New Jersey Governor: I Don't Allow Call of Duty in My Home

 Pages PREV 1 2
 

All I got from this is that he's a smart politician and a seemingly responsible parent. Fair enough.

I may not agree with most of his political and social ideologies, but I can certainly respect his personality and hatred of Jersey Shore.

jurnag12:

ASnogarD:
Translation : Another politician jumping on the bandwagon to garner more positive press instead of tackling the issue at hand.

Politicians wouldnt attack the reporting media streams, they want publicity (positive at least) and they dont want to be ignored so standing up and saying, hey stop glamorizing the killers and focus on the real issue.

CoD didnt kill anyone, some nutter with a gun went on a shooting spree... the gun itself didnt do the killing either, it was the nutter.
How did the nutter get hold of the weapons ? Ask that question instead.

... I have been playing games since pong and I can tell you I dont own a single weapon, I rated terribly on the shooting range during my military service (1yr in South Africa - compulsory service) and despite my size and looks... I dislike fighting.
If violent media and games in particular caused violent tendencies I should be by definition a gun loving psycho that cant go a night without a fight.

...but he actually said that games were only one of many things that could have contributed, and that parents should do something about their own kids playing them, not some kind of ban.

I'd actually say that compared to most politicians, on gaming this guy seems pretty decent from this article alone, and he sounds, at the very least, way better than all the other "OMG GAMING MAKES YOU KILL PEOPLE" chuckleheads who run for office.

He still considers them a part of the problem, and that parents should start talking about violence in videogames... not that parents should start checking the age rating of the game, and the warnings about the games content, about violence in videogaming as a whole.

He strikes me as someone not willing to go all in on any of the hot subjects, but sort of dip in a little of each so as not to be caught in the wrong group if it blows up.

I remember reading about a study that revealed that players had more aggression when playing a game of football (not the US football), and that even watching a game of football brought out heighten sense of aggression in most of the test subjects ... even more than the players in a game of CoD.
(Personally I think CoD just brings up more frustration in the gameplay than desires to the do violent acts)

Captcha phrase : jerk store (o,O)

The Governor: "Yo parents, you guys are shit at parenting. Reconsider your ways."

I like this guy. If only a good number of us Americans understood...

I agree, call of duty has no place in the hands of children, yes it's a videogame, but like an R rated movie it's not suitable for younger audiences, props to gov. christie for acting like an informed parent and buying (hopefully they still let their kids play games) age appropriate entertainment.

*slow clap* Now there's a novel idea, not allowing media you find distasteful into your home, and by extension, not allowing your kids to view it. Brilliant! Now why didn't I think of that. ...oh wait, I did! You see, we don't need broad sweeping legislation regarding violent games, we just need responsible parents.

"We've got to start talking about that, as parents"

BINGO! We have a winner. Except, stop whining to the government that something should be done to "protect the children". They're your fucking children. Raise them like they are. You don't want COD in your home? Fine, fucking fine, if I were you, I certainly wouldn't continue that policy if your kids are still in said home when they're old enough to play it, but sure.

Hell, you wanna ignore age ratings? Go on ahead. Not that I disagree with age ratings, but they're decided by people who are frankly out of touch with what passes for offensive these days. I've seen some games that should've been lower given an 18. I've even seen some where it's blatant they judged only by a low amount of blood, missing out games that contained some pretty mature content beneath the first impressions. Just for gods sake, talk to your fucking kids, establish morals, establish that line between reality and fiction.

I ain't a great parent, hell, I ain't even a parent yet, probably never will be because I had the responsibility to take a good look in the mirror and say "I'm not fit to raise a kid, not now, possibly not ever", but even I know this basic thing that if you want your kids to have free reign to whatever content they wish to see (which is understandable, I wouldn't want the goddamn government deciding what viewpoints would be considered "damaging" to kids), you best make sure they understand important things like this.

Cyrus Hanley:

DVS BSTrD:
But I bet he still let's his kids watch the Jersey Shore.

Actually, he hates that show.

As do most NJ residents. "Go back to NY" has a pretty common sentiment along the NJ shore for a long time.

A parent being a parent. Can this guy please run for president in 2016. He's got my vote for just having sense.

I have to say, I am a very liberal democrat, and from what I've seen of him, if Christie ran for president, I might be persuaded to vote republican for the first time in my life. Depending on who he's up against anyway. But Christie is far and away one of the most grounded, no bullshit politicians out there, and I have to give him major kudos for that.

DVS BSTrD:
I'd still rather have a corrupt governor than corrupt AND a paranoid imbecile.

I guess. And if they manage to field him for 2016, I won't feel too terrible about things either way, I guess. Still, I don't see him making it through a repub primary fight. Romney, ROMNEY, was bashed for being too liberal. Christie is a right-leaning Dem by comparison.

Well, now me and a politician have something in common. Egads.

JarinArenos:

DVS BSTrD:
I'd still rather have a corrupt governor than corrupt AND a paranoid imbecile.

I guess. And if they manage to field him for 2016, I won't feel too terrible about things either way, I guess. Still, I don't see him making it through a repub primary fight. Romney, ROMNEY, was bashed for being too liberal. Christie is a right-leaning Dem by comparison.

I hope he doesn't run, we've seen how low men have had to stoop to get the nomination in GOP. I dread the what kind of rightwing nutbag he'd have to dig-up to even out the ticket.

ASnogarD:
Translation : Another politician jumping on the bandwagon to garner more positive press instead of tackling the issue at hand.

Politicians wouldnt attack the reporting media streams, they want publicity (positive at least) and they dont want to be ignored so standing up and saying, hey stop glamorizing the killers and focus on the real issue.

CoD didnt kill anyone, some nutter with a gun went on a shooting spree... the gun itself didnt do the killing either, it was the nutter.
How did the nutter get hold of the weapons ? Ask that question instead.

... I have been playing games since pong and I can tell you I dont own a single weapon, I rated terribly on the shooting range during my military service (1yr in South Africa - compulsory service) and despite my size and looks... I dislike fighting.
If violent media and games in particular caused violent tendencies I should be by definition a gun loving psycho that cant go a night without a fight.

Maybe you should read the article again. He states that he doesn't let violent video games into his home so his young children can't play them, you know like a good parent. He never states they should be banned he saying parents should talk to their kids about violent video games and make sure they know what they are playing, we need more politicians like this guy.

ASnogarD:
Translation : Another politician jumping on the bandwagon to garner more positive press instead of tackling the issue at hand.

Politicians wouldnt attack the reporting media streams, they want publicity (positive at least) and they dont want to be ignored so standing up and saying, hey stop glamorizing the killers and focus on the real issue.

CoD didnt kill anyone, some nutter with a gun went on a shooting spree... the gun itself didnt do the killing either, it was the nutter.
How did the nutter get hold of the weapons ? Ask that question instead.

... I have been playing games since pong and I can tell you I dont own a single weapon, I rated terribly on the shooting range during my military service (1yr in South Africa - compulsory service) and despite my size and looks... I dislike fighting.
If violent media and games in particular caused violent tendencies I should be by definition a gun loving psycho that cant go a night without a fight.

did you read the whole thing? or just the title?

cause he goes on to say its only one factor, and he brought it up last, behind gun control, mental illness, and substance abuse.

he also goes so far as to say the parent is the one responsible for keeping these games out of the hands of kids who shouldn't be playing them.

Why do I always Imagine this guys talking in John DiMaggio's voice?
This guy is a republican?
I'm Genuinely shocked.

UltraXan:
Yeah, there is no "one" issue that is to blame for all the shootings. But here's the thing: Prevention is hard, and pretty much impossible. If someone wants to get a gun bad enough and wants to shoot up some area bad enough, he WILL do it. And no one will know about it until he pulls the damn trigger, and by that point, someone's already dead. Response definitely needs the attention. But if I had to blame SOMETHING, you know what I would blame? I wouldn't blame gun control, I wouldn't blame the media, I wouldn't blame video games... I'd blame the guy with the gun who decided to shoot whatever up, but hey, that's just me.

If it's harder to get guns, it takes more preparation, planning, connections, finesse and ultimately time which means more opportunities and safeguards where a person can be found out and stopped before stocking up enough dangerous weapons to do serious damage.

Scars Unseen:
Scars Unseen to New Jersey Governor: "Great. Now have the courtesy to allow parents to make that decision for their own children rather than try to cram your ideals(read political agenda) down their throats."

I like it!

Unfortunately, I find myself disappointed in Christie. I never liked him, but I gained some respect when he was all "this isn't the time for politics" over Sandy.

UltraXan:
If someone wants to get a gun bad enough and wants to shoot up some area bad enough, he WILL do it.

Be realistic. If you limit access, then they won't have access.

And no one will know about it until he pulls the damn trigger, and by that point, someone's already dead.

I hope the police don't think this way. There are often ways to tell and checks in place. If the police started to use this excuse, I imagine crime would rise.

The thing is, people do often have warning signs and leave trails. We do often catch violent people before they act. Complete prevention is admittedly impossible, but that doesn't stop us from wearing safety equipment or taking other precautions in daily life.

At this point, the only real truth to your first statement exists as such: If someone wants to get a gun bad enough and wants to shoot up some area bad enough, he WILL do it because the laws make it so easy to get access to a damn gun.

Pretty sure the US had a school-shooting problem prior to Call of Duty's existence. Shockingly, people also used to go to war before video games were a twinkle in anyone's eye.

Zachary Amaranth:

UltraXan:
If someone wants to get a gun bad enough and wants to shoot up some area bad enough, he WILL do it.

Be realistic. If you limit access, then they won't have access.

And no one will know about it until he pulls the damn trigger, and by that point, someone's already dead.

I hope the police don't think this way. There are often ways to tell and checks in place. If the police started to use this excuse, I imagine crime would rise.

The thing is, people do often have warning signs and leave trails. We do often catch violent people before they act. Complete prevention is admittedly impossible, but that doesn't stop us from wearing safety equipment or taking other precautions in daily life.

At this point, the only real truth to your first statement exists as such: If someone wants to get a gun bad enough and wants to shoot up some area bad enough, he WILL do it because the laws make it so easy to get access to a damn gun.

Or, you know, he could just buy an illegal gun off the street if the laws and journalistic penalties around getting it legally are too much for any sane person to bother with. Seems like the laws make it easy to get a gun either way.

Does all these liberal gun control arguments apply to drugs too? And could I get this can-do long war attitude toward something actuallly useful, like immigration enforcement? ("If a business wants to hire an illegal immigrant bad enough, it WILL hire him...")

America: where game control comes before gun control.

Enough with this bullshit. It doesn't make anyone violent or prone to mass shootings, stop trying to create a stigma about gaming. How many of these fucking idiots even plays the games they proclaim are the devil? I don;t care if he claims it isn't the only reason, dragging bullshit claims into crap like this is a mockery of the issue.

This just in, parent and politician being a parent. In other news, birds do indeed tweet and ice is cold. The only reason this is a story is because it features the words "video games" and "politician" in the same sentence and can be spun as the kind of censorship issue that get readers uppity.

This guy...

he..makes sense .__.

Zachary Amaranth:

I hope the police don't think this way. There are often ways to tell and checks in place. If the police started to use this excuse, I imagine crime would rise.

The thing is, people do often have warning signs and leave trails. We do often catch violent people before they act. Complete prevention is admittedly impossible, but that doesn't stop us from wearing safety equipment or taking other precautions in daily life.

At this point, the only real truth to your first statement exists as such: If someone wants to get a gun bad enough and wants to shoot up some area bad enough, he WILL do it because the laws make it so easy to get access to a damn gun.

Ok, I got two responses related to "tighter gun control," so I'm just gonna say this to this response. Black Market. There will always be an underground market, and where there are buyers, there are sellers. And short of completely restricting guns, even in the regular market it still doesn't help. I don't own a gun, but my care-bear of a mother owns several (I was rather surprised, too). There's even ammo lying around somewhere (though I might be wrong on that). I live in Canada, so gun laws here are much tighter than in the US. But even then, there's still a gun, and there's still ammo.

Now as sweet as my mother is, as it stands, there is nothing that would prevent her from taking those things to some school and shooting up students. Oh, there's a law that says you can't stop in front of a school with a gun, whether you have ammo or not? PFFFFFTT, fuck that! Pew pew mother fucking pew.

Laws are a barrier, but they're a theoretical barrier that only normal citizens don't try to bypass. But in reality, *nothing* is stopping someone from doing it. There will ALWAYS be a way for someone to get access to a gun and ammo, no matter how much you restrict it. And if you restrict it too much, then you get those "IT'S UNCONSTITUTIONAL!" types yelling about. So even then, there's a limit. I don't doubt that restricting weapons will deter some of the lazier shooters who don't want to go through the hassle. But like I said, if someone wants to do it *bad enough*, then they *will* do it. At that point, response is important.

Be realistic. If you limit access, then they won't have access.

Be realistic. If you limit access, you just limit access. You don't make it impossible, just harder.

Well, he's putting the responsibility on parents instead of just calling the developers neo-nazis, so I would consider this an improvement socially.

Oh look, an old man who's clueless about current hobbies and pasttimes.

Seriously, I have to ask, why does generational misunderstandings strike anyone as surprising anymore?

Still, as has been pointed out, he's at least stressing the parental control factor and not the "we need to ban video games" point, so good on him.

Good job! Mr. Governor Chris Christie! you've discovered our ESRB Rating systems! Hurray for you~ [slow clap] trophy (good parent) won~! REALLY~ give it a freaking rest! go visit the victims' homes, pay ($$$) some respect, and say "sorry" for once, take some responsibilities instead of point fingers...

getoffmycloud and Lunar Templar...

Did either of you read the article properly ?

He wont let the game in at all, despite having at least 2 kids of that age that would be the correct age to play the game he disallows it completely (it is his choice but it doesnt infer he is being responsible, means he is knee jerk reacting - violent game is violent... bad, evil).
Additionally it doesnt even confirm whether he allows ANY game in his house, the way he mentions only CoD (Fox news mentions that game a lot) despite the fact it isnt the most violent game out there would imply his knowledge of gaming to be limited to Fox newsreels.

To list gaming as part of the problem is to associate gaming on the same level as guns and poor mental illness awareness... its like rattling off a list of offenders, just because games were last it doesnt imply less implication.

To even add gaming to the list of 'problems' is basically saying he believes violence in gaming is partially to blame for the incident, and he also says parents should talk about violence in games... he is not saying parents should look at the advisories and warnings, or keep an eye on what their kids are buying.

As an example : If I was to be asked about an horrific incident that just occurred and I was to say it was the fault of free sex, easy access to drugs and alcohol... and rock and roll music, and then inform you I dont let that music into my home... doesnt that imply strongly that the music is equally to blame for the issue ? Despite it being last on the list factors ?

People are giving him great kudos for his parenting judgement but nothing he says in the article says he actually took the time to check a game before making the decision to allow it in or not, he simply doesnt let CoD into his home... additionally including gaming into a discussion about the killings implies gaming is a cause of the incident by association... just because its last on the list doesnt make it less damning than the usual gaming is evil fanatic ravings.

GunsmithKitten:
Oh look, an old man who's clueless about current hobbies and pasttimes.

Seriously, I have to ask, why does generational misunderstandings strike anyone as surprising anymore?

Still, as has been pointed out, he's at least stressing the parental control factor and not the "we need to ban video games" point, so good on him.

How do you know that's what he meant?

Maybe he meant "As a parent, I have higher standards for my kids and won't allow them to play garbage like CoD. Only QUALITY games are allowed in my house!"

Myrmecodon:

Or, you know, he could just buy an illegal gun off the street if the laws and journalistic penalties around getting it legally are too much for any sane person to bother with.

Of course, the bulk of the guns "on the street" come from the second-hand market, which currently has loopholes up the wazoo. Why feed legal guns into the system? I mean, you wouldn't give them a gun, would you? If not, then there's clearly some limit on what you believe is practical.

UltraXan:

Ok, I got two responses related to "tighter gun control," so I'm just gonna say this to this response. Black Market.

So the black market exists, and always will exist. So what? Why are we making it easier? Why flood the secondary market with so many easy ways for someone to get a gun and bypass the law? Why facilitate criminals? I'll ask you the same as above: would you give a gun to a criminal or a crazy person? I mean, they'll totally get one anyway, so why make it harder?

Do we give up on drunk driving laws because people will drive drunk anyway? If someone really wants to drive drunk, they'll find a way to get behind the wheel. Hell, why have murder laws? Murderers will obviously find a way to murder.

Please. Explain to me why the answer to the black market is to just throw up our hands and say "oh well," and why it is pretty much the only place this logic seems to apply.

Yes, theoretically criminals could still get guns. Theoretically, they can still get explosives, too. Wonder why gun crime is so much higher. Theoretically, they can still get knives. Wonder why gun crime is so much higher. Theoretically, they could just use their bare hands. Oh gee, I wonder why gun crime is so much higher. Ease of access+ease of use.

MichiganMuscle77:

Maybe he meant "As a parent, I have higher standards for my kids and won't allow them to play garbage like CoD. Only QUALITY games are allowed in my house!"

I would respect him so much if he said that.

'I don't allow Call of Duty in my home... We're a Battlefield household!'

I don't really see anything all that wrong here; games have age ratings, Call of Duty isn't rated for kids, it's down to the parents to read it.

bearlotz:
You know, if the Republicans have the brains to put Christie up as their 2016 candidate I would totally vote Republican for the first time. Christie is one of the few politicians that I honestly believe is in it to make things better rather than for his own gain, here's hoping he keeps making my home state proud.

Not likely. The Republicans are way too busy punishing him for daring to be civil to the President during a disaster situation. Because as we all know, petty ideologies should ALWAYS trump sanity.

Zachary Amaranth:

Why facilitate criminals? I'll ask you the same as above: would you give a gun to a criminal or a crazy person? I mean, they'll totally get one anyway, so why make it harder?

Well no, evidently not. But even then, your point, however sarcastic, is completely irrelevant.

Do we give up on drunk driving laws because people will drive drunk anyway? If someone really wants to drive drunk, they'll find a way to get behind the wheel. Hell, why have murder laws? Murderers will obviously find a way to murder.

I don't know if you realize this, but laws only work if the perpetrator in question is caught doing something they're not supposed to. Nothing is done to stop it if it's under the table where no one can see it (in other words, no one else knows what's going on). Now I'm not saying that we shouldn't try taking a peek, what I AM saying is that it's practically impossible to (without mind reading magic, fuck load of luck, and breaking people's rights), and we won't know what's under there until it comes up and bites us on the nose, OR someone makes a dumb move or information leaks.

Please. Explain to me why the answer to the black market is to just throw up our hands and say "oh well," and why it is pretty much the only place this logic seems to apply.

That's not what I am saying. At all. No matter how hard you crack down on it, you won't kill it. But that's not to say that you shouldn't try. You need to limit as many sources of the problem as possible. In doing so, you limit the number of shootings, but you *don't eliminate them*. Hell, there will still be a considerable number of them. At that point, the only way to get the ones that fall through the net is *response*. Once they happen, prevention doesn't matter anymore. Shit hits the fan, and you need to get the umbrellas out ASAP.

Yes, theoretically criminals could still get guns. Theoretically, they can still get explosives, too. Wonder why gun crime is so much higher. Theoretically, they can still get knives. Wonder why gun crime is so much higher. Theoretically, they could just use their bare hands. Oh gee, I wonder why gun crime is so much higher. Ease of access+ease of use.

Guns are the weapon of choice, much more practical than everything else.

Here's the thing. Guns will always be available. Just like DRM, no matter how you code it or how impossible it is to crack, there will always be someone who breaks it. Where there are people who are willing to buy, there are those who are willing to sell. It doesn't have to be a legit transaction, or even a black market one. Someone could steal a gun from someone's home, maybe get lucky enough to find ammo for it in the same house (and considering the US, it's probably guaranteed to find it there), and go on a killing spree within the next half hour. This type of shit can come out of nowhere, with no warning. I'm sure you're familiar with the statement "If there's a will, there's a way." It applies very strongly here. I'm not saying that you shouldn't limit the number of ways. What I'm saying is that you should focus on protecting yourself from the problem FIRST, before trying to attack it.

 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