How Would the NRA Make a Videogame? It Already Did

 Pages PREV 1 2
 

chikusho:

Baresark:

Weapons without lethal bullets have been designed and used for that, but you are kind of missing the point. Those guns that don't use lethal bullets don't shoot or feel at all like the real thing. That is what people become proficient with, and I'm not afraid to say that it's not something anyone can just pick up and do. And Archery to kill being harder than with a gun? Howard Hill is rolling in his grave. That guy could shoot better and easier with a bow than most people can with a gun. I know the analogy you are going for, it's all point and click, but that analogy is complete bullshit. It's cool if you don't like guns, I don't like them either so I don't personally own them. But I have shot lots of guns and practice shooting is nothing at all like "pretend killing". You are just disconnected from reality if that is what you think.

I know nothing of Howard Hill, but I assume what you are saying is that X _master archer_ could easily kill with a bow?
Well, X (and by X, I mean _any_) 6 year old kid could shoot his own dad.

Also, sure, they might not feel like the real thing, but if the point of marksmanship was proficiency in hitting a target, I'd value the importance of "feel" to be less important than "not having weapons littering society".

There you go, making assumptions. The truth is, while almost half of Americans in the Continental US own guns, you do not see them, or hear them the vast majority of the time. In most place you literally need to be reminded they even exist. We do not have "weapons littering society". Statistics can be misleading because they make you think you know something about that which you know nothing. And I'm thinking that you believe (and feel free to correct me) that people who shoot regularly are participating in some sort of power fantasy (after all, they are pretending to kill another person, right). But that nothing could be further from the truth. I'm not saying it doesn't happen, but a society where the vast majority of people are completely responsible with their guns does not breed that kind of person. I have been to hunting stores, I've been too lots of shooting ranges and I have never seen anyone act with any kind of malice or pretend like they were shooting people, or even be anything besides courteous to the people around them. You see, that is the reality of a society where people are armed that you do not see. Everyone is courteous to each other. You go to a sportsman store, everyone is courteous and respectful. You go to a hunting club or shooting range, everyone is courteous to each other. You go where guns are not allowed, a lot less courtesy. But it's cool, you looked at a few statistics and decided we must have guns just laying around in the streets.

My point with bows was meant to show the same mentality exists between them. But you are either someone who has shot neither gun or bow and therefore is not able to make any decisions of value, or you are a psychopath who has shot one or both and pretended you were shooting people. In most of human society, bows were used for hunting for food or as a thing to master. In ancient Japanese culture, mastership of bow was held in just as high a regard as mastership with a sword. Mastering either of those things were synonymous with mastering yourself. But I'm sure you only see them as tools to kill and not a means for anything else. I am a pretty fit guy. I hit a punching bag for 12 round, 5 days a week, so I must be imagining or practicing to pummel someone by your logic. And if you believe that, you are a misguided individual.

WanderingFool:
So... anyone hear the story about how the NRA thinks if there were more guns being carried in places like schools, there wouldnt be anymore shootings?

Seems kind of relevant to the discussion...

You could not have picked worse news source. They have literally picked tiny bits out of the whole situation. They didn't say armed guards, they said an armed police officer in schools, as in one single armed police officer. They do the same thing with the New Jersey state Motor Vehicle Commission, there is literally one single armed police officer always present in case something bad happens. And on top of that, there is a rather large student run drive that resulted form the Virginia Tech massacre where students believe guns should not be strictly prohibited on campus. The same thing happened with the Ft Hood shooting. As ridiculous as it sounds, on base soldiers are not allowed to have guns, only the MP. And that guy started shooting where there were no MP's around. If the soldiers present who were trained to handle firearms were allowed to be armed, it would have turned out very differently. The truth is, if there had been an armed person in either Virginia Tech or Sandy Hook Elementary the day these travesties happened, some lives might have been saved that day, and to deny that is just naive. The automatic answer for a lot of people is to do that harder thing which is take away all the guns. When you take away the gun from law abiding citizens, you are only leaving the criminals armed. The criminal will not surrender his piece, but the law abiding citizen will be compelled to.

Also, I feel it's worth noting that when they blamed video games is also the same time they made this statement. I'm surprised it didn't come up sooner.

Baresark:

WanderingFool:
So... anyone hear the story about how the NRA thinks if there were more guns being carried in places like schools, there wouldnt be anymore shootings?

Seems kind of relevant to the discussion...

You could not have picked worse news source. They have literally picked tiny bits out of the whole situation. They didn't say armed guards, they said an armed police officer in schools, as in one single armed police officer. They do the same thing with the New Jersey state Motor Vehicle Commission, there is literally one single armed police officer always present in case something bad happens. And on top of that, there is a rather large student run drive that resulted form the Virginia Tech massacre where students believe guns should not be strictly prohibited on campus. The same thing happened with the Ft Hood shooting. As ridiculous as it sounds, on base soldiers are not allowed to have guns, only the MP. And that guy started shooting where there were no MP's around. If the soldiers present who were trained to handle firearms were allowed to be armed, it would have turned out very differently. The truth is, if there had been an armed person in either Virginia Tech or Sandy Hook Elementary the day these travesties happened, some lives might have been saved that day, and to deny that is just naive. The automatic answer for a lot of people is to do that harder thing which is take away all the guns. When you take away the gun from law abiding citizens, you are only leaving the criminals armed. The criminal will not surrender his piece, but the law abiding citizen will be compelled to.

Also, I feel it's worth noting that when they blamed video games is also the same time they made this statement. I'm surprised it didn't come up sooner.

More guns do not solve gun violence, if you want proof then go look at WWI. Reasonable politicians sat all together all over the contienent of europe and went to a war they didn't believe would ever happen because they had belief that if they maintained the balance of power europe with sheer weight of force that threat alone would not cause anyone to pull the trigger.
Virgina tech might have ended differently if so and so was armed? Mad men are mad men, they aren't shooting up schools and theaters because the thought of dieing scare them. Mad men also come prepared because they're the ones that decide the exact time and place of their action. You could park an entire armored division outside every gathering place in the country and you'd still find those bat shit crazy asshole simply going some where else while we live in a police state.

The only SURE way to stop someone like that is to take away his means of perpetrating such acts. People don't need to have assault rifles because despite what you might like to believe the kid at sandy hook was using his rifle for the exact purpose of it's creation, more so then his mother did by keeping it locked away in some metal vault to be admired on the weekends at the gun range. Of course I'm not blaming her I'm simply pointing out that scrambling to deny that the assault rifle is designed for something other storming a building and killing as many people as possible is impossible. It's what it was made to do and the NRA are simply trying to avoid the fact they're efforts are partially responsible for that.
I'm not against guns the country was brought up on the myth of the gun, that by having it you are empowered. But giving every person that has the interest in it a assault rifle should scare the hell out of people and Sandy Hook showed us why. Founding fathers couldn't predict today when they wrote the 2nd amendment, they were imagining muzzle loaded single shot black powder rifles at worse or the bayonet, not guns who's damage is calculated in Round per second instead of rounds per minute.

I'm amazed at how well that worked. Now we're all talking about video games and cops in schools. They got the assault weapons ban off the discussion table almost immediately. Classic misdirection!

<- NRA Benefactor Member

Sadly the NRA is doing what others are doing of just blaming one thing and pretending like the fix is easy by having some other group take all the fallout for the fix. The solutions are far more complex as we have to look at a mix of reforms to guns, mental health, and culture. To get a real fix both liberals and conservatives are going to have to give a little on what they believe in.

Honestly they are just as bad the people shouting well smaller clips would solve the problem. As if 5 people getting killed would have been acceptable but 26 was just too many. Even one child killed by a madman with a flintlock pistol would be one child too many.

If these people were to take on the problem of drunk drivers killing people I'm sure one side would be shouting that we need to ban anything that might impair your driving while the other side would be shouting we need to ban all cars.

I like how everyone completely ignored the guy bringing up that the current leadership of the NRA came from a racist kill squad like the freaking Minutemen.

FiveSpeedf150:
I'm amazed at how well that worked. Now we're all talking about video games and cops in schools. They got the assault weapons ban off the discussion table almost immediately. Classic misdirection!

<- NRA Benefactor Member

This is completely unrelated to anything you've said, as I'm actually in support of civilian ownership of firearms (within reason), but your avatar bothers me. That may have to do with me being a communist but, oh well, can't make you change it or anything.

MikeWehner:

Developed by Crave, NRA Gun Club is a first-person shooter - yes, the most regularly-cited category of games that cause people to commit murder.

But not by the NRA. They only blamed Bullet Storm, apparently. Even GTA isn't exactly a shooter (and definitely isn't First Person).

Ashley Blalock:
Sadly the NRA is doing what others are doing of just blaming one thing and pretending like the fix is easy by having some other group take all the fallout for the fix. The solutions are far more complex as we have to look at a mix of reforms to guns, mental health, and culture. To get a real fix both liberals and conservatives are going to have to give a little on what they believe in.

Honestly they are just as bad the people shouting well smaller clips would solve the problem. As if 5 people getting killed would have been acceptable but 26 was just too many. Even one child killed by a madman with a flintlock pistol would be one child too many.

If these people were to take on the problem of drunk drivers killing people I'm sure one side would be shouting that we need to ban anything that might impair your driving while the other side would be shouting we need to ban all cars.

The NRA is a single-issue organization. That is why they support politicians based only on their support of the second amendment. Wayne made a valid point that the media could have looked at (as you said) guns, mental health, and culture, but instead only looked at guns.

And you are 100% right on magazine size. A ten round magazine is a pain in the ass because it leads to more reloading, but if you're going to attack a target with minimal resistance you'll have plenty of time for the coupe of seconds it takes to swap out a mag. Limiting mag size only serves to inconvenience and insult law abiding gun owners like myself, and to throw a bone to suzy soccermom who knows nothing about guns but screams "DO SOMETHING! FOR THE CHILLLLDRENNN!"

10 round mags are just what the anti-gunners push because they think they can get away with it. It would be no magazines - and no guns - if they could.

Comrade Richard:

This is completely unrelated to anything you've said, as I'm actually in support of civilian ownership of firearms (within reason), but your avatar bothers me. That may have to do with me being a communist but, oh well, can't make you change it or anything.

Are there any communist countries that would allow their people to have AR15's? I'd assume that since most communist governments can trace their roots to a revolution of the people somewhere that they'd support the citizens maintaining that ability.

Never seems to happen in any government though, pity. The second amendment exists to help people stay alive with.... "unpopular" political ideas.

This is a most intersting website due to the wide variety of political ideas. We need a token gun-happy capitalist here, and I try to serve my role. Thankfully we can all agree that video games are pretty awesome. =D

Yea making laws on everyone over the possibility that a small minority might act out is lunacy. lets ban books movies tv music while we are at it, hell baseball bats, knives, swords, kung fu, to boot.

Arm the teachers, then these schools would not be easy targets, all "gun free zone" means to a psycho is easy prey, we need common sense and going to a gun fight armed with nothing is suicide, if a gun wielding criminal/psycho invades your "gun free zone" wth do you do exactly? lay down and die? beg for your life? rush the bastard and try and take them down before they kill you?

We have a multitude of legal and illegal guns on the streets here already it would take years to round them all all up if you actively sought them out, then we got 2 huge borders and 2 huge coastlines we have never ever been able to guard, how would we stop guns flowing into this nation at all?

Ignoring the very real fact that our government is spying more on us each and every day, wants more control over the internet, wants more control over what we do in our homes, what we drive, what we watch, what we eat, what we smoke or do not smoke, i would think anyone with half a braincell in their brain would be defending that 2nd amendment with all their ability especially now no matter what tradegy they drum into a for the childrens or for our security or for the planet b.s. like one of clintions right hand men said "never let a good crisis goto waste" which by that he specifically meant any crisis you can use to increase your power and it is stupid to waste it.

And i think you are a utter fool if you are willing to roll over and give up anything for the idea that any amount of more laws less freedom is going to make you or your children more secure.

Ok, whilst this thread is rather young I'm going to throw this video in. I don't care if you like TB just watch it.

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

Birdfalcon:
So thats why the NRA are pissed at video games. "Them city folk geeks didn't buy our X-boxwiistation3360..therefore we shall for this day forth declare games are the root of whackjobs killing people in mass murder"

Yeah, but the root of every whackjob is that HE'S A WHACKJOB! Guns and games don't even enter into it!

Baresark:

The truth is, while almost half of Americans in the Continental US own guns, you do not see them, or hear them the vast majority of the time. In most place you literally need to be reminded they even exist. We do not have "weapons littering society".

I haven't said that guns inherently change people. Just the fact that easy access to immense power will increase the use of said power.

Baresark:

Statistics can be misleading because they make you think you know something about that which you know nothing. And I'm thinking that you believe (and feel free to correct me) that people who shoot regularly are participating in some sort of power fantasy (after all, they are pretending to kill another person, right).

I'm not saying it's a dominating power fantasy, but handling a dangerous high powered tool is naturally inherent to the experience. This is why "hitting a target" is not enough to satisfy gun users.

Baresark:

I'm not saying it doesn't happen, but a society where the vast majority of people are completely responsible with their guns does not breed that kind of person. I have been to hunting stores, I've been too lots of shooting ranges and I have never seen anyone act with any kind of malice or pretend like they were shooting people, or even be anything besides courteous to the people around them. You see, that is the reality of a society where people are armed that you do not see. Everyone is courteous to each other. You go to a sportsman store, everyone is courteous and respectful. You go to a hunting club or shooting range, everyone is courteous to each other. You go where guns are not allowed, a lot less courtesy. But it's cool, you looked at a few statistics and decided we must have guns just laying around in the streets.

I'm not making the argument that responsible people aren't responsible with dangerous things. But the ease of access to guns is a problem, and the lack of regulation increases the risk of injury and death.
And I base that on the very high statistics of gun related deaths. Guns are kept in unsafe easily accessible places, guns are carried around in streets and guns are readily available to most of the population.
As it is with everything, the more something is in use, the more that thing will be misused.

Baresark:

My point with bows was meant to show the same mentality exists between them. But you are either someone who has shot neither gun or bow and therefore is not able to make any decisions of value, or you are a psychopath who has shot one or both and pretended you were shooting people. In most of human society, bows were used for hunting for food or as a thing to master. In ancient Japanese culture, mastership of bow was held in just as high a regard as mastership with a sword. Mastering either of those things were synonymous with mastering yourself. But I'm sure you only see them as tools to kill and not a means for anything else. I am a pretty fit guy. I hit a punching bag for 12 round, 5 days a week, so I must be imagining or practicing to pummel someone by your logic. And if you believe that, you are a misguided individual.

In western civilisation, noone needs to hunt to survive. So, guns fill no societal function in this case.
And yes, a sword is also a tool designed for the sole purpose of injuring or killing people.
Also, hitting a punching bag is more exercise than violence, but martial arts whether kickboxing or judo is training to hurt other people. I'm not questioning the purpose of either practice, but if you don't understand and respect this fact you are probably the wrong person to participate in them.

Baresark:

Thanks for the material, it was a good read. The second one anyway, I would never consider the New York Times a good source of news, personally. They have an agenda that is fairly easy to see from a glance. But the psychology report was really good. I'm not afraid to say that I do stand corrected on that. And it would quite frankly be ridiculous for me to argue that the availability of a weapon to kill yourself with "on the fly" so to speak. In regards to other part of what I said. There is definitely a number of people who will murder on a strong enough impulse and a gun will make it easier. But I was speaking of the vast vast majority of people.

Yeah, the whole coal gas oven thing is really eye opening with regards to human nature and psychology. I included the NY times article mostly because it's kind of a summary of study.
And yes, I agree that the vast majority of people are good natured and well meaning as a rule. But fear and hate does change people, and access to weapons with such lethality isn't very benificial to society.

Baresark:

I have been around guns my whole life, my family owns guns, my friends own guns, I have shot lots of guns, but I don't own any. I don't like them, they don't make me feel good. The idea that a life could be taken so easily with it makes me uncomfortable. That said, out of everyone I ever met who owns a gun, I know none of them would brazenly take someones life in the heat of any moment. The shoot them recreation and sport. It is completely illogical to not let these people have the thing they enjoy having if they have not ever used it in such a way. They have not threatened anyone, they have not considered shooting anyway, if they get into fights the thought of their firearm never enters their mind. This is the vast majority of people who own guns. It simply does not make sense to remove the right for these people to own and operate their weapons.

You are completely correct in that most people are good. I'm not advocating that guns in closely knitted societies should be abolished. But the ease of access and lack of regulations to high powered weapons in the US seems like a large problem to me.
Just to explain my perspective, I'm a swede. I've seen guns about three times in my life, and two of them were in a hunting store. In Sweden there are strict regulations around gun ownership that includes being a member of a hunting organization, getting a license to own weapons and how and where to keep those weapons. Specifically, you need to store any gun you own in a safe or room with a specific thickness and material of both door and lock. This makes sense to me, at least.

Baresark:

The majority of people would not consider taking a life as a valid means to an end, is what I was talking about when I was talking about human nature. Not even in the heat of the moment. The ease in which you can take someones life with a gun is not the same as being easy with the idea of taking another human life. The media does a fantastic job at blowing these things out of proportion, where there is no news, they will make news. The constant news of things like what happened in Newtown Connecticut creates what is called an availability cascade. That essentially means that the more you are shown these horrible acts, the easier it is for you to recall them on the fly, and the worse a given situation seems. Gun violence and death happens, no one can deny that. But is it as out of control as it seems? In most places, it is not. That is what the availability of this kind of information does.

Again, I fully agree that a majority of people wouldn't even consider taking a life in the worst of circumstances (faith in humanity intact :) the people that do shouldn't have legal or easy illegal access to weapons (say, by stealing one from a friend, or from a house).

Baresark:

The homicide rate of guns in the US per 100k in 2011 was 3.7, the traffic related death rate was 12.3, one looks way worse than the other to me. But you are never shown those numbers side by side because it makes one look significantly better than the other. I would prefer them both to be zero, personally. It is far easier to kill a crowd of people in NYC with a car than it is a with a gun, but we are not arguing the same thing for automobiles.

Cars fill an important societal function. Guns do not.

Baresark:

The thing that I find annoying about the whole gun arguments and how people throw statistics around, is they just leave out other statistics that are relevant. Everyone talks about death rates by guns, murder rates, etc. It is hardly the biggest killers in first world societies with guns. Vehicle deaths are three times that number. No one is trying to outlaw cars. I guess it's just the hot button nature of the topic that annoys me. Anyway, it's been fun man. Thanks again for the reading. :)

Again, you are correct in that most people throw statistics around without understanding them. I can confess that, even though I don't know or rely on any statistics, I don't need to factor them in to my very principal argument.
Statistically (and this is without actual numbers) the more people that have access to lethal weapons, or anything really, the more people will find a way to use them maliciously. With this in mind, there's no need to have guns running freely in the system, given that they are meant and designed only for injuring and killing others, even if there is a safe and responsible way to enjoy and use them outside of that.
Finally, vehicles provide a much needed societal service. Guns do not.

And, yeah, you seem like a well adjusted and reasonable person, and it's always nice to engage in an honest discussion like this about any topic. :)

Why is your article so heavily biased against the NRA? I am not a member nor am I a gun owner but the NRA never said "It's impossible to shoot anyone, and the scariest target you'll set your crosshairs on is a metal target shaped like a skull and crossbones."

Why do you feel the need to misrepresent the NRA to make your points? Very poor article, primarily in terms of ethics.

Shame this'll probably be the last game ever developed for the great and mighty PS2.

MikeWehner:
How Would the NRA Make a Videogame?

Ooh! I know this one!

Answer:

Very poorly.

I wonder, is my grammar correct? Eh, good enough for the interwebs.

Don't feed the troll.

You know what Checkov's Gun is? The theatre writer Checkov showed a gun in all his plays, holstered or mounted, and sooner or later the gun would fire. Ultimately, inescapably, it did (well, in one of his works it didn't but that the exception to the rule!).

That principle doesn't apply to theatre guns alone. All items are built for a purpose (+1 to something happening) and are bought for such an eventuality (another +1).

The Checkov's Gun principle works with all guns: any gun will sooner or later be fired against someone.

As I've said before, the NRA seems to be kicking the "go to" boogieman everyone else is by default, despite there being a natural alliance here.

It's hard for me to put a finger on at the moment, but I'm pretty sure people from the NRA have consulted on various shooter video games and such in the past, helping with animations on how guns are handled, what they look like, and differances in how they fire. Seems to me i've heard them referanced for authenticity purposes in message board hype for games a few times, right along with "real SWAT team members" and "real members of the US Special Forces".

That said I think part of it is that the NRA has allowed itself to get complacent and hasn't been focusing on offense for a while. As odd as this will sound, I think it's actually been going down hill as an organization since Charlton Heston stopped heading it (laugh if you want). You'll notice in training videos and such they release they refer to aiming properly as making "combat accurate shots" and things like that to avoid the issue of actually using words like "lethal" for political reasons. One home defense video that they were circulating (while at the same time including disclaimers that they had nothing to do with it) along with some basic information on tactics (common sense stuff) suggests that you call out to an intruder and let them know your there and armed. Lulzworthy, since if I think someone is in my house the last thing I want them to know is that I'm up, armed, and where I am exactly. It's for legal reasons of course since you know, ambushing people during a home invasion can be touchy legally and politically (yet is exactly what I'd do to increase my chances of me and my loved ones surviving). The old "I'd rather be tried by twelve than carried by six" thing.

Dear NRA,

Please DO NOT MAKE OUR GAMES....

WE ARE NOT LOOKING FOR GUN SHOW, WE ARE LOOKING FOR ARTS, DRAMA, and STORY.

BTW: your game is EPIC fail, please don't EVER do that again...

Not your fan:
Puni...

 Pages PREV 1 2

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