Ryan Lambourn's Slaying Of Sandy Hook Draws Condemnation

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 NEXT
 

Here is my question to all who defend and play the game. What joy is there to be had in shooting defenseless characters? What pleasure is brought about by delving in to the macabre realm of killing children?

One could argue that shooting at Nazis in a WW2 sim or blasting away a horde of zombies is the same thing, but I would disagree. In a WW2 sim or a zombie survival game both have a noble motive for your actions. Both are survival and one is to stop an evil of some kind.

One could say "look at COD or Battlefield! Surely that is senseless violence!" Again I would say in both games you are playing as a soldier who, by inference, is trained and employed to kill for his country. You are playing a role that, though thin as this line is, is honorable in its own way. You are a soldier who took a vow to defend and protect his country and is fulfilling his promise by following his leaders instructions.

These few examples are in stark contrast to the game of sandy hook shooting, or the V-tech shooting game and those like it. In these games there is nothing honorable nor redeeming in anyway. The player must kill children, defenseless teachers, and other victims. One must ask a simple and horrifying question: What is more horrible? The tragic death of innocents caused by one man or the celebration and reenactment of these tragedies by thousands who hold it up as a good game?

We as gamers wonder why people point to our media as the fount of real world death and despair, yet ignore or defend games that publicly and cheerfully use violence on the defenseless. We must see that even a simple flash game can cause a lot of harm and cause evil far beyond what we can conceive.

I ask again: What joy do you receive by shooting children or those that have no chance to defend themselves? Is there an answer to this question that puts you in a good light and what does it say about the larger gaming community? We need to ponder this and find out what we plan for our future.

Pirate Of PC Master race:

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.

Well, let me establish right here and now that my own experience and perspective, as I have expressed it, is anecdotal at best. On the other hand, I know I am not alone...

I cant deny that there have been times when guns have saved lives. As an earlier poster said

Baresark- Fact: guns take lives. Fact: guns save lives. Fact: Murderers use guns. Fact: people defend themselves from murderers with guns using guns themselves.

Ideally, I'd like to see the US in regards to guns becoming like Great Britain where the cops don't even need to carry them. But, I also understand that is an extreme and ideological approach and it's NEVER a good thing to try to force that kind of thing. Yet, I also can see merit in being able to hunt (I did so as a kid) and to be able to defend your home.

What I specifically came here to debate/oppose (as you can see from my number of posts) is this equally extreme and ideological idea that somehow society will be better/safer if we required everyone to carry a gun. For one thing we are ALREADY living in a time of historically LOW crime rates.

I have given this a lot of thought and I have debated it several times. Sparing you all the multi-page exposition it would take to explain everything in detail, here is the fairest and most balanced solution as I see it:

Magazine limits between 7-10 rounds (maybe as many as 15 for rifles). Registration and licensing required for the sale and ownership of ANY firearm. A background check, psychiatric evaluation and history review being required for the issue and renewal of said license. We also need a way to track or look for crooked gun dealers that sell guns illegally. It'd been determined that only 1% of gun dealers are guilty of this. If we could somehow track inventory and/or sales it should be fairly simple to shut them down. But currently there is legislation that actually prevents us from tracing them and stopping it.

That's it. People get to keep all their favorite guns, even the ones that are or look like military grade weapons.

"But that wont prevent 100% of gun crimes!" people will scream. Let me ask you this. What law and subsequent punishment has ever prevented that law from ever being broken? None, no law, ever. Even during the age of iron maidens, the rack, impaling, and burning people at the stake. People still broke those laws and the most brutal punishments imaginable weren't enough to stop them. So, unless you are arguing that we should remove the rule of law from society entirely (like that wont make things worse) let's put to bed this PREPOSTEROUS argument definitively. If law abiding gun owners are so keen on obeying the law, they would obey these laws. If not, then they cant really claim to be all that "law abiding" can they?

It is ridiculous that 90% of people agree with background checks, but the minority of 10% can kick and scream so loudly that we cant even get this simple and minimal of measures passed. For all those that think we need guns to stop tyranny... How is 10% preventing 90% from doing what they feel is necessary anything but tyranny? Suddenly the tough rhetoric and veiled threats fall silent... How can we even trust you as guardians against tyranny when you call a twice democratically elected official a "tyrant" and miss something so obvious?

An argument can be made to keep guns out of the hands of the people lest they be co-opted into the army of a REAL tyrant. I am not going to stand behind that argument. I am just saying it can be made...

Yeesh, looks like I still managed to make a long winded exposition. Sorry about that and kudos to anyone for plowing through it.

Having played the game on NG before it was pulled and reading the comments (and the authors responses) many people on NG didn't like it either (the message, not art or style). Most objections (on NG) were about *the event* rather than message or style. Also Tom on NG was contacted about it (for removal) from the parents of some of those who died.

One of his comments revolves around when youtube has something bad, the uploader is targeted by mass-media, but when NG has something, Newgrounds as a whole is called a cesspit (sic).

I disagree with it being taken down. Especially since nothing has been done to prevent it happening again.

Fox12:
"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.

As much as you'd like to make this an "is or isn't" dichotomy, some interesting exceptions have come to mind that I'd like to point out.

Many people see the Bible as the ultimate definition and purveyor of morality, yet it has passages such as "kill your enemies with kindness", "turn the other cheek" and Jesus telling Peter "Put away your sword". Even if you see Jesus as a purely fictional character you cant deny the effect of Him allowing Himself to be killed instead of "defending Himself" as this one act, real or imagined, has shaped and defined the last 2,000 years of Western Civilization.

Even if you are a devout and angry atheist that will deny the positive affect of any religion, the peaceful activism of Martin Luther King and Ghandi and their followers succeeded not through the violent defense against beating and outright murder, but through the peaceful perseverance despite the threats, beatings and killings.

Granted defending yourself from a home invasion or street mugging is hardly a religious or political movement. But, not defending yourself can in certain circumstances be more moral and lead to a greater common moral outcome than using violence to defend yourself.

CriticKitten:
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?

Yet, this simple fact, that it is a politically motivated piece of media, means that this piece of work, for whatever it is worth, is worthy of protection from censorship. And with that said, I will say NO. We we will not try to stop it.

blackrave:
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

Well, I thought United 93 was a hell of a movie. Not a fun one and one I'd never want to watch again, but a damn fine movie.

Anyhow, why do we even care? Whether he's doing it for shock value or really is trying to make a point, so what? Nobody will listen to what he's trying to say, nobody is ever going to be persuaded by this, and its all just so... stupid.

Chris Moses:

Fox12:
"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.

As much as you'd like to make this an "is or isn't" dichotomy, some interesting exceptions have come to mind that I'd like to point out.

Many people see the Bible as the ultimate definition and purveyor of morality, yet it has passages such as "kill your enemies with kindness", "turn the other cheek" and Jesus telling Peter "Put away your sword". Even if you see Jesus as a purely fictional character you cant deny the effect of Him allowing Himself to be killed instead of "defending Himself" as this one act, real or imagined, has shaped and defined the last 2,000 years of Western Civilization.

Even if you are a devout and angry atheist that will deny the positive affect of any religion, the peaceful activism of Martin Luther King and Ghandi and their followers succeeded not through the violent defense against beating and outright murder, but through the peaceful perseverance despite the threats, beatings and killings.

Granted defending yourself from a home invasion or street mugging is hardly a religious or political movement. But, not defending yourself can in certain circumstances be more moral and lead to a greater common moral outcome than using violence to defend yourself.

Congratulations, you just managed to bring religion into a gun control + video game censorship debate. It's like seeing a person being mauled by a bear and a lion at the same time and then throwing a hungry wolf at him as well... -.-

Also, I am not exactly sure why you are pointing at the Bible of all things. I mean, the New testament is so-so, but even that has some pretty iffy passages, and the old testament is so full of insane cruelty, murder and insanity it's not even funny...

But on topic: ... meh. I really couldn't care less. My country has practically the same gun control laws that #72 outlined, and we have practically no gun-related crimes. As such I can't really imagine how this entire gun-culture of yours even work. In fact I can't even fathom how Americans are able to even step out of the homes in the morning while knowing that any person on the street can be a nutjob with free access to firearms...

GabeZhul:

Chris Moses:

Fox12:
"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.

As much as you'd like to make this an "is or isn't" dichotomy, some interesting exceptions have come to mind that I'd like to point out.

Many people see the Bible as the ultimate definition and purveyor of morality, yet it has passages such as "kill your enemies with kindness", "turn the other cheek" and Jesus telling Peter "Put away your sword". Even if you see Jesus as a purely fictional character you cant deny the effect of Him allowing Himself to be killed instead of "defending Himself" as this one act, real or imagined, has shaped and defined the last 2,000 years of Western Civilization.

Even if you are a devout and angry atheist that will deny the positive affect of any religion, the peaceful activism of Martin Luther King and Ghandi and their followers succeeded not through the violent defense against beating and outright murder, but through the peaceful perseverance despite the threats, beatings and killings.

Granted defending yourself from a home invasion or street mugging is hardly a religious or political movement. But, not defending yourself can in certain circumstances be more moral and lead to a greater common moral outcome than using violence to defend yourself.

Congratulations, you just managed to bring religion into a gun control + video game censorship debate. It's like seeing a person being mauled by a bear and a lion at the same time and then throwing a hungry wolf at him as well... -.-

Also, I am not exactly sure why you are pointing at the Bible of all things. I mean, the New testament is so-so, but even that has some pretty iffy passages, and the old testament is so full of insane cruelty, murder and insanity it's not even funny...

But on topic: ... meh. I really couldn't care less. My country has practically the same gun control laws that #72 outlined, and we have practically no gun-related crimes. As such I can't really imagine how this entire gun-culture of yours even work. In fact I can't even fathom how Americans are able to even step out of the homes in the morning while knowing that any person on the street can be a nutjob with free access to firearms...

It seems you stopped reading after the word Bible. I am also... bothered by your implication that I am pro-religion by the sheer fact that I bring it up. I purposely was noncommittal and nonjudgemental in the treatment of the one of THREE examples I used to show that a greater moral victory (or effect) can be achieved by NOT using violence to defend oneself.

Eh, I thought it was only religious zealots that became irrationally agitated when someone inappropriately(?) discussed religion or a religious concept...[shrugs]

It has also occurred to me to point out that both Martin Luther King and Gandhi were religious people whose actions were at least in part influenced by religious concepts and philosophies.

As to your last statement. I've accepted that life is inherently risky and that you can literally drive yourself insane worrying about every possible way you can die. I will admit it is scary at times to consider all of the nut-jobs potentially carrying a gun and the fact that they actively encourage more nut-jobs to carry guns, but I try to keep it in perspective by reminding myself that cancer and hearth disease are still the most likely way I will die, with accidents being the 5th most likely and suicide will be the 10th most likely (in fact maybe more so for me). Homicides rank as the 16th mostly likely way to die in the US. I found that ALL firearm related deaths, (31,672) including accidents and suicides, account for roughly 1.3% of all deaths recorded in 2010 (rank 13).

The "fires" of this fear are unfortunately fanned in this country by a sensationalist media and politicians trying to drum up support, and it destroys the credibility of EITHER side that uses this tactic.

Also, I was #72... why didn't you just say so?

http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/deaths.htm (for the more detailed information click on the PDF "source" link on that page)

SamTheNewb:
Yet, this simple fact, that it is a politically motivated piece of media, means that this piece of work, for whatever it is worth, is worthy of protection from censorship. And with that said, I will say NO. We we will not try to stop it.

Er, you clearly misinterpreted my statement there.

"Can we stop this dishonest charade?" refers to the people in this thread who are continuing to pretend that this game isn't politically motivated, even though the individual in question has stated that he is, and has made previous games with the same message referring to other mass shootings. I am not calling for censorship of the game, merely the dismissal of the ridiculous pretenses that people in this thread are insisting on. Call the spade for what it is, stop acting like this guy just felt like making a mass shooting game based on Sandy Hook without a message behind it because that is clearly not the case here.

I am, however, sticking by my original stance and calling him a jackass for making it in the first place.

Chris Moses:

It seems you stopped reading after the word Bible. I am also... bothered by your implication that I am pro-religion by the sheer fact that I bring it up. I purposely was noncommittal and nonjudgemental in the treatment of the one of THREE examples I used to show that a greater moral victory (or effect) can be achieved by NOT using violence to defend oneself.

Eh, I thought it was only religious zealots that became irrationally agitated when someone inappropriately(?) discussed religion or a religious concept...[shrugs]

It has also occurred to me to point out that both Martin Luther King and Gandhi were religious people whose actions were at least in part influenced by religious concepts and philosophies.

As to your last statement. I've accepted that life is inherently risky and that you can literally drive yourself insane worrying about every possible way you can die. I will admit it is scary at times to consider all of the nut-jobs potentially carrying a gun and the fact that they actively encourage more nut-jobs to carry guns, but I try to keep it in perspective by reminding myself that cancer and hearth disease are still the most likely way I will die, with accidents being the 5th most likely and suicide will be the 10th most likely (in fact maybe more so for me). Homicides rank as the 16th mostly likely way to die in the US. I found that ALL firearm related deaths, (31,672) including accidents and suicides, account for roughly 1.3% of all deaths recorded in 2010 (rank 13).

The "fires" of this fear are unfortunately fanned in this country by a sensationalist media and politicians trying to drum up support, and it destroys the credibility of EITHER side that uses this tactic.

Also, I was #72... why didn't you just say so?

http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/deaths.htm (for the more detailed information click on the PDF "source" link on that page)

I am not implying anything, just noting that bringing a new flame-provoking subject into a debate with two flame-provoking subjects already present is a bit foolish.

Also, bringing up religious people as good examples are as fallacious as bringing up religious people as bad examples. Being religious does not really mean anything in this debate, good or bad, and judging a belief-system on the individual extremes is just silly anyways.

As for #72... It's hard to keep track of people with generic avatars, my apologies for not noticing it was you.

What's more irritating is that someone (and presumably loads of people) find this "shocking". It's tasteless and maybe exploitative, but not shocking.

Have they been on the Internet? Ever? Have they ever met another human being?

We do some terrible and fucked up shit as a species. Constantly and throughout history. Rape is a thing for fuck's sake. People mutilate and amputate their own genitalia in a sober, if not mentally stable, state. People kill themselves and each other all the time for a myriad of bizarre and inane reasons.

With the advent of the Internet, all human behavior is even more apparent, especially the more socially perverse and deviant acts.

The game may be crude, rude, sans tact, socially unacceptable and stupid, but it's in no way shocking.

Chris Moses:

Fox12:
"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.

As much as you'd like to make this an "is or isn't" dichotomy, some interesting exceptions have come to mind that I'd like to point out.

Many people see the Bible as the ultimate definition and purveyor of morality, yet it has passages such as "kill your enemies with kindness", "turn the other cheek" and Jesus telling Peter "Put away your sword". Even if you see Jesus as a purely fictional character you cant deny the effect of Him allowing Himself to be killed instead of "defending Himself" as this one act, real or imagined, has shaped and defined the last 2,000 years of Western Civilization.

Even if you are a devout and angry atheist that will deny the positive affect of any religion, the peaceful activism of Martin Luther King and Ghandi and their followers succeeded not through the violent defense against beating and outright murder, but through the peaceful perseverance despite the threats, beatings and killings.

Granted defending yourself from a home invasion or street mugging is hardly a religious or political movement. But, not defending yourself can in certain circumstances be more moral and lead to a greater common moral outcome than using violence to defend yourself.

I don't disagree with you here. I'm not saying that a person should seek revenge, or that killing someone should the first option. I, myself, do not even own a gun. I feel safe where I am, and I don't have anyone but myself to protect living with me. I also don't think violence is a very good option in either our domestic or foreign policies, and I've opposed all the recent wars and the proposed bombing of Syria.I also don't think any armed resistance against the government would be necessary unless we were an all out dictatorship, and the people had tried every other form of peaceful representation. So I get where your coming from, I agree with you.

I just don't like absolutes, atleast not in this case. Self defense may not be the best option all the time, but I don't consider it immoral either. The problem is that the rights he's discussing, the ones he mentioned by name in his speech, are based on liberal philosophies such as just war. Just War being the belief that war is immoral unless you are directly attacked, and if other options were denied to you. An example would be WW2. The early versions of these philosophies were based on christian doctrine. Even though later liberal (thought today we'd call them libertarian) philosophers were not religious, they still held onto the idea of individual rights. In other words, I have a right to life, but if I try to take another persons right to life then they have the right to defend themselves. Don't get me wrong, I think you're right, I just think self defense should at least be an option, even if it's a last resort.

Draconalis:
snip

In the modern world, it just wouldn't happen. With all the nuclear deterrents the E.U and red tape/bureaucracy that invading another country is never going to happen, invasions are a thing of the past to me. You could say "well, the Iraq war was an invasion" but to me that is just America, world police going to work. An invasion to me implies conquest and homefront was just a game, Korea isn't going to arrive in Cali and be like "we own this shit!".

Lets not go into immigration 'cos this isn't Machete.

Sorry but whut? You bought a gun after sandy hook to protect your daughter ... She going to call you up if a guy targets the school and you turn into Kindergarten cop? I don't mean to take the piss but I'm English, it's what we do.

I think allowing guns to be bought by Joe Bloggs is a dangerous thing, they could have it for the most noble intentions or for bad ones. I say things need to be very strict:
required range training.
Yearly mental health checks for stress (to stop people who own guns mentally snapping).
Anything more serious than hand gun should banned (with the exception of hunting) ... if you need a shotgun or any form of fully automatic weapon to defend yourself, you need to be less of a dick!

I don't think that sounds too harsh, you can own a gun and defend yourself but it impacts on gangs and school shootings.

In a perfect world I would say "adopt Australia's gun policies" but Americans LOVE guns and public out cry coupled with NRA will never let that happen. I hope you watch these ...


CM156:

Today, actually. 10 USC 311.

... no they didn't ....

>.<

CM156:
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.[/quote]

That's the problem though, people who have a finical investment in guns (as well just the nuttiest gun nuts) are having a say. I think it should be an objective and rational discussion about do we need guns? Can we follow in the foot steps of Australia and have restrictive gun laws, if not, why not? etc and have none of this "well, I like guns!" or rampant paranoia that I have seen, there seems to be this thought that the second you don't have a gun you will be mugged. Not to mention Americans have a cavalier attitude towards life, it's a very me or you mentality and "if you rob me I am allowed to kill you, you deserve to die", this continues to health care "you poor? Then you dead".

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

To me, a militia is a group of people who aren't funded by a government and are probably opposing the government. Forgive my ignorance of American history but the phrase "the south shall rise again" is what I am thinking of, if a band of Southerners band together in order to over throw the government would be a militia ... rather than a multi-billion dollar power house, with nuclear war heads, jets, tanks and generally one of, if not THE most powerful and largest armies in the world. It's like calling a music festival with 50,000 attendees a "small gathering".

CM156:

Gun control passing in a liberal state isn't news.

Which is why it makes the news. Huh.

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?

So you took me pointing out that what you were saying was untrue and tried to turn it into my advocacy of the exact thing I said was untrue?

I guess there's really no point in continuing, then. I just don't get why you're so upset that you have to repeat yourself, if all you're going to do is respond with deceptive strawmen and misleading questions. If you're tired of it, just stop.

This is ridiculous. This is a message for gun laws? Stupid. Stupid stupid stupid. I love the fact that they say they can make it because of "right to life" but apparently the 2nd Ammendment is no longer applicable. Double standard much? I think so.

omega 616:

To me, a militia is a group of people who aren't funded by a government and are probably opposing the government.

The Constitution puts the President (as Commander In Chief) in charge of "the militia." Congress has the right to raise and maintain militias.

People try and play word salad, but remember that this is the same body people rely on to define the right to bear arms (Though the Bill of rights was written later, it contains the same diction and many of the same authors).

The Constitution is a lot like the Bible, though. People take the parts they want and throw out the rest. Since you posted clips from The Daily Show, I'm going to assume you've seen the episode where Jon Stewart demonstrates that Fox News thinks all 9 other Bill of Rights amendments are allowed to be violated/altered, but not the second amendment. Or perhaps the bit from when John Oliver hosted where he did essentially the same.

The people who raise civilian militias often do so based on a cherry-picked perspective of the Constitution.

And honestly, what you personally define doesn't matter. We have language for a reason, and expressing it on similar terms is a fundamental part of that. I can run around saying that atheism is a belief in Satan or that "the" is a curse word, but it doesn't make it relevant or accurate.

Besides, even by your definition, there are active militias everywhere. There were a ton formed because paranoid conspiracy nuts thought Oberma were gun take er gurns! There were a ton before that. We are a nation with more guns than sense.

crazyarms33:
This is ridiculous. This is a message for gun laws? Stupid. Stupid stupid stupid. I love the fact that they say they can make it because of "right to life" but apparently the 2nd Ammendment is no longer applicable. Double standard much? I think so.

Okay, please explain specifically how it's a double standard.

yaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaawn more escapists going on about taking away all the guns. The game basically says that no method is perfect. His gun control mode is more like responsible ownership

I'm actually going to side with the Lambourn guy. He seems to be actually trying to make a message instead of trying to troll people for the fun of it. So yeah, some people need to actually think about it.

omega 616:

In the modern world, it just wouldn't happen. With all the nuclear deterrents the E.U and red tape/bureaucracy that invading another country is never going to happen, invasions are a thing of the past to me. You could say "well, the Iraq war was an invasion" but to me that is just America, world police going to work. An invasion to me implies conquest and homefront was just a game, Korea isn't going to arrive in Cali and be like "we own this shit!".

Honestly, you can think it'll never happen, and time might even prove you right. That doesn't mean it's impossible. Since I can't see the future, I can only assume an invasion can happen.

And a police action is still an invasion. It's not only an invasion when it happens to first world nations.

omega 616:
Lets not go into immigration 'cos this isn't Machete.

The immigration bit was a joke.

omega 616:
Sorry but whut? You bought a gun after sandy hook to protect your daughter ... She going to call you up if a guy targets the school and you turn into Kindergarten cop? I don't mean to take the piss but I'm English, it's what we do.

You might have forgotten, or maybe don't know, but the Colorado Theater shooting took place to that much earlier than Sandy Hook. It was Sandy Hook that made me bite the financial cost and do it. If anyone in that theater had a gun, things would have happened differently. I'm not going to run down to the school and shoot suspects. The Police have their job, but if I'm in a theater watching a movie with my daughter, that matters.

omega 616:
I think allowing guns to be bought by Joe Bloggs is a dangerous thing, they could have it for the most noble intentions or for bad ones. I say things need to be very strict:
required range training.
Yearly mental health checks for stress (to stop people who own guns mentally snapping).

I personally like that idea, but there might be draw backs I don't see, and I'm open to that.

omega 616:
Anything more serious than hand gun should banned (with the exception of hunting) ... if you need a shotgun or any form of fully automatic weapon to defend yourself, you need to be less of a dick!

Shot guns are versatile. They are used for hunting, but are handy in other ways. If your home is on fire, and you're trapped, that shotgun will give you an exit in no time. And before you question how often that might happen, my father's apartment burnt down, and that's exactly what he used it for.

And back to utterly unlikely scenarios. Aliens could invade... and I have a gun to protect our race. What are gunless nations going to do? Hit them with bats?

Zachary Amaranth:

Okay, please explain specifically how it's a double standard.

1.) No where at all in the Constitution does it specifically promise a "right" to life. In fact, it merely states:

"We hold these truths to be sacred & undeniable; that all men are created equal & independant, that from that equal creation they derive rights inherent & inalienable, among which are the preservation of life, & liberty, & the pursuit of happiness..'"

It merely states that men have the right to live as they chose, not that they can physically be alive. Context is important.

2.) The 2nd Amendment clearly and unequivocally states that "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." The key part of the phrase here being the latter part of the statement.

This is a direct double standard because they are intentionally ignoring the 2nd Amendment in favor of something that is not specifically authorized by the legal government of a sovereign nation. No government on earth can guarantee any of their citizens a "right" to be alive through litigation, it is physically impossible. Imagine how ridiculous it would be for a politician to say, "And I promise that there will be no more stillborn babies! On the basis of this law which I will personally introduce to Congress today, which guarantees that everyone will have a right to live!" That baby would still be dead and no amount of litigation would change that.

Yet here we have some deliberately and intentionally ignoring the second amendment in order to further a political point using an argument that cannot be enforced by law. It doesn't matter where the words they reference appear, it matters if what they are arguing for is in the government's power to achieve via litigation. The right to bear arms is a legal right. The right to life is not. To quote Starship Troopers "What right to life does a man drowning in the ocean have?"

Every time someone pulls this o' trick from the hat we get the same discussion - video gamers are horrible, developer is a monster and should be jailed/killed/maimed/whatever and political uproar.

Then we go through the dance about freedom of speech, freedom that and this, censorship. Then we get to the paradox where people say that there should be freedom of speech but regulation of that freedom - the most stupid idea ever and a paradox.

Then something even stupider comes along or people just bored being angry about this and forget the whole thing.

I admit it is in bad taste to make this, but then again I find getting drunk to be in bad taste.

Zachary Amaranth:
So you took me pointing out that what you were saying was untrue and tried to turn it into my advocacy of the exact thing I said was untrue?

Please explain how what I said was untrue. Because if you don't let people on a government watch list buy guns (those who have not been convicted of any felony), you are denying them a constitutional right without due process. Which wouldn't fly for any other constitutional right, I'll remind you

Let me guess your response: You'll accuse me of lying, offer no counter-claim or proof, and then say you're done talking to me

In the modern world, it just wouldn't happen. With all the nuclear deterrents the E.U and red tape/bureaucracy that invading another country is never going to happen, invasions are a thing of the past to me. You could say "well, the Iraq war was an invasion" but to me that is just America, world police going to work. An invasion to me implies conquest and homefront was just a game, Korea isn't going to arrive in Cali and be like "we own this shit!".

Lets not go into immigration 'cos this isn't Machete.

Sorry but whut? You bought a gun after sandy hook to protect your daughter ... She going to call you up if a guy targets the school and you turn into Kindergarten cop? I don't mean to take the piss but I'm English, it's what we do.

I think allowing guns to be bought by Joe Bloggs is a dangerous thing, they could have it for the most noble intentions or for bad ones. I say things need to be very strict:
required range training.
Yearly mental health checks for stress (to stop people who own guns mentally snapping).
Anything more serious than hand gun should banned (with the exception of hunting) ... if you need a shotgun or any form of fully automatic weapon to defend yourself, you need to be less of a dick!

I don't think that sounds too harsh, you can own a gun and defend yourself but it impacts on gangs and school shootings.[/quote]
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
To omega 616. I do not seem to follow your logic on this point of guns. Would you please clearify for me? Here is what I am getting from your argument. If a man (A) buys a gun to protect his daughter at school (B)therefore it causes a school shooting or a gang shooting (C). If we break this down A+B=C with B being the driving and causing force of C with a being the passive actor in the problem.

If I were to take this same idea and use another problem; would we get the same outcome?
A Nazi has a massive amount of Jews (A) buys gas to kill them (B) therefore it causes them to kill the Jews (C). Does B stand up as the driving and causing force in this case? Do we blame the gas? I have seen no one that does. They blame the Nazis (A). That might be an anomaly though. Let's try another then.

If a man (A) buys a knife to protect himself from an attack while walking (B) therefore the knife causes the muggings and attacks on himself and others (C). Once again I do not see where the object is in blame for actions of the person. Within the argument you have set up there is no sense of a free will for the person as the object causes the action no matter what the person does with it. If I have gotten this wrong please correct me.

omega 616:
That's the problem though, people who have a finical investment in guns (as well just the nuttiest gun nuts) are having a say. I think it should be an objective and rational discussion about do we need guns?

The majority of Americans don't even want a ban on something as narrow as handguns, last I checked. And that's the thing. I've been involved in this issue for years now. And the people I see calling for the strictest laws (bans on entire classes of firearms, mandatory storage laws, arbitrary limits, ect) are nine times out of ten Europeans or Australians. Americans just aren't interested in taking the issue that far. If gun control does pass federally, it will be a moderate background check bill. Nothing nearing anything you mention.

Can we follow in the foot steps of Australia and have restrictive gun laws, if not, why not? etc and have none of this "well, I like guns!" or rampant paranoia that I have seen, there seems to be this thought that the second you don't have a gun you will be mugged.

I don't think either side is interested in a conversation as they both feel that the other is negotiating in bad faith on the issue. And again, America has a much stronger gun culture than pretty much any of those countries who have passed bans.

Not to mention Americans have a cavalier attitude towards life, it's a very me or you mentality and "if you rob me I am allowed to kill you, you deserve to die", this continues to health care "you poor? Then you dead".

That legitimate use of deadly force may result in the death of an aggressor does not logically demonstrate that any legitimate use of deadly force is an intentionally choice to kill, rather than to neutralize an imminent threat.

BreakfastMan:

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.

I found that Eagletears was the mode that got me the most kills, actually - in Historical, the teachers were really effective at getting the kids out and behind locked doors, but in Eagletears they all tried to shoot first, leaving me to clear rooms easily.

SirBryghtside:

BreakfastMan:

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.

I found that Eagletears was the mode that got me the most kills, actually - in Historical, the teachers were really effective at getting the kids out and behind locked doors, but in Eagletears they all tried to shoot first, leaving me to clear rooms easily.

Yeah, me too, but I wasn't certain if it was just because I knew the layout and how things worked more, or if it was because the teachers were actually ineffectual. I actually managed to get 56 kills (96% holy shit) in eagletears mode. :\

Draconalis:
snip

I'm not closed minded enough to say it will never happen from hence forth but come on, an army that huge and powerful with how many nukes and the entire country being able to own fire arms isn't the place an invader goes "we can take 'em!" ... in my opinion the next invasion will be a political one of open borders (in the very very very far future).

I figured it was a joke but wanted to guillotine it.

I know shotguns are good for opening stuff, special forces use it to blow hinges off and I know they are used for bird hunting but if I am being honest, if I wanted to do a Columbine, Sandy hook etc style shooting, I am choosing a shotgun ... wide spread, good range and aiming isn't wholly necessary.

You know why in war of the worlds, Cloverfield and Pacific rim style movies the aliens kick ass and all our weapons don't effect them? They have the ability to get here, so they are obviously far more advanced than us. If the army spending millions in munitions doesn't tickle it, your relative pea shooter isn't going to phase it ... unless you're Will Smith but then you can just punch it into submission.

CM156:
snip

That's the fucking problem, American gun nuts are far too paranoid and close minded to be rational and objective. They would rather say "but the stats say ..." and "I need them for ..." instead of "hey, Australia used to be like us and have school shootings and massacres but now there hasn't been one for years. Why not try it out?".

Statistics are great but only show what has happened (note, past tense) and not what is happening in Aus. Instead of theoretical arguments there is a living example of how it could be better. However, knowing what Americans are like, I think they need a compromise between what Aus has and the current tragedies happening in America.

American's value things and money over human life, I've read people on this site say things like "if an intruder is in my house I will kill them". That strikes me as odd, your TV and jewelry are worth more than a life ... that person isn't a great person 'cos they are robbing you but you have insurance, it can all be replaced.

To be honest, I feel a little sorry for American's ... they are so caught up in "they're gunna get me!" and clinging to guns like a security blanket that they are paralyzed into paranoia. I'd love to visit America for times square, your big crack grand canyon, Niagra falls (even though it's a bit Canadian as well), mount Rushmore and those monuments but from what I've heard of TSA and the fire arms laws, I wont go near it!

BreakfastMan:

SirBryghtside:

BreakfastMan:

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.

I found that Eagletears was the mode that got me the most kills, actually - in Historical, the teachers were really effective at getting the kids out and behind locked doors, but in Eagletears they all tried to shoot first, leaving me to clear rooms easily.

Yeah, me too, but I wasn't certain if it was just because I knew the layout and how things worked more, or if it was because the teachers were actually ineffectual. I actually managed to get 56 kills (96% holy shit) in eagletears mode. :\

What is wrong with you people? Why? I ask. Why are you playing a game in which you kill kids and teachers? Why not play a game in which you kill just Jews, or Black people, or Native Americans? What is the appeal of this game that compels you kill do horrific acts in a game? Don't get me wrong as I love a good shooter as the next. Heck I play sniper elite quite often. Why, though, do you have the desire to kill children and the defenseless?

If you bothered to do any real research, it would become apparent that gun control doesn't do shit. Furthermore, his explanation of "self-defense" is laughably inaccurate, since only in about 90% of these cases is the weapon even fired, let alone fired at the attacker, let alone hitting them, let alone killing them. I get so fucking infuriated when people run their mouths about shit they don't know shit about.

You know, I don't even mind that he made the game. He should be free to make whatever game he wants. However, to use the inevitable backlash as an outlet for an uneducated, political soap-box is fucking low. If you really made the game to send a message, you could just let it rest on it's own merits. You didn't, you made the game to piss people off and get attention, just like a toddler who draws on the walls. Also just like that toddler, you think you're right, in defiance of all evidence to the contrary.

Simple logic:

BreakfastMan:

SirBryghtside:
I found that Eagletears was the mode that got me the most kills, actually - in Historical, the teachers were really effective at getting the kids out and behind locked doors, but in Eagletears they all tried to shoot first, leaving me to clear rooms easily.

Yeah, me too, but I wasn't certain if it was just because I knew the layout and how things worked more, or if it was because the teachers were actually ineffectual. I actually managed to get 56 kills (96% holy shit) in eagletears mode. :\

What is wrong with you people? Why? I ask. Why are you playing a game in which you kill kids and teachers? Why not play a game in which you kill just Jews, or Black people, or Native Americans? What is the appeal of this game that compels you kill do horrific acts in a game? Don't get me wrong as I love a good shooter as the next. Heck I play sniper elite quite often. Why, though, do you have the desire to kill children and the defenseless?

I don't really have any strong desire to kill children. I do have a strong desire to fully explore the message and themes of a work, which in this case requires the player to play all 3 game modes.

Zachary Amaranth:

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.

The NRA isn't racist against blacks. I have not idea where this shit came from the closest having to do with Black Panthers protesting and open carrying and then having gun control happen with support of the NRA and Regan. Which if one was to say that gun control is racist against minorities then, lol. But no, the NRA been in support of Blacks arming up, as long as legal, which is for everyone else.
http://www.pbs.org/independentlens/negroeswithguns/rob.html
http://www.policymic.com/articles/23929/10-surprising-facts-about-the-nra-that-you-never-hear
How has this stupid ass lie manage to not be challenge is beyond me.

omega 616:

That's the fucking problem, American gun nuts are far too paranoid and close minded to be rational and objective. They would rather say "but the stats say ..." and "I need them for ..." instead of "hey, Australia used to be like us and have school shootings and massacres but now there hasn't been one for years. Why not try it out?".

Protip: Accusing people of being paranoid and close minded is not the best way to bring them to the table.

American's value things and money over human life, I've read people on this site say things like "if an intruder is in my house I will kill them". That strikes me as odd, your TV and jewelry are worth more than a life ... that person isn't a great person 'cos they are robbing you but you have insurance, it can all be replaced.

Intruders don't wear a big blinking sign on their chests proclaiming their intention. If someone is still in my home after my alarm is blaring (and it's really loud), then I cannot assume they are only there for my stuff.

And you know what cannot be replaced? My life. And I'm not taking chances on that to spare the wellbeing of someone who is currently in the commission of several felonies, and has shown no regard whatsoever for my rights or safety.

I very much don't want to kill someone, but if someone broke into my house at 3 AM and haven't left when the alarm is blasting or my dog is nipping at their legs, I'm not taking any chances. It's a horrible situation, but it's not one I chose to create by deciding that it was permissible to break into someone's dwelling and threaten their safety.

omega 616:

Draconalis:
snip

I'm not closed minded enough to say it will never happen from hence forth but come on, an army that huge and powerful with how many nukes and the entire country being able to own fire arms isn't the place an invader goes "we can take 'em!" ... in my opinion the next invasion will be a political one of open borders (in the very very very far future).

I figured it was a joke but wanted to guillotine it.

I know shotguns are good for opening stuff, special forces use it to blow hinges off and I know they are used for bird hunting but if I am being honest, if I wanted to do a Columbine, Sandy hook etc style shooting, I am choosing a shotgun ... wide spread, good range and aiming isn't wholly necessary.

You know why in war of the worlds, Cloverfield and Pacific rim style movies the aliens kick ass and all our weapons don't effect them? They have the ability to get here, so they are obviously far more advanced than us. If the army spending millions in munitions doesn't tickle it, your relative pea shooter isn't going to phase it ... unless you're Will Smith but then you can just punch it into submission.

CM156:
snip

That's the fucking problem, American gun nuts are far too paranoid and close minded to be rational and objective. They would rather say "but the stats say ..." and "I need them for ..." instead of "hey, Australia used to be like us and have school shootings and massacres but now there hasn't been one for years. Why not try it out?".

Statistics are great but only show what has happened (note, past tense) and not what is happening in Aus. Instead of theoretical arguments there is a living example of how it could be better. However, knowing what Americans are like, I think they need a compromise between what Aus has and the current tragedies happening in America.

American's value things and money over human life, I've read people on this site say things like "if an intruder is in my house I will kill them". That strikes me as odd, your TV and jewelry are worth more than a life ... that person isn't a great person 'cos they are robbing you but you have insurance, it can all be replaced.

To be honest, I feel a little sorry for American's ... they are so caught up in "they're gunna get me!" and clinging to guns like a security blanket that they are paralyzed into paranoia.

I think you are misunderstanding how Americans view guns. I do not see them as loving money over life nor having any less respect for life then any other civilized place in the world. One could compare them to a knightly coulture. Putting aside the mythos of honor that goes with it of course as I can not comment on that. As a knightly colture seeks to have a sword and shield to protect those around them so does the man who owns a gun for protection. He or she sees that owning a gun is the best defense to protect their families and friends. As a knight will put his life on the line to protect his brother or sister by fighting and maybe killing an assailant so to does the gun owner to protect what they see as important.
Is this a right view or wrong? Well it is neither. It is merely a prospective and culture that values something different then another culture. As I have seen it guns are not the end all and be all for the average American. It is merely a tool to protect what they value most highly.

BreakfastMan:

Simple logic:

BreakfastMan:

Yeah, me too, but I wasn't certain if it was just because I knew the layout and how things worked more, or if it was because the teachers were actually ineffectual. I actually managed to get 56 kills (96% holy shit) in eagletears mode. :\

What is wrong with you people? Why? I ask. Why are you playing a game in which you kill kids and teachers? Why not play a game in which you kill just Jews, or Black people, or Native Americans? What is the appeal of this game that compels you kill do horrific acts in a game? Don't get me wrong as I love a good shooter as the next. Heck I play sniper elite quite often. Why, though, do you have the desire to kill children and the defenseless?

I don't really have any strong desire to kill children. I do have a strong desire to fully explore the message and themes of a work, which in this case requires the player to play all 3 game modes.

So would you play through a game that makes you play a Nazi in camp where you need to get a body count as high as possible? Do you play a game where you need to rape as many women as possible to get a good score? Do you play these games just to understand it message? I hope not. There are some subjects, those that evil by their nature, that should never be explored in this manner.

 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