Town Holds Violent Videogame Buyback Program

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4
 

bug_of_war:

Xiado:
So... they can't blame this killing on games, so they're going to blame violence in general on games ... feel self righteous.

I don't think they're trying to feel self righteous, you're right about them wanting to relieve some pain but that's natural and no one should have the right to stop them from trying to do so. It looks more so like a shaken community desperately clinging onto an idea that has formed linked towards the latest 'new' thing that can influence a persons actions, personality, outlook etc (not all the time though, but there is always the chance as with everything). While it's wrong for them to only target video games after stating other media can have an effect on people it is clear that they mean well, they just aren't quite clued into the idea that several other factors cause desensitisation towards violence, empathy etc etc.

It's more a case of heart in the right place, but lack of fully informed decision making.

Self righteous was probably a poor choice of words on my part. What I mean is that people like to single out an enemy when they're feeling loss and grief to feel like they're on the right side of an issue that's actually a lot more complicated and unclear, to give themselves a sense of purpose and doing something "right".

I heard they we're paying $25 a game. If so here's a plan you should exploit.

1. Go to local used game shop
2. Buy every cheap $5-10 violent game you can
3. Turn in for $25 each
4. Repeat till you got ALL THE MONEY!!!!!

General Twinkletoes:

nexus:

LordNerevar:
*sigh* dumb-asses make wanna cry :(

Nice string of faceless new users there.

"Dumb-asses make wanna cry" ? Mkay. Go back to your hole.

All those avatar-less people except 1 have been around longer than you. One of them has been around since 2007, and lots of users without avatars are well known.

You seem especially angry at them for no good reason.

I was referring to the dumb-asses holding the buyback, and others who try blame video games for violence..... not as it would seem you thought i meant the people posting on this forum. A little misunderstanding, no hard feelings :)

Fimbulvetr3822:

yundex:
I'm surprised you didn't go full on insanity and suggest putting CCTV cameras in peoples houses like they do in Britain.

eh? There is no CCTV in my home nor in the homes of anyone i know. The UK may be tighter on these things that some other places but its not quite some sort of Orwellian nightmare world :P

http://www.globalresearch.ca/britain-cctv-surveillance-into-thousands-of-british-homes/14588

I also worded my previous post incorrectly, it should have been "like they want to do in britain".

yundex:

Vilealbaniandwarf:

Vilealbaniandwarf:
This story should make you weep.

Once more the story has been skillfully shifted away from 'nutter has guns and kills bunch of kids' to 'man driven crazy by home entertainment, goes on killing spree'

So why should this make you sad?

Well its a great way for those in authority to stick the boot into the game and movie imdustry, which has some clout and avoid pissing off the NRA which has LOTS of clout and significant campaign contributions to the people who make these sorts of decisions.

So cue several months/years of politicians and media pundits scoring cheap points of games/books/films while avoiding the real issues, until this happens again. Exactly how many kids need to die before anyone enacts real change?

I should state now, I'm not against banning guns entirely, they have their uses in hunting, farming and sports, and i'm certain theres a large proportion of intelligent gun owners that keep their weapons secured properly and use them responsibly.

All I would argue for is mandatory gun liscences that involve taking regular mental health check ups and police inspections to make sure the guns are being kept stored and used properly.

Any criminal convictions or doubts over mental health then that person should lose all their guns (the number of guns should also be limited) Gun clubs should also be made a part of this as well, keeping regular records of their members and raising alerts if someone or something strikes them as odd.

Also ammo should be taxed heavily, and the amount someone can buy be limited.

What the? Any criminal convictions and people should lose their guns? Strangers should come into your house regularly to make sure you're being a good boy? Increased ammo tax which only serves to hurt recreational shooters? PRIVATE clubs forced to track their members and report anything "odd"?

This is too orwellian for me to take without hard justification. I'm surprised you didn't go full on insanity and suggest putting CCTV cameras in peoples houses like they do in Britain.

Well we DONT have cctv in our homes, just in city centres like in most civilised countrys (including america)

And dont abuse the term orewllian, have you even bothered reading 1984? Or just too busy masturbating over guns'n ammo? A gun is a lethal weapon, far more lethal than a knife and the potential to maxmise a body count if someone loses it is all to clear from history. A firearms liscence is a simple way of letting responsible people own guns and giving authorities the ability to take them away from people who shouldent, of course if any law was enacted, people with driving offences or jaywalking wouldent lose their liscence, just people with history's of violent crime. This is not 'orwellian'.

oh and guess what? I doubt very much wether the king of england is ever going to invade and try and reclaim the colony's so the whole reason for americas liberal gun laws is idiotic, seriously its a big joke outside america.

yundex:

Fimbulvetr3822:

yundex:
I'm surprised you didn't go full on insanity and suggest putting CCTV cameras in peoples houses like they do in Britain.

eh? There is no CCTV in my home nor in the homes of anyone i know. The UK may be tighter on these things that some other places but its not quite some sort of Orwellian nightmare world :P

http://www.globalresearch.ca/britain-cctv-surveillance-into-thousands-of-british-homes/14588

I also worded my previous post incorrectly, it should have been "like they want to do in britain".

ahem.

Ed balls hasnt been children's secretary for years and the policy you cite was put forward by the last government not long before they got kicked out of office.

yundex:

http://www.globalresearch.ca/britain-cctv-surveillance-into-thousands-of-british-homes/14588

I also worded my previous post incorrectly, it should have been "like they want to do in britain".

I'd say the context is pretty important here. This is just a step up from the ankle monitors on people who are on probation, not just random snooping like the article title implies.

Also, see the date of the article, yeah we have a different government now, this guy isn't in it.

The whole exercise seems kind of pointless.

local gamers should do the decent thing and explain to these people that they are just wasting their time and money.

A violent computer game isnt a gun, it has a limited sphere of influence before the gamer loses interest, or buys a newer version or sequel of it. By that point the damage (as i would assume these people would view it) is already done. The game has already had its influence on the consumer and is being discarded because they are already bored of it.

Simply Pointing out the second hand selection in the local gamestop would be enough

jibjab963:
I heard they we're paying $25 a game. If so here's a plan you should exploit.

1. Go to local used game shop
2. Buy every cheap $5-10 violent game you can
3. Turn in for $25 each
4. Repeat till you got ALL THE MONEY!!!!!

I like the way you think, we need more people like you. Someone should totally do this if they're in the area.

Wont make any difference, they did this with a gun amnesty and a similiar one for knives in the UK. People just hand in their there crappy old guns for cash and can buy a brand new one. lol. Same with this, depending on prices it might be better to sell your old games here than on amazon. :-)

The thing that annoys me is that the miss the point. An that point is that games are rated for age same as movies. You cant blame that a violent game made your 10 year old violent when your the parent and allowed him to play it. Its like blaming alcohal when your 10 year old comes home drunk......he shouldnt be drinking it in the first place.

All gamers sympathise with the parents of the victims. But surely someone must see the link that the murderer was surrounded by guns his whole life......now do you think its conceivable that being surrounded by weapons that kill 24/7 could have effected him as well?

Katatori-kun:
Wow, some of you should see a orthopedic surgeon the way your knees are jerking over this.

Aside from the dubious claims about violence in the news story, this event doesn't hurt anyone. If they want to waste their money so they can feel like they've done something, then what skin is it off of your nose? I mean, since you're all so happy to let scientists study the effects of gaming violence on people, we've got easy evidence to show their claims are wrong- oh wait....

Because if shit like this is allowed to pass then what? While I dislike the "slippery slope" argument it kind of fits with moralistic idiots. Before long these people will gain support and start to cause real problems for us if permitted to continue unabated

Katatori-kun:
[

Would you please, please take a reality check here? Neither your freedom of speech nor the freedom of speech of any violent video game maker has been jeopardized one iota. In fact, by bringing up violence as a response, you're at risk of silencing the freedom of speech of the participants of this event.

You know what this reminds me of? There's a certain strain of Christian fundamentalists who are so myopic in their view of the world that they invent fantasies of being oppressed by the rest of society, and believe in these fantasies so fervently that just as you've mentioned violence as a response, they would pre-emptively curtail the rights of non-Christians out of some delusional fear that their own rights are just moments away from being denied.

Relax. Breathe. Put the railgun down. They aren't coming for you in the night just because you play video games.

I disagree. Just because a movement is passive and non-violent to begin with does not mean it represents a danger. In this case when the bottom line is to say video games (a form of speech) are wrong, it doesn't matter so much on the specifics they happen to be using. When you let things like this go, they snowball and tend to become an increasingly larger problem. It's happened before with things like comics, music, and PnP RPGs. One day it's some concerned mothers at a sewing circle, then it's a public demonstration, then you've got TV appearances, Jack Chic pamphlets, and kids getting expelled for having a "Dragonlance" novel in his knapsack.

Also note, I didn't say violence was needed, just something that should nessicarly be off the table if things go further. I'm not exactly donning kevlar and heading out for a shooting rampage.

You joke, but understand also that there have been cases where people have come for those interested in undesirable media in the night. "Deprogramming" can be a big business, and reform/military schools can make a small fortune off of "curing" kids of their addictions to undesirable music and similar things. It's not as common as it once was, but the bottom line is that if you let this kind of thing go, you eventually wind up going to all kinds of dark places.

The thing is that being passive and non-aggressive isn't always the right desician, that just encourages movements that what they are doing is working, and it encourages them to go further if they manage to garner more attention. Sometimes, at a certain point, the best solution is to give them the bad guy they so desperatly wanted, scare the hell out of them, and then take the approach that if you leave us alone, we'll leave you alone. That won't work once a movement gets big enough, but you can stop some at a smaller level.

At the end of the day it's still a "wait and see" kind of thing right now.

Implying I'm detached from reality of delusional is a luxury you have, being someone who I assume has never been harassed over a D&D book, or a casette tape.

Truthfully the most delusional part is even implying that you might be able to get something going though. To be frank the whole reason why gamers are a target is because we aren't organized and don't rally well. One person acting couldn't get this done if it came to that, you'd need several. Knowing the limitations means I am kind of talking crap for parts of this (which I admit) but that doesn't mean the principle is at all deranged or invalid.

thisbymaster:
Hmm. I wonder what their prices are. Time to turn in those old N64 games.

Aye, pretty much my first thought. Can't find the exchange rate or the value of those sponsored gift certificates, though.

I have issues with people wanting to protect their children from violent video games. If they really cared, how comes their 12-year old minors are playing games that are rated M for, you know, MATURE?

jibjab963:
I heard they we're paying $25 a game. If so here's a plan you should exploit.

1. Go to local used game shop
2. Buy every cheap $5-10 violent game you can
3. Turn in for $25 each
4. Repeat till you got ALL THE MONEY!!!!!

One minor fault in your logic. They're not handing out hard cash. They're handing out gift certificates. You know, like those food stamps or other great socialist ideas.

I wouldn't mind if I could amass hundreds of dollars in $25 'certificates' that I could use all over town, be it for food or whatever daily needs I might have.

Browsing through the Southington Chamber of Commerce register @ http://www.southingtoncoc.com/templates/business_directory.cfm?letter=A I find a whole lot of places that I might want to throw my violent game censorship appreciation tokens at, but, as of now, I have absolutely no idea who amongst them actually takes part in this stunt. If I only get ice cream or religious supplies, it's not that cool a deal, methinks.

Beyond that, it smells of burning books, really. And a Good Guy™ strategy to stimulate the local market.

Fragmented_Faith:
Because if shit like this is allowed to pass then what? While I dislike the "slippery slope" argument it kind of fits with moralistic idiots. Before long these people will gain support and start to cause real problems for us if permitted to continue unabated

You should dislike slippery slope arguments, because unless you have evidence that this event is likely to lead to each step you propose will happen after, the slippery slope is a fallacy.

Therumancer:
I disagree. Just because a movement is passive and non-violent to begin with does not mean it represents a danger.

See above.

When you let things like this go, they snowball and tend to become an increasingly larger problem. It's happened before with things like comics, music, and PnP RPGs.

No, it actually hasn't happened before. There has never been a ban on comic books, music, or PnP RPGs. Get your facts straight.

Also note, I didn't say violence was needed, just something that should nessicarly be off the table if things go further. I'm not exactly donning kevlar and heading out for a shooting rampage.

Yes, but you are passive-aggressively calling on people to prepare for violence. That's pretty poor.

You joke, but understand also that there have been cases where people have come for those interested in undesirable media in the night.

Yeah, I'm not going to believe this is a statistically significant concern without some pretty robust evidence.

Implying I'm detached from reality of delusional is a luxury you have, being someone who I assume has never been harassed over a D&D book, or a casette tape.

Then you are once again wrong. But harassment is not the same thing as a ban, and the fact that some random person might have harassed me does not mean that this group will have been responsible for violent video game players being harassed.

Please, cut with the hysteria. You're trying to argue that because of these people's silly little event people are going to come for gamers in the night. Patently ridiculous.

Falterfire:

Harker067:
So what are they going to do with all the accumulated buy backs. Book err Game burning anyone?

Obviously they're going to hold the most hypocritical school fundraiser in the history of EVER. Duh.

Then they'll use the profits to buy back even more games, and soon enough they'll basically be Gamestop :P

Vilealbaniandwarf:

yundex:

Vilealbaniandwarf:

Also ammo should be taxed heavily, and the amount someone can buy be limited.

What the? Any criminal convictions and people should lose their guns? Strangers should come into your house regularly to make sure you're being a good boy? Increased ammo tax which only serves to hurt recreational shooters? PRIVATE clubs forced to track their members and report anything "odd"?

This is too orwellian for me to take without hard justification. I'm surprised you didn't go full on insanity and suggest putting CCTV cameras in peoples houses like they do in Britain.

Well we DONT have cctv in our homes, just in city centres like in most civilised countrys (including america)

And dont abuse the term orewllian, have you even bothered reading 1984? Or just too busy masturbating over guns'n ammo? A gun is a lethal weapon, far more lethal than a knife and the potential to maxmise a body count if someone loses it is all to clear from history. A firearms liscence is a simple way of letting responsible people own guns and giving authorities the ability to take them away from people who shouldent, of course if any law was enacted, people with driving offences or jaywalking wouldent lose their liscence, just people with history's of violent crime. This is not 'orwellian'.

oh and guess what? I doubt very much wether the king of england is ever going to invade and try and reclaim the colony's so the whole reason for americas liberal gun laws is idiotic, seriously its a big joke outside america.

Probably too late to bother responding, but I totally forgot about this thread. But all you did was defend currently existing US law and fail at insulting me. Other than you going from "any criminal conviction" to "people with a history of violent crime", you didn't actually answer my other questions. Expanding on the one question you did answer: what do you consider a "history of violent crime"?

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4

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