts of the constitution are important to them and which ones aren't.

I'm saddened by the NRA statement but even more saddened to see some people in this site, of all possible places, actually sticking up for those guys. This one post suggested teachers should be allowed to arm themselves, for instance. I'm abhorred.

So the NRA's plan to protect the 2nd Amendment...Is to find ways to destroy the 1st Amendment. Okay, makes sense.

I'm no fan of the NRA, but I have to say: from what I've heard, even most of the NRA's members are pretty appalled by the level of knee-jerk dogmatism shown by LaPierre.

*Watches a week of Dogmatic, faith based accusation that guns cause mass killings and high crime without statistical proof*

*Watches an NRA press conference where the Dogmatic beliefs of small minded people are shattered against their preconceived notions, such as, if you believe an inanimate object is responsible for a crime there's no reason that an active media isn't equally responsible*

*Watches pathetic moral equivalency that misses the entire point of what the conference was about.*

Ahhh, idiots. Nevermind that Democrat Diane Feinstein is the only one putting up a bill to restrict your rights [http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/12/16/dianne-feinstein-assault-weapons-ban_n_2311477.html], never mind that DEMOCRAT Jay Rockefeller is proposing that the congress work on a government study of video games http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/rockefeller-violent-video-games/2012/12/19/id/468451 . No, no, Democrats are "cool" and would neeever propose that! Ignore that every time violent video games come up DEMOCRATS are the one who propose laws against them. *COUGH* Hillary Clinton *COUGH* http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Family_Entertainment_Protection_Act

Someone needs to link this guy to lemonparty or something so he can see what the filthiest forms of pornography really are.

On a more serious note, of course restricting or banning guns won't prevent everyone from getting them. The point of restriction is to make it harder for unstable people to get these guns (and people who need them for getting rid of alligators or something can still get them). If one out of ten potential shooters can't get their hands on a gun then that's 90% of the problem solved. It won't matter if there are armed guards at every school in America unless they have their guns stapled to their foreheads with thought activated triggers a shooter will still get the jump on them, recall that the Columbine school had an armed guard on duty at the time of their shooting.

Also, having recently seen this video detailing some of the theming of Bioshock Infinite it makes me wonder if Irrational is psychic.

Johnson McGee:

On a more serious note, of course restricting or banning guns won't prevent everyone from getting them. The point of restriction is to make it harder for unstable people to get these guns (and people who need them for getting rid of alligators or something can still get them). If one out of ten potential shooters can't get their hands on a gun then that's 90% of the problem solved.

The CT shooter attempted to buy a gun, the law prevented him from doing so because he didn't want to submit to a background check. What law do you propose would stop someone from killing their own mother and stealing her guns? What portion of the population are you trying to control?

Addendum: Ah cute, yes Columbine had an armed guard, I suppose you prefer that he wasn't there and one of the shooters didn't jam their gun while trading fire with the guard. Conveniently allowing that shooter to shoot more kids in the school as opposed to the guy with the gun... Brilliant plan...

Seems like liberals are getting smarter at the high end. The left wing wants to regulate both guns and free speech, getting their opponents to fight each other will only benefit their own agenda. I'm a supporter of both guns and video games, and honestly think that proponents of the first and second Amendments should be allies against the current administration and it's agenda which this tradgedy is being exploited to promote.

I'll also say that the current problems are largely the result of too many big problems going unresolved, and being left to boil, while both political parties wait for the "solution fairy" to wave a magic wand and make all the big issues go away. Movies, video games, and even the need for personal protection, are all the result of the society we live in.

Look at it this way, right now due to the liberals we have an almost entirely reactive law enforcement system. Things like profiling (racial and otherwise) aren't allowed, and various civil liberties and protections have turned law enforcement into a game. Basically someone can send out all of the warning signs for time, place, and behavior and nobody can do crap because it's wrong to take action until they do something. When someone goes on a shooting rampage, rapes, or murders, we all ask "why did no one see this coming" and liberals crying to give up their freedoms for more protection. Go after someone who is showing those tendencies before they act and then we have the liberals screaming about harassment of anyone who is differant. That thief, rapist, pedophille, spree killer you pro-actively act against is of course going to insist they are innocent and never had any intent.

Taken to a extreme in either direction (permissiveness, or pro-active policing) there is going to be a problem, right now we're at the extreme of permissiveness. I think there is a middle ground without turning the country into a police state. I think a lot of incidents like "Sandy Hook" take place not because they were totally unforseen, but because nobody could do anything about them if they were.

Likewise when it comes to schools and such, there is a tendency to blame the losers and rejects who finally snap, but you see increasingly little action being taken against the rest of the school community for engaging in the behavior that pushes this. Sure there are crusades against active bullying, but in a lot of cases the behavior that actually drives the "nerds" up a wall isn't as overt as being beat up for lunch money or whatever. Schools won't do anything about it because it's easier to take action against the loser for stepping out and fighting back (which makes them even angrier) than to suspend and expel much larger groups of students to be "fair" in breaking up incidents. When it comes to things like Jocks, Cheerleading Teams, and similar things there is increasingly lots of money involved, even for fairly humble schools. The kids who do stuff like that pull down sponsors from local businesses, and frequently get to participate in competitions where they can win things for the school including scholorships, equipment, or even money donated directly to a school budget. A good team, of whatever sort, can be a big business for even a high school, and in general if the Jocks/Cheerleaders/whomever are happy using some losers as a whipping boy to feel powerful, it's very easy for an administration to just let it happen since they benefit from happy teams. Things ARE said about this, but very rarely, and you'll notice few actions are taken. Indeed you see more things like advertising glorifying small town "high school sports culture", than you do criticisms of it.

At any rate, I'm getting increasingly off the subject. Basically I think both the video game industry and groups like the NRA would find themselves natural allies for the moment.

I think the whole debate about videogames and real-life violence is redundant. What does irk me somewhat is how insensitive the NRA are. Everytime there is a tragedy such as this, they pop up (sometimes in the same town as the tragedy) and either reel off a list of other things that are 'to blame' or make some other assanine statements. It genuinely seems to be getting to the point that it looks like they're taunting people, e.g. their latest statement suggesting the American school system needs armed guards. It's so foolish that it seems like a sick joke.

I think as an institution they have now reached the same level as the British National Party in the UK. Yes, they are entitled to voice their opinions, and yes, their opinions are generally absurd and/or flat-out stupid; but they are offensive and stupid to the point that you just cannot take them seriously, so they are no threat to anyone. I think we should just live and let live. Let them say what they want, while the smarter people ignore them and get on with their lives.

Therumancer:
Seems like liberals are getting smarter at the high end. The left wing wants to regulate both guns and free speech, getting their opponents to fight each other will only benefit their own agenda. I'm a supporter of both guns and video games, and honestly think that proponents of the first and second Amendments should be allies against the current administration and it's agenda which this tradgedy is being exploited to promote.

Um, the NRA is calling for censorship, and they're not exactly "liberal".

I'll also say that the current problems are largely the result of too many big problems going unresolved, and being left to boil, while both political parties wait for the "solution fairy" to wave a magic wand and make all the big issues go away. Movies, video games, and even the need for personal protection, are all the result of the society we live in.

First you complain that they're overreaching, now that they're doing nothing. Make up your mind.

Look at it this way, right now due to the liberals we have an almost entirely reactive law enforcement system. Things like profiling (racial and otherwise) aren't allowed, and various civil liberties and protections have turned law enforcement into a game. Basically someone can send out all of the warning signs for time, place, and behavior and nobody can do crap because it's wrong to take action until they do something.

Yeah, you can't arrest people unless they commit a crime. That's in the constitution. If you want to live somewhere with a more "proactive" police force, I hear North Korea is lovely this time of year.

When someone goes on a shooting rampage, rapes, or murders, we all ask "why did no one see this coming" and liberals crying to give up their freedoms for more protection. Go after someone who is showing those tendencies before they act and then we have the liberals screaming about harassment of anyone who is differant. That thief, rapist, pedophille, spree killer you pro-actively act against is of course going to insist they are innocent and never had any intent.

And if they actually ARE innocent, congratulations! You just ruined someone's life because you're scared of anyone different from you.

Taken to a extreme in either direction (permissiveness, or pro-active policing) there is going to be a problem, right now we're at the extreme of permissiveness. I think there is a middle ground without turning the country into a police state. I think a lot of incidents like "Sandy Hook" take place not because they were totally unforseen, but because nobody could do anything about them if they were.

Things like prevent civilians from buying semi-auto rifles, maybe? Oh wait, you're against that restriction. Oh, you mean a SENSIBLE solution, like arresting anyone who fits some vaguely defined "profile" just in case one of them turns out to be a spree killer.

Likewise when it comes to schools and such, there is a tendency to blame the losers and rejects who finally snap, but you see increasingly little action being taken against the rest of the school community for engaging in the behavior that pushes this. Sure there are crusades against active bullying, but in a lot of cases the behavior that actually drives the "nerds" up a wall isn't as overt as being beat up for lunch money or whatever. Schools won't do anything about it because it's easier to take action against the loser for stepping out and fighting back (which makes them even angrier) than to suspend and expel much larger groups of students to be "fair" in breaking up incidents.

Yeah, those darn liberals, always trying to put loopholes in anti-bullying laws. Oh wait, that was the GOP again.

When it comes to things like Jocks, Cheerleading Teams, and similar things there is increasingly lots of money involved, even for fairly humble schools. The kids who do stuff like that pull down sponsors from local businesses, and frequently get to participate in competitions where they can win things for the school including scholorships, equipment, or even money donated directly to a school budget. A good team, of whatever sort, can be a big business for even a high school, and in general if the Jocks/Cheerleaders/whomever are happy using some losers as a whipping boy to feel powerful, it's very easy for an administration to just let it happen since they benefit from happy teams. Things ARE said about this, but very rarely, and you'll notice few actions are taken. Indeed you see more things like advertising glorifying small town "high school sports culture", than you do criticisms of it.

And athletes are incapable of doing their thing without bullying? I call shenanigans on that particular idea. I was on a high school football team, and the coaches were pretty serious about making sure all the athletes represented the best of the school.

At any rate, I'm getting increasingly off the subject. Basically I think both the video game industry and groups like the NRA would find themselves natural allies for the moment.

Obviously the head of the NRA disagrees with you.

And, as usual, mental health does not matter at all. Phew, for a second I was scared that the American government might actually try to help those with mental health issues. Haha, what am I kidding? The second the government decides mental health is the only real important factor, they'll likely decide to go with the Victorian mental health system of "Insane? Time to lock you away until you are magically better".

You know, because locking people away fixes people. Just look at the criminal justice system.

Blablahb:

aattss:
I don't think banning guns is good, but I think that banning freedom of speech is a horrible idea.

Then you're going to love their next trick. The gun ownership supporters want someone deported from the US for using Freedom of Speech:
http://news.yahoo.com/us-petition-deport-piers-morgan-hits-31-400-112219264.html

Apparently they're quite selective about which parts of the constitution are important to them and which ones aren't.

Well, there is a gray area here that most people don't pay much attention to, especially from the left wing. That subject is treason, which can include certain types of sedition against the US goverment. To really understand this in a govermental sense you need to actually look back to times closer to those of the founding fathers and how they actually interpeted their own constitution and laws "in the street". Remember these are the guys who did a pretty good job of hunting down Whigs (British Crown Loyalists) and exterminating them.

The right to freedom of speech in cases like this is intended to be limited when it comes to the goverment. Basically you have the right to criticize the goverment within it's own context, but not certain fundemental principles or it's right to exist. Basically if your so dead set against it, you belong elsewhere. You can for example say you don't like who was elected president, or a specific policy, but acting to undermine constitutional rights, or questioning the fundemental right of the goverment to exist, is a no-no. Basically if you wind up occupying a niche similar to one of the whigs (albiet from a differant perspective) you are arguably guilty of Sedition to the point of treason and should be facing exile or even execution. Especially after the formation of the country a lot of people were exiled for disagreeing with the US goverment.

We've let things slide so long and on such a gradual slope, that a lot of people in the US have trouble even taking the concept of Treason seriously in the US, even in cases where we've actually caught spies and foreign agents. As a result it can be hard to recognize when someone is kind of calling for laws and established precedent to be enforced, which is the case here. Whether you agree with it or not, it's not as far out in left field as you might think, George Washington would bave sent this guy packing for his sentiments if it was ever brought to his personal attention (which is where this petition went... presidential attention).

Something important to understand about these forums, a lot of people here like to think of themselves as history majors or experts. Very few people here know much about history at all, and rather have learned very modern political re-interpetations of history. In the past I have run into "experts" argueing from the liberal perspective who didn't even know what a "whig" was, and have argued things like how the pilgrims who landed here were seeking to establish communal living away from any kind of leadership... argueing that the country was established by what amounted to communists, never having heard of Carver or Bradford and how the very first thing they did before even leaving the ship was elect a leader.

Hence why when it comes to issues like this you get so many ignorant people going "WTF", not realizing that your dealing with people who are technically correct, especially when you look at the first precedents established by the founding fathers who were NOT a bunch of nice guys by modern standards. What they intended by the constitution is NOTHING like how people decide to interpet it today, as proven by their own actions under it. Arguements like exiling someone for going against the right to bear arms, come down to the letter, and original spirit of the laws and exceptions, as opposed to the way how people today choose to interpet them and/or simply use whatever version of a law or precedent suits their fancy (which is why the law is such a mess, and Lawyers make a killing).

In the end, this is kind of a symbolic gesture for the people that actually know what they are talking about. The primary point here is that 25,000 signatures is supposed to require a response/consideration from The President in person, not one of his duly elected represntitives, a quick stamping, or whatever else. Obama stated (at least according to Yahoo News) that he wasn't going to consider every petition making it to him, which kind of violates his presidential responsibilities and the whole purpose of this being a requirement. By not answering, a point of sorts is being made about Obama. What's more what he should do is pretty obvious if he does have to consider it within the bounds of precedent, again going back to what our very first President did to people who stood against the constitution. Obama is known to be anti-gun, especially at the moment, and would ultimatly be exiling a kindred spirit, as well as declaring his own sentiments to be tantamount to treason if he didn't. In the end it's a lose/lose situation for the President whether he ignores it, or chooses to answer it in either direction. It's kind of clever, but only something relatively few people are able to appreciate, because most people simply don't know enough to really "get it".

On the other hand, I will say that I do think the laws on petitions do need to be updated. Obama should have to answer everything coming over his desk, but the number should be changed to like 250,000 signatures to better represent the population. In the internet era getting 25k people together to sign something is ridiculously easy, and doesn't represent the same kind of weight it used to. In this case while "right" your dealing with a petition created to punk The President by a bunch of legal scholors hammering him with a point so few people understand or appreciate to really be relevent. In the end the likely outcome will be Obama ignores it, or rules to not deport the guy, and nobody really cares, except for a handfull of people who understand exactly what that means and says about The President, as there is only one way he could respond to this within the established precedents and be right, and it's not someting he's likely to do given his own politics.

DataSnake:
Obviously the head of the NRA disagrees with you.

Massive snipping for irrelevence and to keep this fairly on topic:

This is the bottom line and the exact problem. As I said, the NRA is fighting those they should be allied with, as opposed to going after the liberals that are the actual problem facing both video games and gun ownership.

You might not like it, or agree with it, but that's simply the way it is, and the gist of my point.

I understand you don't want to see the left wing as the bad guys, we're not going to agree there, so there is no reason to derail this thread fighting about it.

Yes, because nothing makes me want to go out and start shooting people more than pornography, way to keep a clear message NRA.

Emiscary:

Oh, and games are not even CLOSE to the filthiest form of pornography. I've *seen* the filthiest form of pornography, and trust me, its much worse than point and click interfaces and exploding heads. Spoiler: it involves a morbidly obese man with tiny genitals, 4 jars of peanut butter, an innocent looking arab girl and the creative use of every orifice and appendage imaginable by both parties.

Judging by how paedophile snuff movies can be considered porn, I doubt you've breached the top (or should that be bottom?) 100 with that.

rebelscum:

Emiscary:

And more importantly- Mortal Kombat? Mortal Kombat hasn't been relevant to mainstream gaming since the LATE NINETIES for Christ Sakes. They might as well have picked on violent films and then brought up "The Matrix".

They brought up Natural Born Killers, which came out an incredibly relevant 18 years ago.

It gets funnier as Natural Born Killers is almost painfully relevant in that it's a satire of all this media hoopla around mass murderers.

Also good job OP for continuing the conga line of blaming in your last paragraph. Seriously, I hope that was ironic, because the alternative is a facepalm.

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 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