Congresswoman Defends Violent Videogames

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 NEXT
 

The problem here is that blaming gun laws is to make the issue less complicated than it is. I believe that some strict gun control could reduce gun violence over time, but the fact that people has guns is just a part of the problem.

Remove the guns and it will remove gun violence, but not the reason for the gun violence that is currently there. Make some changes in the educational system, make some changes in law enforcement, make some changes in prison conditions, make some changes in dealing and finding mental problems. Even this isn't a solution, there's more to be done and I am nowhere near smart enough to make more than guesses on how this could change.

Guns are the tools to make these tragedies happen, but they are not the cause. Politicians need to stop looking for one thing. Blame video games for changing us, but don't make that the only thing to blame. The answer is much more than a quick solution.

In Japan, people aren't allowed to own guns but there is also a huge degree of social stigma in place for criminal behavior. If you kill someone, your other family members are at a risk of being fired from their jobs, merely due to being related to you. There's this thing called "shame" there, huge social pressure to be orderly and lawful.

The gun laws are half of the equation, the other half is a society that is built around massive SHAMING of lawbreakers, quite unlike the one of glorification of crime that we come across here.

In Japan, you can't have a public sector job if you have a tattoo, since Yakuza have tattoos and the mere appearance of criminality is unforgivable. There's even lots of public beaches with a tattoo ban for this same reason. Japan just really has zero tolerance for criminals in general.

The only reason she is defending video games is so she can get back to anti-gun agenda. Once she is finished walking all over our second amendment rights she will get back to Limiting our freedom of speech. New anti-gun & violent video game
laws are never going to stop people with violent psychosis from killing people or hurting themselves. It is time we enforce current gun control laws and revamp our mental health system.

Why do liberal politicians and organization representatives even bother going on Fox news? All that will result in is them getting chewed out with stupid.

Suck it Fox News! Hell yeah! I can only imagine the disappointment the interviewer had at that point.

Dense_Electric:

Furthermore, an assault weapons ban would be especially ludicrous. The VAST majority of gun crime (by which I mean between 99%-100%) is committed with non-assault weapons.

Yes, most people do not own assault weapons.
Which gives all the more reason why they should be banned.

They may not account for a fractions of gun related deaths but they are still very dangerous and should not be in civilian hands.

I see no way how a civilian could justify owning one, and before you say "To overthrow the government," remember, the government has tanks and can kill you from the sky.

Dense_Electric:
She had me up until she started on gun laws. Games can provide inspiration for a crime as readily as guns can provide a means. Most of us would agree that that doesn't mean we should blame games when someone goes and shoots someone after playing GTA IV, so why would you blame the gun? Both are merely scapegoats to excuse a violent individual.

Furthermore, an assault weapons ban would be especially ludicrous. The VAST majority of gun crime (by which I mean between 99%-100%) is committed with non-assault weapons. Most of them are committed with semi-automatic pistols, most of the remainder with shotguns or bolt-action or semi-automatic rifles that don't qualify as assault weapons. Yet I don't hear anyone advocating that those should be banned. I believe I read a statistic somewhere that said something like fewer than 50 murders in which a firearm was used involved an assault weapon since the 1970's. This is the equivalent of advocating that Lamborghinis should be banned because people die in car accidents.

Thank you!

I saw the article and went "Oh, FINALLY! Someone understands!" Then she went on to gun laws and I thought, "Oh, never mind".

Blaming guns to defend video games is just as bad as blaming video games to protect guns (and vice versa). All it is is scapegoating. I really do hate that all this has turned into is a "Video game vs guns" debate.

Gun owning gamers lose no matter what, huh?

SacremPyrobolum:

Dense_Electric:

Furthermore, an assault weapons ban would be especially ludicrous. The VAST majority of gun crime (by which I mean between 99%-100%) is committed with non-assault weapons.

Yes, most people do not own assault weapons.
Which gives all the more reason why they should be banned.

They may not account for a fractions of gun related deaths but they are still very dangerous and should not be in civilian hands.

I see no way how a civilian could justify owning one, and before you say "To overthrow the government," remember, the government has tanks and can kill you from the sky.

It's the political definitions that matter, not the common sense ones. I don't always pay attention to it, but I remember my fiance telling me that under one of the proposed laws (might've been a state law, I forget) his hunting rifle would count as an assault weapon because of its scope.

:|

I usually play devil's advocate with him, but I just couldn't at that moment. I just stared at the rifle in question, shook my head, and went back to the internet.

littlewisp:
[quote="SacremPyrobolum" post="7.400739.16483396"][quote="Dense_Electric" post="7.400739.16482424"]

It's the political definitions that matter, not the common sense ones. I don't always pay attention to it, but I remember my fiance telling me that under one of the proposed laws (might've been a state law, I forget) his hunting rifle would count as an assault weapon because of its scope.

I looked up what classified an assault weapon and I saw nothing on a scope being a requirement for a weapons to be an assault weapon. It was mostly things like pistol grips and rate of fire.

Maybe there was another issue like the scope was to powerful or your brother was simply worried.

Formica Archonis:

Dense_Electric:
She had me up until she started on gun laws.

I'm a cynic who has politically-active friends in California. I assumed she was doing it specifically to bring up gun laws from the get-go.

Pro-gun needs a different scapegoat, so blames games.

Anti-gun wants to scapegoat guns, so supports games simply to pull pro-gun's scapegoat out from under it.

In the painfully black-and-white us-vs-them mentality that is media-based politics, if you're pro-X you're anti-Y and vice versa. Today's X and Y are guns and games.

Nice to see other people noticing that they are just engaging in the same black and white thinking that sadly occurs way too often in our society.

I was exited at first until I realized fear-mongering over video games was going to be replaced about fear-mongering over guns. So our two options are...

Republicans -> "OMG, Ban the Gamez"

and

Democrats -> "OMG, Ban the Gunz"

The problem with our two party system isn't the low number of options, its that there is no option for not having your rights infringed upon. This is why I don't vote. Perhaps someone can show me a typical ballot and point out the box I am supposed to mark if I don't want someone to screw me over. I don't think that box is on there.

CriticalMiss:
This sounds like a trap. Someone alert the Admiral! She is using logic and common sense so there is no way she is a Republican, right? Maybe I just woke up in bizarro land this morning?

In what world was Nancy Pelosi ever a Republican?

Zeren:

Ditto for me.

Believing that access to guns causes violence is has illogical as well... believing playing video games causes violence.

As the first facebook comment stated, "guns are tools." Just because someone missuses a tool isn't the tool's fault. After all, it's just an object.

Now before any of you start with, "guns are tools to kill people," stop. Just stop right there. See that attitude? The one you just expressed. The ignorant belief that guns are meant to kill people? That's the mentality that causes violence.

Would I be right if I said, "nuclear weapons are tools for destroying cities"? No, I wouldn't. Why?
Nuclear weapons are NOT meant to destroy cities. They're meant to sit in a solo and look scary. Yeah, they have the ability to do so, but that's just to reinforce the intimidation factor of it. Not that scary if it doesn't work. Launching a nuke is considered to be the absolute last resort. If an ICBM spends it's entire existence just sitting in a solo doing nothing, then it's purpose is complete.

The same is for civilian variant guns in this day and age. Handguns and civilian models of automatic weapons are not meant to be used to shoot people. They're meant to be scary to would-be burglars, prowlers, and such. They're not meant to actually shoot someone. Yeah they can be used to do so, but again that's just to reinforce the intimidation factor. Actually shooting that person trying to break in should, and hopefully is, considered a last resort. If a gun sits in a box, or on a rack, it's entire existence, then it's purpose is complete.

Way back in the day guns, and bows before them, primary purpose was to be fired at game for hunting purposes. However, this is the 21st century. Then need for hunting and gathering has passed for the majority living in first or second world countries. Thus the primary function of the gun has shifted. If you believe otherwise, then frankly that makes me concerned about your mental state.

Now I'll leave with this:

If the "rampant access to guns" is what causes violence and crime, then the "rampant access" to the following also causes violence and crime:
Access to knifes, screwdrivers, or any other sharp/pointed instrument.
Access to hammers, baseball bats, or any other blunt instrument.
Access to automobiles, bicycles, aquatic vessels, aircraft, or any other motorized or non-motorized vehicle.
Access to ropes, cords, or any other lengthy object that can easily be wrapped around a limb.
And of course access to the one tool that most people have with them 24/7, and that we are born with. The human hand.

Are you willing to see all those banned?

dont get excited everyone. pelosi most likely wont be there long depending how this tax situation goes. its nice shes on our side, but she is very liberal so im not surprised. plus shes not really that great of a congressperson.

You know, maybe this whole guns vs games thing would simply end if someone took the opportunity to point out the fact that the atomic weapon was invented, developed, tested AND used before any game or gaming console was even thought of.

Then again, I am a wishful thinker.

Oh, I've said it before and I'll say it again: I don't blame the tools, I blame the people who use the tools.

We live in a time where the idea of "stop pointing fingers in a witch hunt and be reasonable for a second" is worthy of a headline.
Does anyone else find that a bit troubling?

the only logical step is open party system like sweden!

"Congresswoman Defends Violent Video Games"

Me: Wait, REALLY?

*opens page*

"Nancy Pelosi-"

Me: *facepalm* Should've know it was too good to be true...

Vault Citizen:
Before I read the article I had to pinch myself pinch myself and then double check the headline to see if I had read it correctly.

I had to do exactly the same.

Then I read the article and I was like, "I... So there's.... there's actually a politician that has something sensible to bring to the table?!".

Ok...there are exemplars in all categories regarding guns. Switzerland has massive gun ownership and hardly any gun crime. Clearly it's the people and culture that are different. But banning assault weapons isn't going to do shit. They make up a virtually negligible percentage of gun violence in the US. It's the handgun or shotgun that's just lying around at home that does the killing. Lastly, why shouldn't guns get the blame? They are a factor is far more cases of gun violence than games are, even with the benefit of the doubt.

Nice to see a politician using their head for once, but please, do yourself a favour and read up on their other policies as well. Just saying.

Ugh... I am totally against blaming guns or games on the violence, but when pure evil is supporting one of them... I really feel I need to change my opinion.

If Satan is supporting something... don't you kind of want to jump to the other side of the argument?

image

She doesn't give a shit about videogames, she just cares about gun laws, and the videogame bullshit is just a distraction to the gun issue.

That's why she's on "our side" for once.

I'm not going to side with anyone with violent videogames, however I do think that the things said about violent videogames in the media is pretty much propaganda which highly exaggerates upon the problem.

The way I see it, 1 in a few million people commit crimes because they play videogames.

A lot more than that commit crimes because they have a gun.

It's like trying to stop the extinction of pandas by breeding pigeons.

Yes my analogy is broken, but you have to be really freaking stupid to miss my point.

Wait wait wait, a politician? Defending us?

Personally I was and still am not a Nancy fan, just seeing someone using LOGIC puts a smile on my face. :)

Wait what? Nancy Pelosi?

Oh wait is this a early April Fools prank? Hah you got me :D

Well....no and yes. She's right that censorship will solve nothing, I'll give her that. But I heavily disagree with her gun policy.

I think this is breath of fresh air, but I'm a little disappointed by the baseless cynicism over this.

Having said that, I'm not sure I agree with the further anti-gun conclusion because I've yet to make up mind, but if it really is a choice between something with no relation to violence versus something that's used to cause violence, it should be clear which is the most reasonable.

And now, because I hate myself:

Grunt_Man11:
Now before any of you start with, "guns are tools to kill people," stop...See that attitude? ... The ignorant belief that guns are meant to kill people? That's the mentality that causes violence... Would I be right if I said, "nuclear weapons are tools for destroying cities"?...

Gun are tools to kill people. That is their purpose. The threat of murder and destruction doesn't negate the existence of convenient murder and destruction. Firearms and atomic weapons have been used to kill people. And they will be used again.

Grunt_Man11:
knifes, screwdrivers, or any other sharp/pointed instrument,... hammers, baseball bats, or any other blunt instrument.

These things do not launch metal projectiles with the purpose of (or if you like, threat of,) killing. They have other useful purposes.

Grunt_Man11:
automobiles, bicycles, aquatic vessels, aircraft, or any other motorized or non-motorized vehicle.

It's difficult to kill people with cars. I've tried. Also, bicycles? Really? Bicycles?
Gun > bike.

Grunt_Man11:
ropes, cords, or any other lengthy object that can easily be wrapped around a limb.

The ease of which something can be wrapped around a limb is dwarfed by the ability to shoot at medium range.

Grunt_Man11:
And of course access to the one tool that most people have with them 24/7, and that we are born with. The human hand.

... Yes ... Very dramatic. But why stop there? I think we should ban food because you could choke someone with it.

Seriously. These things have purposes others than killing (or if you like, threat of killing.) This is a very tired straw argument used way too often by pro-gun peoples and it never reflects well.

It always baffles me. I just don't get it. Maybe I'm missing something. Maybe not. Help me out.

Dense_Electric:
She had me up until she started on gun laws. Games can provide inspiration for a crime as readily as guns can provide a means. Most of us would agree that that doesn't mean we should blame games when someone goes and shoots someone after playing GTA IV, so why would you blame the gun? Both are merely scapegoats to excuse a violent individual.

Furthermore, an assault weapons ban would be especially ludicrous. The VAST majority of gun crime (by which I mean between 99%-100%) is committed with non-assault weapons. Most of them are committed with semi-automatic pistols, most of the remainder with shotguns or bolt-action or semi-automatic rifles that don't qualify as assault weapons. Yet I don't hear anyone advocating that those should be banned. I believe I read a statistic somewhere that said something like fewer than 50 murders in which a firearm was used involved an assault weapon since the 1970's. This is the equivalent of advocating that Lamborghinis should be banned because people die in car accidents.

You're tying the two together when the reason for banning either of the does not, you are effectively destroying your argument before you have even begun.
The focal point is placed on video game violence because it apparently causes people to find the sudden motivation and will to want to go and kill other human beings - GTA could very well inspire you to kill steal a car and kill a hooker, according to the modern media.

This isn't the same for guns though, having a gun in your house doesn't make you want to go out there and put a few in your neighbour because of that one time his dog took a crap on your yard.

People really need to stop trying to defend guns by personification of them, it is thoroughly annoying to see the same tired comparison and shows a lack of understanding.

Do I personally believe the USA should have tighter gun control laws?
Yes, I do in fact believe that but I do not place any fault of the problem on the gun but the fact that people should just not have access to such calibre weapons.

DenseElectric:
I believe I read a statistic somewhere that said something like fewer than 50 murders in which a firearm was used involved an assault weapon since the 1970's. This is the equivalent of advocating that Lamborghinis should be banned because people die in car accidents

No it is not.

NinjaDeathSlap:
While I'm as grateful as anyone else to have just one person in the US establishment sticking up for games, her argument still isn't a particularly good one. While some very violent games indeed do come out of Japan, the Japanese market doesn rely on anywhere near as much gun violence as the US and Europe, or at least not true-to-life (for want of a better term) depictions of guns. You can't put Call of Duty and Mortal Combat side by side and say that one is 'more violent' than the other, because they're two completely different kinds of violence.

True. But then... North Korea has turned... almost all of gaming (mainly starcraft, but I understand that... pretty much everything has a similar kind of following over there) into a national sport... and you know how many school shootings they've had? Zero.

Much respect to her.

On the guns issue, I wonder if a licence system similar to what they've tried in Germany might work. Making sure folks understand gun safety and aren't too likely to do stupid stuff before they're able to buy guns, and revoking the licence if they commit crimes or show signs of severe mental issues.

TheDoctor455:

NinjaDeathSlap:
While I'm as grateful as anyone else to have just one person in the US establishment sticking up for games, her argument still isn't a particularly good one. While some very violent games indeed do come out of Japan, the Japanese market doesn rely on anywhere near as much gun violence as the US and Europe, or at least not true-to-life (for want of a better term) depictions of guns. You can't put Call of Duty and Mortal Combat side by side and say that one is 'more violent' than the other, because they're two completely different kinds of violence.

True. But then... North Korea has turned... almost all of gaming (mainly starcraft, but I understand that... pretty much everything has a similar kind of following over there) into a national sport... and you know how many school shootings they've had? Zero.

South Korea. Not North Korea.

Grunt_Man11:
Now I'll leave with this:

If the "rampant access to guns" is what causes violence and crime, then the "rampant access" to the following also causes violence and crime:
Access to knifes, screwdrivers, or any other sharp/pointed instrument.
Access to hammers, baseball bats, or any other blunt instrument.
Access to automobiles, bicycles, aquatic vessels, aircraft, or any other motorized or non-motorized vehicle.
Access to ropes, cords, or any other lengthy object that can easily be wrapped around a limb.
And of course access to the one tool that most people have with them 24/7, and that we are born with. The human hand.

Are you willing to see all those banned?

Your concern for peoples mental state is noted, your argument was actually pretty decent although I didn't agree with it but when you devolved into this part you lost any and all credibility.
Banning guns will not make people start to ban knives, hammers, cars, ropes and hands it's a ludacris follow up that people somehow tie up.

"Oh you can kill people with that too you know? Yeah if you ban guns then your Glockenspiel will be next"

You could effectively continue your list ad nauseam if you really wanted too, I've even seen somebody go so far to say "Water" in one of those lists and it is always a hoot to read, no we would not ban hands.

Look, whilst I don't agree that the nuke was designed to sit and look scary (cold war mentality there), it was designed to be the "be all and end all" once we dropped it on Hiroshima.
The "scare factor" and "looming threat" was just a natural follow up of human instinct, nobody wants a nuke dropped on their country and rightly so. World leaders now collect them because not having one leaves you vulnerable to retaliation, again the cold war mentality.

Guns are designed for killing, the safety factor of having one just comes about naturally. If I was to break into your home, would I be risking getting shot? Yes, because I do not know if you have a gun or not so that puts me at a disadvantage if you have one and I do not.
So ultimately I just back out because my balls ain't that huge and your stuff is safe huzzah.
However, like in the wars where guns and any other form of defense/attack was some form of technological advancement the other side had to get one too.
Now owning a weapon is becoming almost mandatory to remain safe in some parts of the world, because if you don't have one someone else will.

Kind of scary, but that is the world we live in.

Captcha: Abide with me.

seditary:

TheDoctor455:

NinjaDeathSlap:
While I'm as grateful as anyone else to have just one person in the US establishment sticking up for games, her argument still isn't a particularly good one. While some very violent games indeed do come out of Japan, the Japanese market doesn rely on anywhere near as much gun violence as the US and Europe, or at least not true-to-life (for want of a better term) depictions of guns. You can't put Call of Duty and Mortal Combat side by side and say that one is 'more violent' than the other, because they're two completely different kinds of violence.

True. But then... North Korea has turned... almost all of gaming (mainly starcraft, but I understand that... pretty much everything has a similar kind of following over there) into a national sport... and you know how many school shootings they've had? Zero.

South Korea. Not North Korea.

Whoops. Thanks for reminding me.

Wait... It's not April 1... It's not December 21... It's certainly not September 11... WHAT THE HECK IS GOING ON HERE!?

Seeing a US politician that actually uses logic is very rare...

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 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