You are either not logged in or not registered with our community. Click here to register.
 
December 04, 2016, 06:39:04 PM

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?

Login with username, password and session length

Click here if you are having problems.
Default Wide Screen Beige Lilac Rainbow Black & Blue October Send us your theme!

Hark!  The Herald!
Holiday Issue 2016

Wiki Blogs Dicebot

Author Topic: NRA blames video games in wake of school shooting, releases iOS shooting game.  (Read 1002 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Sex BobombTopic starter

Aaaah, smell that? That fresh scent of blatant hypocrisy? It's pungent. Stings the nostrils.

http://goo.gl/rr9QG

Following the tragedy in Sandy Hook, CT, the NRA (You know, that lobbying organization who's motto is "Guns don't kill people, people kill people.") proceeded to use the current "generational scapegoat" of video games. Really, if you think about it, it makes perfect sense. Guns don't kills people, people kill people. Video games ... motivate people? Train people? So you can't blame weapons for violence, but you can blame media for it? Last time I checked, no one was killed by throwing a video game controller at their head. Violent movies have been around for years. Violence on TV. Violence in literature. None of this stuff is subject to the same scrutiny and scapegoating that video games are.

Oh, but the hypocrisy doesn't end there, folks.

http://goo.gl/AHBL8

So, video games are a "a callous, corrupt, and corrupting shadow industry that sells and sows violence against own people..." according to his own quote. And yet, they aren't above diving headlong in to the industry themselves to make some money? Mind you, this is the NRA's second foray in to video games. The argument here that you're not firing at "virtual people" is moot, considering neither are real, and paper targets still feature head shots.

Folks, it's time for lobbying groups and political individuals alike to stop blaming the "new media kid on the block" for the violence in this country. You'll notice, Call of Duty and Mortal Kombat exist in several countries around the world, and yet the USA has exponentially higher gun violence. This is just blatant agenda pushing on their part, and it's getting tiring. How many more people need to die in order for a real change to be made?
« Last Edit: January 15, 2013, 05:59:50 PM by Sex Bobomb »

Offline band in the rain

Nobody wants to look into matters logically. To go out and kill people on mass, people responsible for nothing, implies far, FAR more than even desensitization. It implies a lack of consideration on quite a striking scale. At the very least, nearly complete dissociation. That or a complete lack of faith for humanity taken so much further than is healthy.

That implies something far greater than media (other than the news, I guess) is capable of causing on its own. In short, I think American civilization doesn't work as the self-conflicting passive-aggressive mess that it is.

Offline Chris Brady

I have a theory as to why the U.S. has higher gun violence.  I think it has to do with the amount of disparate cultures squished together.  America has compared to Canada more people per square mile, not to mention that it's a young country.  Unlike France or China, which have had empires and kingdoms lasting for centuries, even thousands of years (China may have changed the name of it's ruling bureaucracy, but it really hasn't changed government in at least 4000 years), they have a cultural identity that's pretty established and any growing pains it might have had within it's own borders are more or less settled, the U.S. on the other hand, is merely 229 years old.  It's a baby.

The United States also prides itself on being a nation of inclusion.  Which is an admirable goal, but a lot of cultures that come over, wanting to start a new life often find that they have 'enemies' here too, who ALSO wanted to get away and start over fresh.  And tension is going to rise.

The NRA is correct in stating that guns don't kill people, people do.  Thing is because of all this tension and sometimes undirected anger, and given the U.S's history, guns are the easiest tools around to kill your neighbour, because they're so abundant.  Limit them, and people will find other tools that are easy and convenient.

There is a reason we're the top of the food chain, we have found ways to kill things faster and more efficiently than any other animal on the planet.  Pretty good for an animal with no natural weapons or defenses, eh?

At the same time, this does not mean we shouldn't try to stop it.  Tragedies like Sandy Hook and Columbine need to stop, and as long as automatic weaponry are allowed in civilian hands, this will keep happening.

Online Callie Del Noire

You know.. I put up an article earlier on that summed it up..

Schools like the ones in Tennessee with PLANS and armed response did quite well but no one sees a lot about the successful defenses.
-The officers had their guns.. they weren't banned from the premises like in some of the schools that had shootings.
-They had restrictive access and control of the entries and exits.
-They had PLANS of action for the students and teachers. The teachers locked down the rooms, the students took cover and the windows and doors were papered to restrict view of the classrooms.

These spree killers LOOK for weapon free zones. The gun man at the Aurora theater showing picked not the closest theater but the 'weapons free' one.

The trick is to accept that guns in school, in the hands of trained law enforcement officers, is NOT a bad thing. Neither is making action response plans.

Wringing your hands and bemoaning that guns are dangerous doesn't protect innocent bystanders. The enforcement officer isn't the PRIMARY part of protecting the schools. It's the planning..

Also..as a bipolar disorder sufferer, I think taking care of folks and putting together a system that responds to their needs..rather than eventual actions will help a LOT more people.


Offline Chris Brady

Also..as a bipolar disorder sufferer, I think taking care of folks and putting together a system that responds to their needs..rather than eventual actions will help a LOT more people.
Prevention would be better in the long run, but you also have to remember, sometimes the unexpected will happen.

Online Oniya

  • StoreHouse of Useless Trivia
  • Oracle
  • Carnite
  • *
  • Join Date: Sep 2008
  • Location: Just bouncing through. Hi! City of Roses, Pennsylvania
  • Gender: Female
  • One bad Motokifuka. Also cute and FLUFFY!
  • My Role Play Preferences
  • View My Rolls
  • Referrals: 3
Prevention by way of treatment would dramatically reduce the number of 'snaps', in my opinion.  No, it won't eliminate the possibility of someone who denies their condition/refuses treatment/goes off their meds because 'they're better', but it will catch those who want and need the help but can't get it now.  There are people who want to get their children into (sometimes involuntary) treatment, but the police say they can't do anything unless a report is filed - and then it's prison instead of a treatment facility.

Online Callie Del Noire

Prevention would be better in the long run, but you also have to remember, sometimes the unexpected will happen.

True but how many cases have we seen that there has been NO prevention? Gun Control is a quick fix. Setting up a health service system that works is actual work.

Offline Serephino

Honestly, it kind of annoys me that everyone's first emotional reaction is to jump to gun control and video games.  I really think it's a mix of a lot of things.  Yes, guns are a big part of our culture.  I live in an area where everyone has at least one, and target shooting is a sport.  Violence is glorified in the media.  The more gory a movie is, the more people love it.  Professional wrestlers are worshiped for pounding the crap out of each other.

Yes, most people can handle it.  Not everyone goes on shooting rampages.  That's when you add mental illness.  I have personal experience in how hard finding good treatment can be when you're trying.  When I was approved for disability they gave me a check and wished me luck.  They didn't give me enough to live off of, so I didn't have Medicare for years because I couldn't afford it.  Even if I could have gotten private insurance, I couldn't have afforded that either.  A visit to the psychiatrist is triple what a visit to the family doctor is.  Medications are pricy.  And so, if you're mentally ill, but uninsured, you're screwed.

Then there is all the media coverage.  Sometimes when you aren't right in the head, bad attention is still better than no attention at all.  They usually end up dead, but hey, they are remembered.  The media will talk about nothing except them for days.  Everyone will know who their second grade teacher was, because everything about them will be analyzed to death.  If you really want to leave your mark on the world, what a better way to do it?  It's like a perfect storm kind of thing.  Everything is to blame to varying degrees.

While I don't think private citizens should have high powered assault weapons, tighter gun control may not work.  In the most recent case, the guns belonged to his mother.  She bought them, and for all anyone knows, she was a healthy, stable, law abiding person.  The point is, anyone who wants to do this but can't buy their own guns can get them from someone else.  I don't think I could buy a gun, but my boyfriend can, and it would still be in the house with me.  What would stop me from taking one while he was at work?  My mom has several guns, lives nearby, and I have a key to her house.  Pass all the tougher laws you want; if I really want to get my hands on one to shoot some people, I will.  I don't need to pass a background check, I just need people in my life who can.

Offline TheRedFear

Uh, if you've actually seen this mind bogglingly crappy game in action calling it violent is kinda like calling Barrack Obama black. It's only half true, and as I often say...half a truth is always a complete lie.  O:)

Joking aside though, Super Mario Bros(Yeah. The first one. I'm old school bitch. 8-Bits in da hizzy) is more violent than this nonsense. You just shoot inanimate objects. It's target practice with crappy graphics, and none of the actual benefits of real target practice. But I suppose if you just hate the NRA, then yeah this is a great big righteous example of their flaming hypocrisy and proof that they should all be led out into an alley way, and executed gangland style...or something.

Offline Chris Brady

Doing some research (and I mean SOME, this is not an in depth look at anything) I think it's important to point out that violence in America has been shown to be down.  In fact, it peaked in the early 90s, I remember hearing 1991 (But I have nothing verifiable.)  I found the link below of violent crime in America.

http://www.cnn.com/2012/10/29/justice/us-violent-crime/index.html

According to a discussion I was a party off, it seems that the U.S. sells less video games per capita than Japan, and yet Japan has significantly less violent crime than the U.S.  Now, I personally believe this, but I have been unable to find real hard numbers on the selling of video games.  Either that or my google-fu is weak.

I found this on violent crimes by juveniles and it shows that it's been on the decline, although it did pick up a bit in 2005, but still not as bad as it was in 1995.

http://www.statisticbrain.com/youth-violent-crime-statistics/

A study from the University of Texas in Arlington done back in 2011 says that they've found positive results with violent video games.  However, there are a lot of factors that they couldn't account for, so they suggest more studies into it.  If I remember the article it should a decline in actual violent behaviour in people who played violent video games, but again, needs more studies.

http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1804959

So like Serephino is saying, I'm thinking that we've (the E community) have jumped in with our hearts, rather than our brains.  Because according to various sources, it seems that the United States is actually in a better place crime-wise than the news and various organizations seems to be portraying.

I think the big thing is that this is a tragedy because it's not common.  Because it's tragic.  It's not commonplace, which is a good thing.  It means (to me) that it's getting better, we're not desensitized to it because it's common.

Offline Tsenta

I got a laugh just now, I was on the forums for an MMO I play regularly (Runescape, don't judge.) and there was a guy saying he's from the NRA and was trying to get people to sign a petition to remove the pending restrictions. I openly called him a hypocrite. >_>

Offline vtboy

The sort of tightening of gun control proposed this week is obviously far from a perfect or comprehensive solution to America's gun violence problem. But, there are significant political headwinds here which make the enactment of more robust restrictions on the federal level unlikely and even call into doubt the viability of these tepid ones.

The matter is further complicated by the reality that it is unlikely we will ever know whether the proposed rules, if enacted, are effective. If firearm deaths and injuries are unabated or rise, we will probably never be able to say with certainty the numbers would not have been even higher in the absence of the enhanced restrictions. Likewise, any decline in deaths and injuries may be attributable to other factors. Even in the absence of compelling empirical evidence, however, it does not seem irrational to believe that the extent of the total carnage wrought by all the Adam Lanzas at large might be less were we to do a better job of screening potential gun owners for mental disease and limiting the firing capacity of semi-automatic weapons. As I am not prepared to conclude that banning assault weapons and high capacity magazines, making background checks universal for all gun sales, and expanding firearm data bases will save no lives, I support them.

While I don't think private citizens should have high powered assault weapons, tighter gun control may not work.  In the most recent case, the guns belonged to his mother.  She bought them, and for all anyone knows, she was a healthy, stable, law abiding person.  The point is, anyone who wants to do this but can't buy their own guns can get them from someone else.  I don't think I could buy a gun, but my boyfriend can, and it would still be in the house with me.  What would stop me from taking one while he was at work?  My mom has several guns, lives nearby, and I have a key to her house.  Pass all the tougher laws you want; if I really want to get my hands on one to shoot some people, I will.  I don't need to pass a background check, I just need people in my life who can.


You make a good point. Perhaps screening for mental illness should include not only the gun buyer, but also members of the buyer's household. I can't imagine what Mrs. Lanza could have been thinking in keeping both her demented son and her arsenal under the same roof.

At a minimum, it seems to me there should be some very tough penalties for anyone who either intentionally or negligently allows his or her licensed firearm to fall into another's hands.
« Last Edit: January 19, 2013, 10:22:45 AM by vtboy »

Online Oniya

  • StoreHouse of Useless Trivia
  • Oracle
  • Carnite
  • *
  • Join Date: Sep 2008
  • Location: Just bouncing through. Hi! City of Roses, Pennsylvania
  • Gender: Female
  • One bad Motokifuka. Also cute and FLUFFY!
  • My Role Play Preferences
  • View My Rolls
  • Referrals: 3
You make a good point. Perhaps screening for mental illness should include not only the gun buyer, but also members of the buyer's household. I can't imagine what Mrs. Lanza could have been thinking in keeping both her demented son and her arsenal under the same roof.

At a minimum, it seems to me there should be some very tough penalties for anyone who either intentionally or negligently allows his or her licensed firearm to fall into another's hands.

Anything that the government could impose would be a lot less than the penalty that she ended up paying.  :-(  (I'm agreeing with you, by the way.)

Offline band in the rain

I can't help but think in some of these cases that the real problem is that nowadays especially, you can find no end of hatred and disdain for whoever you are, no end to division, and a general feeling that whatever you're seeing in people that upsets you is only going to continue to get worse. Between media and general social problems the hopeless are getting even more hopeless and general suicide rates support that. When you combine that with an actual anger at people as a species or society... random violence seems like quite a simple result.

To put it simply, if you were to really think about it, how much positivity do you hear? About anything? How much of it is positivity at the loss or misery of another? How many people are left to have their rough edges "tumbled out" when it certainly doesn't seem to happen, even online where there's a greater concentration of people?

Seriously, I think there's a social civil war going on that doesn't even have individual sides anymore. It's like a riot with a war's timeframe.
« Last Edit: January 19, 2013, 03:01:48 PM by band in the rain »

Online Callie Del Noire

I'm a bit of column A and a bit of Column B.

I fail to see why we need high volume rapid assault weapons for home defense hunting. My hunting? I did with a shot gun and rifle. Home defense? I figure a pistol is good enough for that.. maybe a shotgun.

Regulate like VP Biden's old law did..

That being said.. Guns are NOT evil. They in and of themselves are tools. We need to regulate access yes. Ban .. no. Right now we have mechanisms in place to trace folks.. but the states are consistently updating them. Enforce the updating of the databases, compel states to comply with laws they ignore.

Also, start accepting that making 'no gun' zones won't protect people from spree killers. Consider and look at the incidents where the spree killers FAILED. Where they were stopped and captured/killed before the bodies piled up. Build on what happened RIGHT in those incidents. I put up a link a while back that showed a would be spree killer who was stopped before he could gain access.

That incident showed that action plans, restricted access to the school and officers at the school facility can and DO work when they are properly thought out and implemented. The man was kept from accessing the school, he was contained, the students were protected. They did things right. .

Additionally the mental health issues of a LOT of these spree killers were seen before hand. And ignored. That much needs to be addressed. How many times would an ounce of prevention and care helped prevent these tragedies?

Offline Wolfy

http://www.gamespot.com/news/ralph-nader-game-companies-are-electronic-child-molesters-6402713

Well..this isn't going to be good for his career, one would think.

Offline DTW

  • Survival Of The Fittest , I ate my twin in the womb.
  • Suspended
  • Enchanter
  • *
  • Join Date: Mar 2010
  • Location: Live From Hell
  • Gender: Male
  • Lions donít lose sleep over the opinion of sheep
  • My Role Play Preferences
  • View My Rolls
  • Referrals: 0
I have a serious question to ask the NRA : I am a huge fan of Elder  Scrolls and have played every game since Morrowind , so my question  is why the hell can I not cast Flash Bolt?
Seriously  I have the 52 magicka but it just won't work!


Hell I'd take frost rune at this point! Come on NRA explain this to me!

Offline Aislinn

  • Enchantress of …ire, Local Avatarmonger & Leprechaun Ninja Extraordinaire
  • Dame
  • Addict
  • *
  • Join Date: Jan 2013
  • Location: In the shadows...
  • Gender: Female
  • The Poet's Muse
  • My Role Play Preferences
  • View My Rolls
  • Referrals: 0
I'm a bit of column A and a bit of Column B.

I fail to see why we need high volume rapid assault weapons for home defense hunting. My hunting? I did with a shot gun and rifle. Home defense? I figure a pistol is good enough for that.. maybe a shotgun.

Regulate like VP Biden's old law did..

That being said.. Guns are NOT evil. They in and of themselves are tools. We need to regulate access yes. Ban .. no. Right now we have mechanisms in place to trace folks.. but the states are consistently updating them. Enforce the updating of the databases, compel states to comply with laws they ignore.

Also, start accepting that making 'no gun' zones won't protect people from spree killers. Consider and look at the incidents where the spree killers FAILED. Where they were stopped and captured/killed before the bodies piled up. Build on what happened RIGHT in those incidents. I put up a link a while back that showed a would be spree killer who was stopped before he could gain access.

That incident showed that action plans, restricted access to the school and officers at the school facility can and DO work when they are properly thought out and implemented. The man was kept from accessing the school, he was contained, the students were protected. They did things right. .

Additionally the mental health issues of a LOT of these spree killers were seen before hand. And ignored. That much needs to be addressed. How many times would an ounce of prevention and care helped prevent these tragedies?

This is probably the closest to my personal opinion on the matter. I see very little need to have large clips and large caliber assault weapons to defend my home. I have a handgun and I'm quite sure it would do the job I need it to do. Would I have any hesitation in shooting someone that entered my home with intent to steal or harm? No. Don't think it would take multiple bullets to do what one well-placed shot could do. I think there are a few areas where we could do better in regulating guns. I've long been opposed to gun shows simply because there are too many loopholes and not enough regulation there. I have a few family members that are policemen and they've told me some horror stories about things that happen at gun shows.

I also think that access to guns is much easier then access to mental health help in this country. Restructure the mental health care in this country and I think we would see things dramatically reduce.

The United States is a relatively young country when you look at how long other countries in the world have been around. We need to look at their policies and gun control legislation and see what they are doing that we are not....

Yes, tragedies are going to happen regardless of where you are in the world but I think for too long, the government has pushed gun control off to the side and decided that it wasn't a priority. It is a priority in my humble opinion.

I also don't have an issue with trained, armed police officers in schools. If that's what we need to do then let's do it.

Offline Skynet

http://www.gamespot.com/news/ralph-nader-game-companies-are-electronic-child-molesters-6402713

Well..this isn't going to be good for his career, one would think.

Definitely not among the 100 million Americans who play video games.  But people always need a scapegoat to rationalize violence in society.  Television shows, comics, role-playing games, video games?  Who knows what it will be in the next 20-30 years?

Offline BlightRaptor

Video games and the internet are a natural enemy of news on television. Ratings slip more and more, because an entire generation can't be bothered with an old form of media. I don't watch TV. Ever. Haven't in maybe 10 years. My recreation is reading, computer games, board games, and art. TV gets in the way of those. When I want a news, I have more at my disposal on the computer rather than get whatever horse shit the stations are trying to throw at me. Traditional journalism is dying and it's making a pitiful effort at its youngest competitor.

Offline band in the rain

I don't watch tv either, and especially not the news. Why would anyone want to wallow in the most depressing puddle of information around? Where, why, and how things are going wrong, followed by celebrity horseshit. "What you're supposed to be afraid of" and "Who we want you to want to be."

Offline Skynet

Texas Senator argues that we can use the 1st Amendment to ban violent video games.

Hopefully, as/if the younger generation becomes active in voting, statements like these will become political suicide.

Offline ElusiveM00se

  • Bacon Monk / Golden Dragon of Empathy / Bitch Whisperer
  • Lady
  • Enchanted
  • *
  • Join Date: Aug 2012
  • Location: Where everything begins at nothing's end...
  • Gender: Female
  • Be Good. Do Good. Pay It Forward.
  • My Role Play Preferences
  • View My Rolls
  • Referrals: 0
There have been a lot of great points made so far in this thread.

I'm going to take a devil's advocate stance and say I understand where the NRA is coming from with this app - however poor the execution might be. The next step should be additional educational information. Parents should take older children to rifle ranges and allow them to safely handle a firearm. Boys and girls alike. Without having statistics to back up this opinion, I feel that education causes more prevention than mere restriction.

It is my knowledge of firearms that prevents me from keeping one in my current home for many reasons. I am glad I know how to use one, though, should the zombie apocalypse ever arise.

Offline Monfang

I know I'm new here, I shouldn't just drop in and give my opinion out of the blue, but I just want to say a few things.

First: People are scared. Not just for themselves, but for their children and their children's friends. When we get scared, we look for a way to ether escape our fear or destroy the cause of it. Some jump to the nearest violent media source. In the past it was movies, then it was TV, then music, and now it's video games. Others jump to the weapon, saying it was the guns that allowed the man to kill so many. Others blame us unable to tend to our mentally ill. If you want to have a debate about this, you must first address these fears.

Second: it is easy to fall into the pit of just spouting rhetoric
Spoiler: Click to Show/Hide
speech or discourse that pretends to significance but lacks true meaning
. One side shouts "Protect our Second Amendment!" The other side shouts "Keep guns off our streets!" Both of them sound like great ideas but they both lack in context. When you want to enter the ring, you have to be rational and have all the facts.

I have researched this shooting from the day it happened. If anyone has unresolved questions or issues, I can attempt to help with it.