Ryan Lambourn's Slaying Of Sandy Hook Draws Condemnation

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 NEXT
 

CriticKitten:

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.

Oh, I've saw that part. Now tell me. What exactly are you doing different than the creator of the game?

You are purely expressing your own political opinion (I assume)with no personal gain.(not for the material gain, anyway)

I was confused because you were not flipping angry at the other people who were posting their own political opinion on this thread. So what? Do you have the problem with the medium of the message? Should games be banned from delivering any message?

Besides that I have no idea what would this game maker gain politically. It's not like he is starting kickstarter for any other games. Nor he is doing so attract people to his other games.(which also features school shooting, generic.) As far as I know he doesn't even live in US.

Pirate Of PC Master race:

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.

Haha, it actually makes sense. In the cold war that policy was called "MAD: Mutually Assured Destruction". If you can get shot back, you are less likely to shoot someone. That is from a logical standpoint. In this situation, the shooter never had any intention of living. You can't control the actions of the mentally disturbed by taking guns from everyone or giving guns to everyone. If no one was allowed to have guns, then he probably wouldn't have had the ability to do what he did. If teachers could be armed, then the whole tragedy might have been avoided or at least not everyone would have been killed. But... I digress.

Pirate Of PC Master race:
Oh, I've saw that part. Now tell me. What exactly are you doing different than the creator of the game?

Um, did you actually read the article?

I'm going to have to assume that you didn't, judging from this post, so I'll just go ahead and rehash it for you.

The person in question created a video game which depicts a national tragedy in which innocent children lost their lives to a deranged psychopath. And he did this purely to say "guns are bad, mkay?".

That's revolting.

I'm merely responding to his (completely illogical) argument as it was presented by him. I'm not using Sandy Hook as a platform to state my beliefs regarding gun control. You'd have noticed that I never actually said what side of that debate I'm on in my post, if you had read it. Why? Because Sandy Hook's a tragedy committed by a psychotic individual and it should not be used as a political motivator one way or the other. People who rush to stand on the fresh corpses of others to use them as a political tool in their own agendas make me sick.

And he clearly states that this is exactly why he made the game: to make a political point about gun control. So you can't possibly argue that it's not what he's doing....he said so himself.

CriticKitten:

I'm going to have to assume that you didn't, judging from this post, so I'll just go ahead and rehash it for you.

The person in question created a video game which depicts a national tragedy in which innocent children lost their lives to a deranged psychopath. And he did this purely to say "guns are bad, mkay?".

That's revolting.

I'm merely responding to his (completely illogical) argument as it was presented by him. I'm not using Sandy Hook as a platform to state my beliefs regarding gun control. You'd have noticed that I never actually said what side of that debate I'm on in my post, if you had read it. Why? Because Sandy Hook's a tragedy committed by a psychotic individual and it should not be used as a political motivator one way or the other. People who rush to stand on the fresh corpses of others to use them as a political tool in their own agendas make me sick.

And he clearly states that this is exactly why he made the game: to make a political point about gun control. So you can't possibly argue that it's not what he's doing....he said so himself.

So, the problem is that this guy uses the school shooting(which, according to you, a bad example.) to convey the political message? got it.

That's strange. I've not seen the biased political opinion in this game. It is strange how people see two different things in one object(much like when one sees a pot, while another see a symbol of female according to Freud. But I digress).

And as for "Message", you should clearly see beyond the media barrage. Even if it is an article from escapist, there are always hint of far-fetched, quotes pieced together to make sense even if the quote and the game are clearly unrelated.

The quotes are his tweets, and it does not mention anything about the game. The second part of the quote is actually reply to someone. All there is his opinions about the gun control, and in the end he didn't say s#!t about his game. God knows what his message in the game is.

And from my standpoint, game alone is not biased. No message aside from people will bleed if they get shot(or stabbed). It also has link to the gun-control petition AND NRA so I think it is politically correct.

Edit: fixed some grammar issues.

CriticKitten:

Pirate Of PC Master race:
Oh, I've saw that part. Now tell me. What exactly are you doing different than the creator of the game?

Um, did you actually read the article?

I'm going to have to assume that you didn't, judging from this post, so I'll just go ahead and rehash it for you.

The person in question created a video game which depicts a national tragedy in which innocent children lost their lives to a deranged psychopath. And he did this purely to say "guns are bad, mkay?".

That's revolting.

Is it more revolting than depicting a war where thousands upon thousands of innocents where killed to convey the message "war is bad, mkay?" Really don't get where you are coming from here. He made a game with a message, and he put it in a context that best conveys his message. Not really seeing the problem.

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.

Not looking to get into a big "thing" here, but I just want to point out that if the "gun control" mode really is just trying to get the gun out of a locked gun safe and being unable to do so, that's not "gun control" per say, but rather "responsible gun ownership".

So if promoting gun control was the point of this game, the maker failed at even doing that. Leaving the game as just being bland and offensive. :P

Pirate Of PC Master race:
That's strange. I've not seen the biased political opinion in this game.

You mean besides the fact that the person who made the game clearly stated that he made it for the purposes of pushing gun control?

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."

"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."

Yeah, clearly there's no message there. I don't know what I was thinking. <_<

Again: You didn't actually read the article, did you? Even if you want to pull the "it's obviously biased because it's on the Escapist" argument, the guy blatantly says on multiple occasions that he did this to incite a gun control debate. You can't possibly not understand this. He said it was politically motivated, so let's stop being ridiculous and pretending that it's not.

BreakfastMan:
-snip-

Go read my original post. Seriously.

What is with people who just refuse to read the start of the conversation, and just jump into the middle of it, not knowing what was already said? >_>

CriticKitten:
You mean besides the fact that the person who made the game clearly stated that he made it for the purposes of pushing gun control?

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."

Yeah, clearly there's no message there. I don't know what I was thinking. <_<

And show me the part where he says he made this game to reinforce the message that 'gunz r bad'.

Just because I hate EA doesn't mean I can only make a game biased against EA.

CriticKitten:

Again: You didn't actually read the article, did you? Even if you want to pull the "it's obviously biased because it's on the Escapist" argument, the guy blatantly says on multiple occasions that he did this to incite a gun control debate. You can't possibly not understand this. He said it was politically motivated, so let's stop being ridiculous and pretending that it's not.

No, 1. I distrust any news source on the internet.
2. Because I did some background checking on this specific news.

the maker of the game may have been politically motivated(and very biased), but the game itself is not.

If someone sees something in the game when there is no context to form such opinion, I can say who is not guilty in the fault. The game maker.

Pirate Of PC Master race:
And show me the part where he says he made this game to reinforce the message that 'gunz r bad'.

Right, obviously no amount of direct quoting of this guy's own words is enough to convince you that you're wrong.

But you are, and that's the end of the discussion as far as I'm concerned.

You didn't read my original post and had to be corrected as to its contents, and now you're stubbornly refusing to accept the fact that this guy made the game based on his own personal political beliefs. And even if I quoted the guy saying that verbatim, you'd STILL be trying to deny it. This is a waste of my time.

CriticKitten:

BreakfastMan:
-snip-

Go read my original post. Seriously.

What is with people who just refuse to read the start of the conversation, and just jump into the middle of it, not knowing what was already said? >_>

I read your post. All it contained was an appeal to emotion and arguing against the creator's stated point. You didn't make any compelling points in that post as to why using the setting of a real life tragedy to further accentuated a point is something that should not be done.

CriticKitten:

Pirate Of PC Master race:
And show me the part where he says he made this game to reinforce the message that 'gunz r bad'.

Right, obviously no amount of direct quoting of this guy's own words is enough to convince you that you're wrong.

But you are, and that's the end of the discussion as far as I'm concerned.

You didn't read my original post and had to be corrected as to its contents, and now you're stubbornly refusing to accept the fact that this guy made the game based on his own personal political beliefs. And even if I quoted the guy saying that verbatim, you'd STILL be trying to deny it. This is a waste of my time.

Firstly, let me point out that quoting someone does not infer truth or intent on whoever you are quoting. There is a thing such as "taking out of context" for a reason. Even if you do not do this, you can easily interpret some message, whatever it is, to mean something entirely different by forcing your intent on the person making the statement, forcing your opinion to be his intent all along.

But here's the rub, how many school shootings have happened since columbine? How many of these were high-profile media feeding frenizes? It is a fact that as a society we are a bit sick in that we in some way glorify such tragedies, we give these people who were so disillusioned with reality, so angry at the world that they decided to end their life by taking as many people with them as possible, essential immortality. Why? Because we report on this, it doesnt matter whether what they did was good or bad, they become part of our collective human history. But that isnt the worst part, the moment reporting begins, immediately you have people inferring some intent into why the shooter did it, what motivated him. They dont ask the question, they simply state their reasons for it, they arent interested in finding out anything, they just want to push their opinions, their agendas.

So what is wrong about some dude who makes a game about this? Nothing. It doesnt matter whether he "capitalizes" on a tragedy. Human history is ripe with tragedy, and yet we make exceptions as to which are fine to be turned into games and movies and which are not? In a statistic, all school shootings, worldwide, combined pale in comparison to wars, ancient and modern that we have as a species fought against each other. In those wars and their aftermaths, more people, more children died than any fucked up serial killer could hope to achieve.

I will agree that he could have made a better point if he had instead focused on the aftermath, rather than giving you control of the shooter. Mocking the media and its sensationalism in the wake of such events, the knee-jerk reactions, that would have been a better idea. But as it stands, why are some "tragedies" exempt and others arent? What is the difference between those events, other than "too soon"? Why are some people exempt from being mocked in the same manner when they push their political agenda the moment shit like this happens? Why was it fine to demonize and vilify video games after sandy hook, but it isnt okay to mock the idea of arming teachers?

Why is it wrong to point out that there is a need for a better gun control system by using a recent tragedy as a example of what could have been prevented?

BreakfastMan:
-snip-

Er, your original post was not asking me to explain why using a tragedy to make a political point was bad.

It was asking me why I felt that it was okay to do the same thing in movies or books....and I had already said that I didn't think sensationalizing wars via movies and books was any better than this. Which indicated to me that you hadn't read my original post at all, and prompted the response you received.

If you now are asking me why I consider sensationalizing a tragedy to be bad, that's a completely different question than the one you presented originally, and I wish you had said that the first time instead of piling onto a conversation with seemingly no clue of what had transpired prior. >_>

Also I love how you're whipping out "appeal to emotion" as a fallacy in a discussion about the circumstances of several deaths in a mass shooting (which is absolutely an emotional event for many people), as if it makes the least bit of sense. Would you really say to the faces of the families involved in this event that they need to stop being so sensitive and let their children be used as your political bargaining chips? Gods, I would hope you'd have more dignity than that. Sorry, but this isn't a "rational" discussion where you can strip out any sense of the human element, this is a discussion about dead children and how their deaths shouldn't be used as political tools to push an agenda. If you want a rational discussion about the idea of gun control, fine, but leave these things out of it.

A-D.:
-snip-

Read. My. First. Post. I'm getting tired of having to repeat myself.

I have said countless times already that I don't think it's okay to use any tragedy as an excuse for any political or profitable gain. So I'm clearly not saying that it's okay in one case and not in another, I'm saying it's not okay PERIOD. Stop suggesting that I've said anything otherwise, as it's incredibly frustrating.

Apparently the concept of respect for the dead is entirely foreign to most Escapist users. Which disturbs me in all sorts of new ways. Leave tragedies in the past and let the families grieve in peace. That's not to say you can't learn from those tragedies, but different people will take different lessons from these situations, and there's really no reason for anyone to come out and say that what they learned is "wrong" and what you learned is "right". Which is exactly what political grandstanding on these issues does: it interprets a tragedy as a statistic rather than a human event. It removes any sense of the human element from the event and turns it into a set of data points X, Y, and Z that, if fixed, will totally get rid of such tragedies forever, or so the politicians promise us.

I'd much rather discuss the topic of gun control in a forum where the focus isn't on pointing to Sandy Hook and going "See? That wouldn't have happened if you didn't have guns!", which is basically what the game creator is trying to do. And it's my personal opinion that he's a jackass for doing so. You obviously don't agree. Whatever. Not to sound disrespectful or dismissive of you, but honestly, that's how I feel about this discussion here. You think it's okay to exploit deaths for political points, I don't, and we'll never agree. So there's really no point in discussing it further.

Andy Chalk:

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."

I could see why LaPierre wouldn't want the competition.

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."

Absolutely nothing positive. Except for numerous gun laws in numerous states including some of the biggest changes in the state where the shooting happened, Connecticut. Except for a level of awareness that has not been raised on the issue since Columbine (And probably even stronger, because of the number of victims who were little children). Except for a turning of opinion on the NRA and the sociopaths running it who would rather let terrorists and murders (but not black people) have guns than be mildly inconvenienced by a background check or an optional trigger lock.

Nothing good has come out of this.

CriticKitten:

BreakfastMan:
-snip-

Er, your original post was not asking me to explain why using a tragedy to make a political point was bad.

It was asking me why I felt that it was okay to do the same thing in movies or books....and I had already said that I didn't think sensationalizing wars via movies and books was any better than this. Which indicated to me that you hadn't read my original post at all, and prompted the response you received.

That isn't exactly what I was asking you. I was asking more along the lines "what makes Sandy Hook different from WW2". If you have the same problems with, for instance, Saving Private Ryan, fair enough, but from my experience, most people don't.

Also I love how you're whipping out "appeal to emotion" as a fallacy in a discussion about the circumstances of several deaths in a mass shooting (which is absolutely an emotional event for many people), as if it makes the least bit of sense. Would you really say to the faces of the families involved in this event that they need to stop being so sensitive and let their children be used as your political bargaining chips? Gods, I would hope you'd have more dignity than that. Sorry, but this isn't a "rational" discussion where you can strip out any sense of the human element, this is a discussion about dead children and how their deaths shouldn't be used as political tools to push an agenda. If you want a rational discussion about the idea of gun control, fine, but leave these things out of it.

Except I don't get why the reactions of some people are relevant to this piece being considered "legitimate art" or simply "sick exploitation"? The personal is political, fine, I get and accept that. Their emotions are legitimate and there is probably some good discussions about whether or not the game got its message across right. What I don't get is your argument that people getting offended at a setting is enough for the game to be classified as "sick filth".

CriticKitten:

A-D.:
-snip-

Read. My. First. Post. I'm getting tired of having to repeat myself.

I have said countless times already that I don't think it's okay to use any tragedy as an excuse for any political or profitable gain. So I'm clearly not saying that it's okay in one case and not in another, I'm saying it's not okay PERIOD. Stop suggesting that I've said anything otherwise, as it's incredibly frustrating.

Apparently the concept of respect for the dead is entirely foreign to most Escapist users. Which disturbs me in all sorts of new ways. Leave tragedies in the past and let the families grieve in peace. That's not to say you can't learn from those tragedies, but different people will take different lessons from these situations, and there's really no reason for anyone to come out and say that what they learned is "wrong" and what you learned is "right". Which is exactly what political grandstanding on these issues does: it interprets a tragedy as a statistic rather than a human event. It removes any sense of the human element from the event and turns it into a set of data points X, Y, and Z that, if fixed, will totally get rid of such tragedies forever, or so the politicians promise us.

I'd much rather discuss the topic of gun control in a forum where the focus isn't on pointing to Sandy Hook and going "See? That wouldn't have happened if you didn't have guns!", which is basically what the game creator is trying to do. And it's my personal opinion that he's a jackass for doing so. You obviously don't agree. Whatever.

I. Have. Read. Your. Entire. First. Post.

We done with periods for emphasis? The only point adressed specifically to you was the first paragraph, the rest is generalized on the topic, i am sorry for not making it more obvious but i figured people notice when i specifically point to something someone in the thread said that didnt come from them first. Which implies you havent read most of the posts in this thread.

Pirate Of PC Master race:

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.

I don't know if you are being sarcastic or not, but if you aren't...

Force me to carry a gun and I will shoot 5 or more people and then myself.

I will be dead and you can all choke on the irony of your "safety measure". Maybe I cant say this will happen with 100% certainty but it will be a thought that will cross my mind multiple times with me having all too easy access to carry it out.

I VOLUNTARILY and of my own initiative got rid of my guns after my first brush with suicide involving them, and thanks to the gun nuts we do not and will not have sufficient background checks to keep guns out of the hands of people like me. You just have to trust that me having the barrier of going out to buy another gun and then abiding whatever cursory waiting period and/or background check (I don't have a record of criminal activity or involuntary psych-ward commitment so I am sure I'd pass) is enough to keep that from happening.

Scary isn't it?

Your solution is a ideological fantasy that is just as likely to cause more gun deaths than prevent them. Every fist fight or potential fist fight will turn into "I felt threatened by him so I shot him."

I have no problems saying that it would have been better for George Zimmerman to have a broken nose (and even a concussion, as it's rather hard to beat a person to death) than to have a dead Treyvon Martin. And I would much rather live in a world where people are free to enter into fisticuffs without having to worry about getting shot or shooting back.

"Outrage" is hilarious.

People get "outraged" at things they can willingly avoid with minimal effort. Sort your fucking lives out.

If this stupid crap is getting his name other there he's doing something right. I'm almost temped to try this myself. Would anyone here be insulted if I created a game where you had to step into Hitler's shoes and plot to take over the world? Or maybe torture people? What level of controversy is necessary to sell my poorly designed garbage games?

Chris Moses:

I don't know if you are being sarcastic or not, but if you aren't...

Force me to carry a gun and I will shoot 5 or more people and then myself.

I will be dead and you can all choke on the irony of your "safety measure". Maybe I cant say this will happen with 100% certainty but it will be a thought that will cross my mind multiple times with me having all too easy access to carry it out.

I VOLUNTARILY and of my own initiative got rid of my guns after my first brush with suicide involving them, and thanks to the gun nuts we do not and will not have sufficient background checks to keep guns out of the hands of people like me. You just have to trust that me having the barrier of going out to buy another gun and then abiding whatever cursory waiting period and/or background check (I don't have a record of criminal activity or involuntary psych-ward commitment so I am sure I'd pass) is enough to keep that from happening.

Scary isn't it?

Your solution is a ideological fantasy that is just as likely to cause more gun deaths than prevent them. Every fist fight or potential fist fight will turn into "I felt threatened by him so I shot him."

I have no problems saying that it would have been better for George Zimmerman to have a broken nose (and even a concussion, as it's rather hard to beat a person to death) than to have a dead Treyvon Martin. And I would much rather live in a world where people are free to enter into fisticuffs without having to worry about getting shot or shooting back.

I am partially sarcastic(mainly because I don't actually living in US, or just because I want to see nation engulfed in the greatest game of battle royale), And I understand those situation. I would come very close to shooting one person if I have to carry a gun around.

But that would at least disprove that NRA claim that guns are making America safer, right?

Flunk:
If this stupid crap is getting his name other there he's doing something right. I'm almost temped to try this myself. Would anyone here be insulted if I created a game where you had to step into Hitler's shoes and plot to take over the world? Or maybe torture people? What level of controversy is necessary to sell my poorly designed garbage games?

Hitler is soo thing of the past. I recommend something that has to do with feminism.

BreakfastMan:
That isn't exactly what I was asking you. I was asking more along the lines "what makes Sandy Hook different from WW2". If you have the same problems with, for instance, Saving Private Ryan, fair enough, but from my experience, most people don't.

I wasn't aware that Saving Private Ryan was trying to push a particular political agenda. Perhaps you could enlighten me?

Except I don't get why the reactions of some people are relevant to this piece being considered "legitimate art" or simply "sick exploitation"? The personal is political, fine, I get and accept that. Their emotions are legitimate and there is probably some good discussions about whether or not the game got its message across right. What I don't get is your argument that people getting offended at a setting is enough for the game to be classified as "sick filth".

It's not so much the fact that people got offended is "enough" to shove the game down a toilet and flush, it's more the fact that this game exists solely to push the creator's political agenda in favor of gun control. The use of deaths as political fodder is just wrong and thoroughly repulsive to me.

Though granted, the very idea of a game that could even marginally be interpreted as "glorifying" a school shooting in any way is probably best not being made to begin with.

A-D.:
The only point adressed specifically to you was the first paragraph, the rest is generalized on the topic, i am sorry for not making it more obvious but i figured people notice when i specifically point to something someone in the thread said that didnt come from them first.

Not really. When the quote is the first thing in the post, I tend to presume that the entire post is about the quote. Unless, of course, it's explicitly sectioned off with other posts (as this post is), or is otherwise organized in such a way as to prevent that sort of confusion (such as putting your own general opinion first, and the posted quotes / quote discussion second, as I've also done in the past).

You didn't make the effort to do either one, so the logical conclusion to make was that your post referred to me in its entirety. Be more clear next time.

CriticKitten:

BreakfastMan:
That isn't exactly what I was asking you. I was asking more along the lines "what makes Sandy Hook different from WW2". If you have the same problems with, for instance, Saving Private Ryan, fair enough, but from my experience, most people don't.

I wasn't aware that Saving Private Ryan was trying to push a particular political agenda. Perhaps you could enlighten me?

The message of much of Saving Private Ryan is "war is hell and very bad". Same with other famous war films like Platoon,
Full Metal Jacket, Slaughterhouse 5, and others. The message that "war is bad" is very much a political message.

Except I don't get why the reactions of some people are relevant to this piece being considered "legitimate art" or simply "sick exploitation"? The personal is political, fine, I get and accept that. Their emotions are legitimate and there is probably some good discussions about whether or not the game got its message across right. What I don't get is your argument that people getting offended at a setting is enough for the game to be classified as "sick filth".

It's not so much the fact that people got offended is "enough" to shove the game down a toilet and flush, it's more the fact that this game exists solely to push the creator's political agenda in favor of gun control. The use of deaths as political fodder is just wrong and thoroughly repulsive to me.

So, a game exists to convey a message, and uses a real life tragedy to help ensure the message hits home. Not sure why political messages are the wrong ones to use? That is not to mention, pretty much every message conveyed by a piece of fiction could be considered "political" on some level.

BreakfastMan:
The message of much of Saving Private Ryan is "war is hell and very bad". Same with other famous war films like Platoon,
Full Metal Jacket, Slaughterhouse 5, and others. The message that "war is bad" is very much a political message.

Mmm, that seems like an awfully loose interpretation of "political message" but I can see why you might say that.

So, a game exists to convey a message, and uses a real life tragedy to help ensure the message hits home. Not sure why political messages are the wrong ones to use? That is not to mention, pretty much every message conveyed by a piece of fiction could be considered "political" on some level.

Not really. There's a significant difference between a work actively shoving its political message in your face, and having an underlying message at the core but not being overt about it. This is hardly argued as being secretive about your aims. And there's plenty of fiction works which don't necessarily focus on a political message at all.

Me, I play my games to have fun. Couldn't give a crap if it wants to try and push politics onto me, because that's not what I bought it for. If I want politics, I can turn the TV on and switch it to basically any station, there's about a hundred "news" stations any more. I don't need my games telling me how to think, all they need to do is let me enjoy myself. The only "politics" I want to do in my games is with me on one end of a weapon, preferably a bow, and zambambos on the other end getting shot at.

This game, however, exists ONLY to convey its political message. To that end, it's what I'd call a bad game right from the get-go. But then it takes that further and uses the tragic deaths of minors as part of that political message, which (for me) is what pushes it right off the edge of just being a bad game and into the region of "this is scum, and the creator is a jackass".

I fully and freely admit that it's an opinion, but that's how I look at it. I get enough politics from the media and TV, I don't need politics forcibly inserting themselves into my various forms of escapism as well.

Yeah, nobody in the Media will every notice that this game... isn't a game. It's not fun. There's no objective, struggle, reward, or even any gameplay really. It's not a GAME. It's an interactive piece of social commentary.

I am not for stricter Gun Laws. I AM for more Personal Responsibility. This sick fuck who killed these people killed his mother with a gun that she left where he could get it. AFTER she already was worried that he may be dangerous. This was the fault of his psychosis and HER being horrendously irresponsible. Every single human being needs to be responsible for their own possessions and actions. Enough of this "Legislate it, quick!" attitude. We all need to be better than comes easy.

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," Newtown First Selectman Pat Llordra told CTPost.com. She said she's turned matter over the the local police and FBI for investigation.

Well here's the problem.

People hear "someone made a Sandy Hook game" and they think it's something that's supposed to be entertaining.

I played it; it's most certainly not. The atmosphere and animations are dark and unsettling, and the endscreen tells you the exact numbers of the massacre (and the ones you caused in-game). Hell, the first thing you do in the game is shoot your mother in her sleep (and then again, and again, and once more "just the be sure").

I think anyone getting up-in-arms about this game hasn't taken the time to play it.

I feel like some of the things people are claiming are just projecting onto things they see, rather than things they know.

That's all I'm going to say here.

CriticKitten:
it's more the fact that this game exists solely to push the creator's political agenda in favor of gun control

What if I were to tell you that there exists people who don't see everything as a chance to push an agenda? My personal views on the subject are that we, as Humans, should be completely against making murder as easy as pulling a trigger in a state of emotional weakness. It is not 'pushing a political agenda' for me, it is about basic ethics and morality. I was actually furious at Sandy Hook. I mean, seriously... furious. Why? Because innocent kids had their lives stolen from them. That's a huge tragedy and we should all be doing everything we can to prevent that. If by taking away America's murder toys we can save even one child's life then it is worth it.

That's not politics, it's kind of our duty as living, thinking beings.

I'm ambivalent about the game itself, if he was doing for shock value then whop-de-do he can join the endless line of other internet shock jocks who have long since stopped bothering me. If he actually had a point good for him, I can appreciate a good troll.
That said when I got to this

"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."

I instantly stopped liking the guy

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?

Today, actually. 10 USC 311.

Anyhow, the Second sadly doesn't have as much case law as things like the Fourth or Fifth amendments. But Heller and McDonald carved out an individual right to traditionally lawful gun ownership.

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?

Congratulations: There is a process to change constitutional amendments. Now, if 13 states disagree with it, it won't happen. Now taking the former CSA, the Midwest, and most mountain region states, you've got no chance of actually changing the second amendment save for a SCOTUS fiat.

Zachary Amaranth:
Absolutely nothing positive. Except for numerous gun laws in numerous states including some of the biggest changes in the state where the shooting happened, Connecticut. Except for a level of awareness that has not been raised on the issue since Columbine (And probably even stronger, because of the number of victims who were little children). Except for a turning of opinion on the NRA and the sociopaths running it who would rather let terrorists and murders (but not black people) have guns than be mildly inconvenienced by a background check or an optional trigger lock.

Nothing good has come out of this.

Gun control passed in liberal states. Annnnnnd not much else. Florida didn't end it's controversial "stand your ground" law despite all the anger. States floated similar laws in the time and it looks like Ohio might be passing one. Joe "Double barrel shotgun" Biden's advice was widely ignored and moderate legislation floundered in congress. Despite, apparently, 90% of people agreeing with with it, background checks failed. Oh, and now Illinois will have to start issuing concealed carry permits. There's that too.

Except for a turning of opinion on the NRA and the sociopaths running it who would rather let terrorists and murders (but not black people) have guns than be mildly inconvenienced by a background check or an optional trigger lock.

Listen up: I'm tired of explaining the NRA's stance on the terror watch list, but it appears I'll have to do so again

Basically, they argue that you cannot be denied your constitutional rights if you're "suspected" of maybe committing terrorism in the future, because being put on a secret watchlist has little oversight. Simply put, people on the terror watch list have either A) Been convicted of a felony, and are thus barred from owning a gun or B) Not been convicted. Using any level of constitutional scrutiny, banning a person in group B because people think he might be dangerous in the future from exercising a constitutional right would not pass muster unless the government could prove that he was intent on committing a crime.

Except for a turning of opinion on the NRA and the sociopaths running it who would rather let terrorists and murders (but not black people) have guns than be mildly inconvenienced by a background check or an optional trigger lock.

Really? I've skimmed over my NRA range handbook and several of their newsletters and I can find no reference to barring blacks from firearm ownership. I'll have to ask one of my range buddies about this.

Also, as a side note: Trigger locks are kinda meh. Cable locks are better, in my humble opinion, because you can't store a gun loaded that way. If you plan on using it for home defense, it really shouldn't be locked either way.

EDIT: Ah, crap, I forgot to mention the game.

Uhhhh..... I got nothing.

Is this guy really suggesting that taking a life in self defense is equal to murder? What a fucking idiot. Look, I NEVER want to have to kill another person, but if I'm left without a choice, or what I perceive to be no choice, I shouldn't be guilted for doing what I have to do to protect my own life from someone who is attempting to steal it from me.

Alternative? You don't give an attacker the benefit of a doubt. You just don't. This guy with a knife to my wife's throat, he MIGHT not kill her so i probably shouldn't shoot him, right? This person pointing a gun at my daughter's head... maybe he's just trying to scare her, so I should wait to see what he's going to do before I shoot him, right?

Fuck that. That's IDIOTIC. If we've really reached a point as a society where you want to give the fucking CRIMINALS the benefit of a doubt and not allow citizens the ability to protect their own lives... then what the fuck are we trying to protect?

CM156:

Gun control passed in liberal states. Annnnnnd not much else.

Which is still a "positive" effect. I didn't realise we had to address Florida specifically to have any positive effect. but then....

Listen up: I'm tired of explaining the NRA's stance on the terror watch list

If you're tired of repeating a dishonest line, then stop. Don't act like people aren't listening just because you aren't explaining something in line with reality.

Also, as a side note: Trigger locks are kinda meh.

I don't care if they're 'meh' or not. The NRA had a temper tantrum when gun companies started optionally including them. And no matter how you may try to spin it, it wasn't because the NRA was concerned that they lacked efficacy.

omega 616:
I mean, when was the last time any American was in a Militia?

The US military is a militia. Within our framework, they are defined as such.

AldUK:

What if I were to tell you that there exists people who don't see everything as a chance to push an agenda? My personal views on the subject are that we, as Humans, should be completely against making murder as easy as pulling a trigger in a state of emotional weakness. It is not 'pushing a political agenda' for me, it is about basic ethics and morality. I was actually furious at Sandy Hook. I mean, seriously... furious. Why? Because innocent kids had their lives stolen from them. That's a huge tragedy and we should all be doing everything we can to prevent that. If by taking away America's murder toys we can save even one child's life then it is worth it.

That's not politics, it's kind of our duty as living, thinking beings.

'Pushing an agenda' has been Fladerised to meaning 'saying something I don't like.'

It's really weird that media that have existed for centuries or millenia and have used that time as social commentary or promotion of ideals are now considered bad for pushing an agenda. I know games are the newcomer, but it's still funny as hell.

It's sort of like that Fox News chick who was complaining that Seasame Street used to be about sharing and stuff but now it's about socialism.

Zachary Amaranth:
Which is still a "positive" effect. I didn't realise we had to address Florida specifically to have any positive effect. but then....

Gun control passing in a liberal state isn't news. And it happens regularly without any real reason behind it. Or, to be more specific, without any particular tragedy behind it

If you're tired of repeating a dishonest line, then stop. Don't act like people aren't listening just because you aren't explaining something in line with reality.

So you're OK with denying people the right to purchase firearms because they're suspected of future crime, even though such a stance would be laughed out of court of such shaky standards were applied to any other constitutional right?

I don't care if they're 'meh' or not. The NRA had a temper tantrum when gun companies started optionally including them. And no matter how you may try to spin it, it wasn't because the NRA was concerned that they lacked efficacy.

Do you have a source on the NRA being upset at "optional" trigger locks? Because what I find are objections over mandatory trigger lock storage (which the court ruled against in Heller anyways.

The US military is a militia. Within our framework, they are defined as such.

I actually posted that under the US code the military is different from the militia.

Going to try to avoid the obvious political debate happening here, but I do want to mention a thing I noticed that I'm not sure if anyone else mentioned (I didn't read all the comments): The "Gun Control" path is really not representing gun control at all. If the gun is just locked in a safe, that's just responsible ownership of a firearm, the way most gun owners act. If there wasn't a gun at all, and it said something along the lines of "Because of laws enacted after the last tragedy, nobody owns any guns", it would be gun control. As it stands, not only is this....Debatably OK, it's inaccurate.

"The concept that taking life isn't encroaching these rights if done is self-defense is just wrong."

What a dumb ass. If he followed his history then he would know that the whole liberal philosophy concerning civil liberties is that you have inalienable rights... until you infringe upon another persons human rights. If someone tries to kill you then of course you have the right to defend yourself. I don't even consider this a guns rights issue. If you want to advocate gun control, fine, but the idea that self defense is morally wrong is horrible.

Incidentally, I prefer the idea of having an armed citizenry in order to protect the rights of the people. The constitution doesn't protect peoples gun rights so that they can shoot deer, it protects those rights so they can shoot tyrants.

AldUK:
-snip-

That's very nice and all, but I don't think you understand at all what I'm saying.

This person is pushing a political agenda. He's admitted to as much in the past when he did the same for the Virginia Tech shooting. So it's not a question of whether or not he is....he is. He's said that he is. I'm not sure why people in this thread keep trying to insinuate that he's not politically motivated when he's essentially admitted that he is. So can we stop this dishonest charade?

Furthermore, something no one's pointed out yet: The fact that he's using video games as a medium to make this "political point" only further sours the interaction of the gaming community with these same political dinosaurs who already tried to use Sandy Hook as political motivation to limit the sale and production of video games. As if they need any additional fuel for those flames.

But let's set that aside for a moment. Let me ask you a question, and I hope you'll at least be honest with yourself, if not here in this thread.

Would you, or anyone else here, be saying the same if he'd developed this game and based it around the Fox news narrative that it's because of violent video games that this crime occurred?

No, I wager not, but that's the inherent hypocrisy here: The only reason so many people here are defending it is because of their own personal political leans in favor of gun control. Whereas I just think it's disgusting that he did it at all, and I'm willing to set aside my political thoughts on the subject to point out that perhaps this is one case where politics are better left out of our video games.

And I must say, I'm positively baffled that I'm seemingly the only person here who thinks that it's disrespectful to the dead to use their bodies as soap boxes. Maybe it's a generational thing. I'm clearly getting old.

slash2x:
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.

I agree even if this guy was just trying to make a game about gun control he has done it in the worst way as it the news will only see the basic idea say he is a sick fuck and declare gamers a killers.

 Pages PREV 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