Ryan Lambourn's Slaying Of Sandy Hook Draws Condemnation

 Pages 1 2 3 4 5 6 NEXT
 

Ryan Lambourn's Slaying Of Sandy Hook Draws Condemnation

The Slaying of Sandy Hook screen

The Slaying of Sandy Hook, a game based on the Sandy Hook Elementary School massacre created by the maker of V-Tech Rampage, has inspired outrage from all corners of the political spectrum.

The 2012 mass murder at the Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Connecticut, had nothing to do with videogames, but as usual, games were drawn into it anyway. And now a game created by Ryan Lambourn and based on the events of the massacre has earned widespread condemnation from both gun rights and gun control advocates for "exploiting" the tragedy.

"I'm just horrified. I just don't understand, frankly, why anyone would think that the horrible tragedy that took place here in Sandy Hook would have any entertainment value," Newtown First Selectman Pat Llordra told CTPost.com. She said she's turned matter over the the local police and FBI for investigation.

"I find the exploitation of this unspeakable tragedy is just shocking," Democratic Senator Richard Blumenthal said separately. "From what I've heard and what's been shown to me, it's absolutely abhorrent. My hope is that it will be voluntarily taken down because it's offensive and hurtful."

The National Rifle Association described The Slaying of Sandy Hook as "reprehensible" but refused to comment further in order to avoid giving more attention to "this despicable excuse for a human being."

But the maker of the game claimed that the point is to draw attention to the need for worthwhile gun control laws in the U.S. "Here we are a year after the Sandy Hook shootings in which 26 people were killed, 20 of which were first-graders, and absolutely nothing positive has come out of it," he said. "I'm someone who rarely follows the news, so these updates have been a constant reminder of just how commonplace mass shootings and school shootings have become."

Lambourn is no stranger to controversy: Back in 2007 he created V-Tech Rampage, a Flash game based on the Virginia Tech massacre which drew similar ire, and told one of his few supporters on Twitter, "its not like I didnt know this would happen." But he also insisted that there's a serious message behind the game.

"these people love to tout their 'self-defense' statistics as the good of guns but when you actually look at what's defined as 'self-defense' its just one person killing another and having to believe their story because there's no alternative," he wrote. "right at the top of the declaration of independence everyone is equal, we all have inalienable rights, the very first of which is LIFE. the concept that taking life isn't encroaching these rights if done is self-defense is just wrong."

Senator Blumenthal's wish has been partially fulfilled, as Newgrounds has pulled the game, but it's still available through other sites. It is pretty graphic, as Flash games go, but it's also a very effective reminder of the horror of the real-life events. The Slaying of Sandy Hook ends with a tally of the students and teachers killed in the game, and also cites the actual Sandy Hook body count; and after having completed the game in the "Historical" mode, others open up, including a "Gun Control" mode in which the player must remove the AR-15 from a locked gun safe - and cannot.

Source: CTPost, Googumproduce

Permalink

Idiots vs. Idiots, round 1647857837548560265. I guess.

Played it, the gameplay is horrible clunky and boring but I guess it gets its message across.

Andy Chalk:
"I'm just horrified. I just don't understand, frankly, why anyone would think that the horrible tragedy that took place here in Sandy Hook would have any entertainment value,"

And that's all the proof I need to know that she isn't nearly informed enough on video gaming as a medium to make any kind of educated decision. Video games have long-since established that they are not always about "entertainment" (though sadly, and obviously, this isn't mainstream knowledge yet). Honestly, I could take her quote and argue how I don't understand how World War 2 could "have any entertainment value" to argue why several movies shouldn't have been made, yet they get mass appeal for being "artful" and "thought provoking".

As for the NRA, I don't even care enough to read their quotes. They're basically dead to me with the way that they threw video games under the bus pretty much the instant people started talking about gun control after the tragedy.

Meanwhile over in IGN there's uproar because the website only gave it an 8.5 out of 10.

I'm in two minds about this, at first I thought it would just be a pure exploitation game, but the defence the developer gave actually has me swayed a bit, especially the gun safe bit. It's a bit like satire; creating a piece of imaginary media to deliberately get criticism of for being sick, then point out that the exact same thing is happening in real life, yet we don't do anything to stop it.

Makes you think.

Andy Chalk:
after having completed the game in the "Historical" mode, others open up, including a "Gun Control" mode in which the player must remove the AR-15 from a locked gun safe - and cannot.

I thought this was some sort of sick joke too and then that last bit of info comes to light. As far as making a political statement that would be a slam dunk, if only the important people bothered to notice it. They didn't and won't, because in their own words it is so reprehensible that they never actually played the game. America in a nutshell, ladies and gentlemen.

I don't really have a problem with someone making a game about a school shooting as long as it is a fictional one and they are doing it for something other than shock value. And it seems like this guy has succeeded in getting attention even if he hasn't quite managed to get those people to see the point he was trying to make.

"I find the exploitation of this unspeakable tragedy is just shocking," Democratic Senator Richard Blumenthal said separately.

Does he feel the same way about WWII movies/games/books/t-shirts I wonder?

"I'm just horrified. I just don't understand, frankly, why anyone would think that the horrible tragedy that took place on the shores of Normandy would have any entertainment value."

"I'm just horrified. I just don't understand, frankly, why anyone would think that the horrible tragedy that took place in the kingdom of Castile would have any entertainment value."

"I'm just horrified. I just don't understand, frankly, why anyone would think that the horrible tragedy that took place in Dayton, Tennessee would have any entertainment value."

How does this game differs from any movie about horrible events
I would argue that this game is less insulting that that 9/11 movie
Not that I really care for any of those

At first I did have the knee jerk "some sick fucks in the world" but even just skimming the article, my opinions changed from "yeah, of course there is some political point to it AKA shit I am getting a lot of heat for this, quick make up an excuse" but after reading it (especially the gun safe bit), I am kind of with the guy.

I mean Columbine, Sandy Hook and Virginia Tech (probably missing out on a good number of them as well) all took place and 6 months later nobody even talks about it. It's like a media frenzy for 2 weeks after the event and then it's yesterdays news.

Piers Morgan went over and even though he is a wretched human being, he kind of had a point but from I what I saw it turned into "fuck this limey dick! What does he know about 'murica?".

Just think the conversation should carry on, without people who have a financial investment in it. I know Americans love there amendments and constitutional rights but it's almost 2014, shouldn't they be reconsidered for the modern age?

Just having a quick skim on the wiki, I can't speak lawyer but it sounds a little ... founding fathers to me. "The Second Amendment to the United States Constitution protects the right of individual Americans to keep and bear arms, regardless of service in a militia." I mean, when was the last time any American was in a Militia?

"Early English settlers in America viewed the right to arms and/or the right to bear arms and/or state militias as important for one or more of these purposes enabling the people enabling the people to organize a militia system.
participating in law enforcement
deterring tyrannical government
repelling invasion
suppressing insurrection, allegedly including slave revolts
facilitating a natural right of self-defense. "

What are the chances some of them are going to happen? The most likely are "participating in law enforcement" and "facilitating a natural right of self-defense" but "repelling invasion" and "deterring tyrannical government" ... seriously? Although you really should be deterring your tyrannical government at the moment, then again it would be hard to organize what with NSA watching ... listening ...

(Sorry, I got a little ranty/carried away)

Hero in a half shell:
Meanwhile over in IGN there's uproar because the website only gave it an 8.5 out of 10.

I'm in two minds about this, at first I thought it would just be a pure exploitation game, but the defence the developer gave actually has me swayed a bit, especially the gun safe bit. It's a bit like satire; creating a piece of imaginary media to deliberately get criticism of for being sick, then point out that the exact same thing is happening in real life, yet we don't do anything to stop it.

Makes you think.

That isn't the only thing. There are actually 3 modes: Historical, Gun Control, and Eagletears. Historical is what you would expect. In Gun control, however, the gun is locked in the safe and the game tells you to assume that the killer ordered a katana online. You play the game like normal and it tallies up the kills at the end, which are much less than in historical because the katana requires you to be right next to people and is also much slower than the rifle. Eagletears, on the other hand, arms all the teachers with pistols. This doesn't really effect much, as you can kill them before they can fire. So... Yeah. Interesting game that actually gets across its message across surprisingly well.

V-Tech game always seemed like a standard tasteless RPG maker game to me, so I never really played it. This? This makes a bit more sense.

It's not fun. Wasn't made to be. There's very little of anything to raise the mood (excluding some of the notices in the non-standard modes) and it feels how a game handling this subject matter should. Slow. Morbid. Grounded brutality. So while I can't say I'm thrilled to see this released, and I don't know if it's the best way to handle it, at least it has a point and isn't just an exploitation game.

I have to echo most other people's responses. To be honest I'm quite surprised at that response, I would have figured most people here would be pitch forking against both sides.

I was pretty much ready to be disgusted at the game, but then I read the article. Got to say I'm sitting on the dev's side. It's a shame that the people rallying can't take those 30 seconds that I and the other people who've commented did, to put the preemptive-pitchfork down and process the message of the game.

I'm actually going to give it a play now before I think about it anymore.

I played it and was deeply disturbed, so I guess it did it's job. I only tried the historical mode as I think I get the message. Strange how I have no problem mowing down "bad guys" by the hundreds but I can't shoot some pixelated black silhouettes. Even stranger is how easy something like that is to pull off. The game wasn't far from the truth, get a gun, walk into a school. It's that easy. Sad

Fairly standard post-tragedy gun game. We get these all the time, I'm only surprised how long it took for one to be made about Sandy Hook.

I guess sort of props for it actually having a semi-humorous political message instead of being just another troll.

I do have to point this out. Tom Fulp's start and the start of newgrounds was actually based on him making his own flash game based on...a school shooting. So just want to point out how much newgrounds has changed especially where context was completely given and the creator actually was very balanced when it came to the issue and gave people the tools on what they can do. You can actually listen to what he says inside the flash game itself if you look at the credits.

Also if you really believe games can be art and deserve free speech, well step up to the plate.

I should also point out that he got that "online abuse" yet he isn't calling himself a victim and there have been people that are posting comments saying they will ruin his life and actually asking where he lives and everything.

The problem is simple: He made it about a school shooting that happened recently.

The game is very emotionally injurious to those directly affected by the massacre, as it's still fresh in their minds. There's a reason that we generally don't like people who "piggyback" on tragedy to make a statement. It's disrespectful and painful.

Sure, the message wouldn't have quite the same effect if he made it about a fictional school shooting, but that's just too damn bad. Cry me a river.

OK, after having read the article (grabbed my pitchfork by reflex at the game's title) I have to say that while the execution is a bit tasteless (I'm not sure this is the best way to do it, but I can't think of a better way so...) the way the point is made is pretty good. Shame all of the people in charge are going to follow the politicians and condemn the game without having played it. I bet if they did they would change their minds (at least the Democrats would. Given that the message is counter to the NRA's stance it wouldn't and the Republicans are so deep in bed with them they most likely wouldn't change their tune either.)

Now on to some tangentially related stuff

"I'm just horrified. I just don't understand, frankly, why anyone would think that the horrible tragedy that took place here in Sandy Hook would have any entertainment value," Newtown First Selectman Pat Llordra told CTPost.com. She said she's turned matter over the the local police and FBI for investigation.

I'm getting really tired of this view of games. All these people do is look at the best-selling games - usually Call of Duty, the game equivalent of an 80's action film - and then judge the entire media on that. It's completely idiotic. It's like comparing Schindler's List to The Scorpion King; it doesn't work because while they're both films, they where made in different genres and for different reasons - one is a film about good and evil and of sacrificing for others while the other is an action comedy.

Also, love how this is cause for cop and FBI investigation. Seems like they've got worse things to deal with than someone expressing their political views in an unorthodox manner.

"I find the exploitation of this unspeakable tragedy is just shocking," Democratic Senator Richard Blumenthal said

Same could be said for pretty much anything related to WWII. Yet we've got tons of movies, games, and tv shows about it. Hell, Hogan's Heroes is a comedy set in a German POW camp for crying out loud! (Note, I'm not saying these things are bad, I love Hogan's Heroes. I'm just saying it's a bit stupid to cherry pick which tragedies we're allowed to exploit.)

lacktheknack:
The problem is simple: He made it about a school shooting that happened recently.

The game is very emotionally injurious to those directly affected by the massacre, as it's still fresh in their minds. There's a reason that we generally don't like people who "piggyback" on tragedy to make a statement. It's disrespectful and painful.

Sure, the message wouldn't have quite the same effect if he made it about a fictional school shooting, but that's just too damn bad. Cry me a river.

So school shootings are bad, but a person should ignore a perfectly good way to get a gun control message that might actually stick with some people out there because it might hurt the feelings of those affected by it? I'm sorry, but that strikes me as ridiculous. You're basically saying don't deliver a message that might actually get people talking about how change is needed because feelings. I have no issue with someone ruffling some feathers if it keeps the dialogue that needs to be happening happening. Because apparently a bunch of dead kids doesn't get the job done for more than a week or two.

kael013:

Now on to some tangentially related stuff

"I'm just horrified. I just don't understand, frankly, why anyone would think that the horrible tragedy that took place here in Sandy Hook would have any entertainment value," Newtown First Selectman Pat Llordra told CTPost.com. She said she's turned matter over the the local police and FBI for investigation.

I'm getting really tired of this view of games. All these people do is look at the best-selling games - usually Call of Duty, the game equivalent of an 80's action film - and then judge the entire media on that. It's completely idiotic. It's like comparing Schindler's List to The Scorpion King; it doesn't work because while they're both films, they where made in different genres and for different reasons - one is a film about good and evil and of sacrificing for others while the other is an action comedy.

Also, love how this is cause for cop and FBI investigation. Seems like they've got worse things to deal with than someone expressing their political views in an unorthodox manner.

I was thinking "There's nothing illegal about it! It's free speech. The authorities should laugh in their face!", and then I remembered that authorities, doesn't matter what kind, love to shit on free speech. Somebody at the local police station and somebody at the FBI will actually spend part of their work day looking into this instead of doing something productive.

after you completed the gun control mode, a new mode called eagle tears is available that somewhat shows how incredible short sighted the idea is to arm every teacher with a gun to be able to defend themselves.

this game is more than a troll attempt nearly everyone wants to portrait it.

you should play it.
http://swfchan.org/2942/sandyhook.swf

hazabaza1:
V-Tech game always seemed like a standard tasteless RPG maker game to me, so I never really played it.

and that is the problem.

you never played it but are willing to jump on the hate train like all the "soccer moms who dont understand video games" we usually rant about.

that is not to say you are one hell of a soccer mom, its more of a "try it before you talk about it" suggestion.

sometimes things dont are as they seem.

lacktheknack:

Sure, the message wouldn't have quite the same effect if he made it about a fictional school shooting, but that's just too damn bad. Cry me a river.

I'd say I would be surprised to see people not being shocked even if was is about fictional school shooting.

Since The Sandy hook, (at least)4 more school shooting happened in US that killed someone.

Well, there is always next one that is about to happen. I guess if people are not willing to prevent some children getting shot, I wouldn't judge their choices.

Vivi22:

lacktheknack:
The problem is simple: He made it about a school shooting that happened recently.

The game is very emotionally injurious to those directly affected by the massacre, as it's still fresh in their minds. There's a reason that we generally don't like people who "piggyback" on tragedy to make a statement. It's disrespectful and painful.

Sure, the message wouldn't have quite the same effect if he made it about a fictional school shooting, but that's just too damn bad. Cry me a river.

So school shootings are bad, but a person should ignore a perfectly good way to get a gun control message that might actually stick with some people out there because it might hurt the feelings of those affected by it? I'm sorry, but that strikes me as ridiculous. You're basically saying don't deliver a message that might actually get people talking about how change is needed because feelings. I have no issue with someone ruffling some feathers if it keeps the dialogue that needs to be happening happening. Because apparently a bunch of dead kids doesn't get the job done for more than a week or two.

You mistake the victims' reactions as mere feelings.

It's not.

It's like someone stabbing them with a knife. Repeatedly.

Unless you have sociopathic tendencies, I feel safe in saying that you've never lost someone in a traumatic/violent way if you maintain your mindset. As someone who has (overly extended Alzheimer's that left me unable to laugh at "Oh, I'm getting old and forgetful" jokes for years), I feel completely justified in dismissing your opinions as utterly biased and nonsensical.

"Feelings", indeed. How are we going to make the strides in mental well-being that we need to if we insist on allowing people to mentally assault each other with no basis? >:|

This is the same guy who offered to take down V-Tech Rampage for $2000, later claiming the offer was just a joke when the legitimate Paypal account he set up for the process didn't receive any donations. He may be saying sensible things that may align with your own politics, but you really can't take his word at face value.

Either way, exploitation for a good cause is still exploitation and his message is delivered in too distasteful a manner to really deliver. Do video games really need to put you in the role of a mass murderer to make a point? The fact that some of the most violent and cynical games are held up as our medium's greatest works of art should give us pause and force us to ask if there really aren't better ways to create a meaningful experience.

I'm not saying art can't be shocking or distasteful, but those works really have to deliver enough merit to overcome the barrier to entry. It really helps if those aspects are what's being put under the microscope and not just the delivery method.

lacktheknack:

Vivi22:

lacktheknack:
The problem is simple: He made it about a school shooting that happened recently.

The game is very emotionally injurious to those directly affected by the massacre, as it's still fresh in their minds. There's a reason that we generally don't like people who "piggyback" on tragedy to make a statement. It's disrespectful and painful.

Sure, the message wouldn't have quite the same effect if he made it about a fictional school shooting, but that's just too damn bad. Cry me a river.

So school shootings are bad, but a person should ignore a perfectly good way to get a gun control message that might actually stick with some people out there because it might hurt the feelings of those affected by it? I'm sorry, but that strikes me as ridiculous. You're basically saying don't deliver a message that might actually get people talking about how change is needed because feelings. I have no issue with someone ruffling some feathers if it keeps the dialogue that needs to be happening happening. Because apparently a bunch of dead kids doesn't get the job done for more than a week or two.

You mistake the victims' reactions as mere feelings.

It's not.

It's like someone stabbing them with a knife. Repeatedly.

Unless you have sociopathic tendencies, I feel safe in saying that you've never lost someone in a traumatic/violent way if you maintain your mindset. As someone who has (overly extended Alzheimer's that left me unable to laugh at "Oh, I'm getting old and forgetful" jokes for years), I feel completely justified in dismissing your opinions as utterly biased and nonsensical.

"Feelings", indeed. How are we going to make the strides in mental well-being that we need to if we insist on allowing people to mentally assault each other with no basis? >:|

My granny had Alzheimers, and watching her slowly fall apart over the years was heartbreaking. I also got a real sour feeling for all those Alzheimer jokes that are actually really common when you start noticing them like that, but as hurt as I was, I never got to the point where I thought Alzheimer jokes shouldn't be made at all. I knew that they were not for me, and just ignored them, but that if I hadn't had that experience I would find it just as funny as everyone else.
Life leaves a bitter taste in our mouths. Everyone has their own triggers. If media had to skirt around every issue that could affect someone then we would be left with very little of anything.

If this game had just been another school shooter simulator then it wouldn't have got this publicity. It wouldn't have worked as a political message because no one would have heard of it, no one would have discussed it. Now it's message is being discussed , at the very least, on our internet forum, with a much more muted, respectful, and understanding tone than previous gun debates. (for now anyway) And if nothing else, that is something.

If the politicians and the parents of Sandy Hook don't want to put any store into the idea that a seemingly offensive, cheap videogame could actually have a message they need to hear, then that's on their heads, and it may be too difficult for the families and friends of Sandy Hook to play, but then they should be asked. "So what can we do about it?"

Arm teachers? The game shows us that may not work.

Pass stricter gun storage laws? It will help, but it won't stop the would-be murderer from still trying to do something stupid.

This is a real issue in America. If they don't want to play the game because it would be too painful I can respect that, but then it needs to be said that if the issues the game brings up aren't addressed, then this exact scenario will play out in real life again. And again. And again.

And which would be the better option?
There is a real problem in America with school shootings. Every time there is a shooting the absolute minimum is done to sate the public until another one happens. It isn't right, and it isn't being discussed. Here's a game that could change that, it probably won't, but at least the author can say he tried.

I said that Alzheimers jokes were too raw for me to get any enjoyment out of, they still are after several years, but if a comedian were to make an alzheimer joke that had the potential to prevent more people getting alzheimers, or understand the early warning signals, or petition the need for better treatment, I would be fully behind him all the way.

omega 616:

Just having a quick skim on the wiki, I can't speak lawyer but it sounds a little ... founding fathers to me. "The Second Amendment to the United States Constitution protects the right of individual Americans to keep and bear arms, regardless of service in a militia." I mean, when was the last time any American was in a Militia?

"Early English settlers in America viewed the right to arms and/or the right to bear arms and/or state militias as important for one or more of these purposes enabling the people enabling the people to organize a militia system.
participating in law enforcement
deterring tyrannical government
repelling invasion
suppressing insurrection, allegedly including slave revolts
facilitating a natural right of self-defense. "

What are the chances some of them are going to happen? The most likely are "participating in law enforcement" and "facilitating a natural right of self-defense" but "repelling invasion" and "deterring tyrannical government" ... seriously? Although you really should be deterring your tyrannical government at the moment, then again it would be hard to organize what with NSA watching ... listening ...

(Sorry, I got a little ranty/carried away)

You might think me some sort of right wing nut, or someone who wants to keep mah gunz for saying this, but "What are the chances of this happening" sounds good on paper... till they happen.

I'll admit, that they might feel pretty improbable... but it was only 75 years ago that Germany empowered a fascist leader that lead to millions of deaths. Tyrannical governments can, and do happen in this modern age.

And while repelling invasion might seem even less likely than the government getting all dictatorship-like, Who's to say what could happen. We need to protect our borders and keep those immigrants out.

I'm looking at you... Canada. Don't think you're politeness has ME fooled.

But in all seriousness. I purchased my first gun almost immediately after the Sandy Hook shooting. I'm a father now, and I want to be able to protect my daughter should someone threaten her, or anyone else in my family.

It seems for every shooting you hear about, there's a shooting prevented by someone carrying a gun you don't hear about, because that doesn't support the media's agenda.

http://houston.culturemap.com/news/city_life/12-17-12-texas-movie-theater-shooting-creates-chaos-and-fear-but-quick-thinking-security-guard-steps-in/

Okay then, since everyone else up to this point is saying "yeah, he has a point" and is ignoring the fact that this guy made a video game out of a national tragedy, and even worse, he did it purely for political points....then fine. I guess I'll be the first to call him sick and demented, and to reject his idea.

And my reasoning is rather self-explanatory, I would think. I must repeat, he made a video game out of a tragedy to underline his own political beliefs. That's not creative or thought-provoking, it's disgusting. I feel the same way about people who write books, movies, etc about other tragedies and who made big bucks on it. Capitalizing on someone else's tragedy is just all sorts of dirty and wrong, whether for politics or profit.

But my biggest problem with this kid comes from his explanation of his beliefs:

"these people love to tout their 'self-defense' statistics as the good of guns but when you actually look at what's defined as 'self-defense' its just one person killing another and having to believe their story because there's no alternative," he wrote. "right at the top of the declaration of independence everyone is equal, we all have inalienable rights, the very first of which is LIFE. the concept that taking life isn't encroaching these rights if done is self-defense is just wrong."

This child (and yes, I will call him a child regardless of age, because he has a child's understanding of the document he's quoting) is attempting to quote the Declaration of Independence entirely out of its native context in the flimsiest argument for gun control ever expressed by a rational human being.

First and foremost, the line reads thusly:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

It is accurate to state that the line refers to the right to "life", however, this child makes no effort to understand that right whatsoever and resorts to the most clumsy of understandings: that the right to "life" is completely inarguable with zero grey area.

And yet obviously, in a life-or-death situation, there is grey area. Especially if the situation in question boils down to "kill or be killed", as it increasingly often does. You're not going to appeal to most criminals' sense of fair play by throwing down your gun and asking for a polite round of fisticuffs over your belongings. They're going to take what they can, and they'll do what they feel is necessary (even kill you) if you try to stop them. Sometimes they'll kill you just for fun, over a relatively insignificant amount of money, even.

What this kid doesn't get is that rights are not inarguable and do not extend out infinitely. Your rights end where another individual's rights begin. When you break into someone's house and threaten their life or those of their family, you should be prepared for the possibility that you may instead lose your own. And at that point, you can't go arguing that you have a right to "life"....you violated the family's right to life when you said you were intending to kill them, so at that point, your rights have impeded someone else's and someone's rights are quite possibly going to get trampled on in the end, and you should brace for that collision knowing that you caused it.

I am not a vicious person in life, I do not generally resort to violence to get my way. But if someone were to put me in a situation where I know my life is in danger, and the only way to save it is to take theirs, I will not hesitate to defend myself, and I will not have some random punk tell me that my defense of myself was unjustified.

There are plenty of good arguments for gun control. This kid used what is perhaps the absolute weakest of the bunch.

omega 616:

"Early English settlers in America viewed the right to arms and/or the right to bear arms and/or state militias as important for one or more of these purposes enabling the people enabling the people to organize a militia system.
participating in law enforcement
deterring tyrannical government
repelling invasion
suppressing insurrection, allegedly including slave revolts
facilitating a natural right of self-defense. "

The key phrase here is "Early English settlers."

Back in the colonial days, that was an actual threat the people had to worry about. The colonies were not the center of the largest military industrial complex on the Earth, it was a collection of cities and towns, with only a handful of redcoats and ships to defend it. To the west was the Native People and the French, both had all kinds of reasons to hate Britain, and to the South was a colony of Spain. Tobacco was a HUGE business, and there are only a few places in the world it could be grown. Any European power potentially had a very big economic incentive to grab the weaker colonies.

The only way to make up for the fact all reinforcements were a literal ocean away was to make sure the colonists could handle a gun, put up a good fight, and either throw out the invaders or delay them enough for the actual British military to arrive.

After we became an independent state, we could barely afford to maintain an army, so it doubled the need to keep everyone armed and ready.

I will argue everything else (barring suppressing insurrection) still applies today.

Oh fuck this guy all he wants is attention. All anyone is going to do is say that all gamers are asshole killers when they see this shit. It is not helping anyone it is just getting him press.

CriticKitten:

And my reasoning is rather self-explanatory, I would think. I must repeat, he made a video game out of a tragedy to underline his own political beliefs. That's not creative or thought-provoking, it's disgusting. I feel the same way about people who write books, movies, etc about other tragedies and who made big bucks on it. Capitalizing on someone else's tragedy is just all sorts of dirty and wrong, whether for politics or profit.

That's funny. I've never heard about people who make flash game making fat checks by putting ads on them.

It also seems that game's link on this very page doesn't seem to have ads on it. Oh he must be making so much money right now.

Now go get those Jehova's witness, some hobos with signs, and people who plant signs with their preferred choice of political parties. How DARE them to speak of their own opinions for a little profit.

Pirate Of PC Master race:
That's funny. I've never heard about people who make flash game making fat checks by putting ads on them.

It also seems that game's link on this very page doesn't seem to have ads on it. Oh he must be making so much money right now.

Now go get those Jehova's witness, some hobos with signs, and people who plant signs with their preferred choice of political parties. How DARE them to speak of their own opinions for a little profit.

Read what you quoted again.

Then slap yourself when you realize that my retort to your post is actually contained in the original post I made, which you obviously didn't read very well.

CriticKitten:
Read what you quoted again.

Then slap yourself when you realize that my retort to your post is actually contained in the original post I made, which you obviously didn't read very well.

Don't try to be unambiguous, because I think you are just being unclear to feel smug self satisfaction.

Clarification would be nice.

One side: Blah blah blah, gun control, blah.
Other side: Blah blah blah, gun rights, blah.

This guy is a real moron. He is clearly doing this for shock value and attention, he isn't actually saying anything about the issue. Nor is he doing anything that will will add to the debate.

Truth Interlude: In real life, many tragic events have no positive outcome what so ever. It's natural for humans in general to seek meaning in things, but the reality is that there is no meaning or positive outcome to come of that. And using such an event to further an agenda either one way or another is shockingly disingenuous.

I hate to say it, but both sides of the debate say things that are right. And statistics don't prove anything ever, so that really just needs to stop. All you can do is express degrees of right or wrong, it's not a black and white issue like pretty much everyone seems to think it is. Fact: guns take lives. Fact: guns save lives. Fact: Murderers use guns. Fact: people defend themselves from murderers with guns using guns themselves.

Edit: Shocker, the debate is not going to be decided here, so it's probably not worth arguing about. It will be decided in a forum that is so far outside this one that you might as well be talking about gun rights/gun control on Mars.

Pirate Of PC Master race:
Don't try to be unambiguous, because I think you are just being unclear to feel smug self satisfaction.

Clarification would be nice.

Okay then. Obviously my post was just too verbose for you, that's fine. I'll cut out the majority and focus on the two paragraphs that matter. I'll even emphasize, in bold, the really important parts, so there's no excuse for not seeing it this time around.

Okay then, since everyone else up to this point is saying "yeah, he has a point" and is ignoring the fact that this guy made a video game out of a national tragedy, and even worse, he did it purely for political points....then fine. I guess I'll be the first to call him sick and demented, and to reject his idea.

And my reasoning is rather self-explanatory, I would think. I must repeat, he made a video game out of a tragedy to underline his own political beliefs. That's not creative or thought-provoking, it's disgusting. I feel the same way about people who write books, movies, etc about other tragedies and who made big bucks on it. Capitalizing on someone else's tragedy is just all sorts of dirty and wrong, whether for politics or profit.

I very clearly stated in my original post that his motivations were political, not for profit. I was merely pointing out that I view movies/books/etc which do make a profit off of this stuff to be in the exact same boat from a figurative standpoint, because a lot of people were using for-profit books and movies as an example of why this was somehow "okay".

Next time, read the whole post. Don't just quote a line out of context without reading the rest and only attack that line, it makes you look silly when the person points out that you clearly didn't read the whole thing.

Baresark:

I hate to say it, but both sides of the debate say things that are right. And statistics don't prove anything ever, so that really just needs to stop. All you can do is express degrees of right or wrong, it's not a black and white issue like pretty much everyone seems to think it is. Fact: guns take lives. Fact: guns save lives. Fact: Murderers use guns. Fact: people defend themselves from murderers with guns using guns themselves.

My suggestion is to give everyone a handgun and carrying one mandatory. An infant to 112 year old woman(and their dog). Everyone in US would have equal rights to defend themselves. Only then America will be truly achieve fairness.

 Pages 1 2 3 4 5 6 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