Thread: Another blow for video games

I still think the media is utterly wrong as far as the Montreal shootings go. I live in Montreal. The shootings happened 10 blocks from where I live, one of my friends' brothers was in the same school, in the same room, when the guy started capping people. The shooter wasn't sane whatsoever. Why would he commit suicide if he were so deep into thinking life was a video game ? And why hasn't anyone questionned the reason as to why the person can't distinguish fictional violence from actual violence ? Ten years ago, the hot topic was blaming underage violence on TV shows and the like. Now they've moved on to video games.

The headlines in the news yesterday read "Shooter's favorite video game : "Columbine Super Massacre"". Just great. Super. Instead of looking deeper, just explain the entirety of the events on a half-witted fact that was found on his website. This wouldn't ........ me off that much, but the fact of the matter is that what happened that day is going to seriously hurt the once booming gaming industry of my city. I mean, Montreal was becoming a real big player in the domain of computer artistry...and now people will start getting in their way, under the guise that it causes extremist teenage behaviour.

And that's the other thing. The shooter wasn't a teenager. He was an adult. Do they blame video games for every murder, every beating, every ounce of violence in society ? No. But when it happens in school...well, that's another story.

The events that went down are a tragedy. But just like is the case in most tragedys, people are jumping to conclusions before getting a serious grasp of the situation. Everyone is still engulfed by the fear, and thinking in fear will lead them nowhere.

My 2 cents.

At risk of going off topic again, I have a question about that whole second ammendment thing.

I thought the American constitution stated that it was the right of any well armed militia to bear arms, not the right of any Tom, Dick or Harry?

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.

You're reading it wrong. It actually states that the people have the right to form militia to protect their freedom as well as the right to bear arms. It's really two separate parts. You can read case law if you wish to get clarity.

Ah, well regulated. Why did I say well armed?

Anyway, thanks for clearing that up for me.

Sorry for provoking that reaction but....I am always amused by the response.


We can't have violent video games, as some people can't distinguish real from imaginary.


We must have the right to own guns, even if that means some of our children will be murdered with them, its a price we pay to be free!


Guns are safe for our kids to play with but video games are not?????

Guns are only unsafe if in the hands of someone who does not respect their power. I have been raised around guns all my life. I shot my first gun when I was 4 and go shooting many times a year to keep my accuracy up. I don't go hunting, just target shooting. It is a sport for me not something to hone my skills for killing. It is unregulating parents and the twisted minds of the person who did it who are to blame.

Originally Posted by Bubba

Well your comparisons are light years apart. Regardless of your stance on gun control, games don't cause people to kill.

I feel you may have lost your ability to distinguish a sound-minded adult from a 6-12 year old kid. In my opinion, games can definitely play a part in young children killing other children. In the case at hand... I'd say the murderer was old enough to be of sound-mind and I don't think games play a part, however, among younger children, I should expect greater responsibility from parents and game retailers, alike. I don't expect anything from the developers... they're not developing for the children.

Novacain, comparing guns and violent video games is laughable because it requires you to compare their availability to children... which isn't even a close number. It also requires you to compare making one thing illegal and simply toning down another. No one... I MEAN NO ONE here has said anything about making violence in games illegal, they've simply talked about cracking down on responsibility, specifically, as I said in the parents and retailers.

Which brings me to the fact the entire debate comes down to making bad parenting illegal. I would never let any of my kids play GTA: San Andreas because they are so easily influenced. However that does not mean the game is inherently evil but the kids won't pick up on the intended context. They make GTA San Andreas and other GTA titles with tons of sattire in them - including the mission types, goals, and other items. Clucking Bell? We've all said that when we meant something else. The sattire is prevalent throughout the game and is down right hilarious. The commercials in GTA are unbelievably funny even the 100th time around.

However I realize that kids won't pick all this up and will only pick up the violence and so forth. But we cannot just make games that are targeted at one group. I'm sure Rockstar didn't say in the dev meeting - let's target kids and expose them to tons of violence so they can turn out to be axe murderers or go shoot their school up. The targeted audience of GTA is 20 to 30 year olds. I'm sure the some of the people at Rockstar would never let their young kid play their games - at least not yet.

George Lucas said this of his latest Star Wars movie. He said there was too much violence in it and would not let his young kids see it. That is just being a good parent. There is a time in everyone's life when they finally 'get it' and realize fact from fantasy and can distinguish the two. It appears some wackos out there still have not made that transition but that does not make the medium evil. When the teenager finally 'gets-it' and can distinguish fact from fantasy then they can usually make their own decisions about what they want to play, watch, and listen to.

But letting 7 and 8 year olds sit down and play GTA or other games like it is just plain stupid. Hell kids at that age believe all sorts of stuff we know is not true. Even some teenagers are in that stage where they are so influenced that they should not play, watch, or listen to certain things. So if you want to make a law that says parents should be good parents then fine but good luck enforcing it. We can't make everyone else live in a bubble where no bad things happen just to make the kids turn out good. The 'bubble' they live in is determined by their parents. Most of us here had our 'bubble' popped long ago.

Sorry, but you miss my point, let me make it clearer.

In this case we hear from the poli's and media how his killer's fav game was <insert name here>, how terrible! Lets ban all violent games as some people can't handle them (or are influenced, desensitiesed (sp?) ect).

At NO point do we hear 'lets ban the gun he used to kill children' as obviously some people can't handle the responsibility of gun ownership.



Which product has more potential for harm if abused, video games or guns?

Which product is blamed in most of these cases?

Which product has a stronger political lobby?



When an Australian did this type of atrocity, we banned guns almost immediately. We have not had a repeat....

What is more important, stopping these type of tragedies or being allowed to own a gun?



[waits to laugh at the person who posts, without actually researching the data, NRA misinformation/propaganda on Australian gun crime]

If they attempted to ban guns here trust me it would not help gun control. Everyone who owns one would take arms against those who wanted to take them away. It won't happen here in the U.S. Blaming guns for murders is just misdirected anger, empathy, and won't help anything.

And if it adds anything to the argument one of my family members was just held up at gunpoint not too long ago. But both he and I have not changed our stance on guns. It wasn't the gun that held him up and robbed him, it was the person holding it.

Funny thing is, that same gun in his hand would have prevented the robbery. Or a gun in a policeman's hand would have prevented it. What's the difference? The person using the gun.

And although our constitution allows for an armed milita it also allows for us to own weapons. The main reason behind it is not just personal protection or some morbid obessesion with guns but more for protection from the government. The founding fathers knew that it might be possible the shaky democracy could crumble underneath a dictator or the wrong person in power. The final defense against this when all the checks and balances fail is revolution, just like they revolted against the British. I cannot imagine this ever happening in America now but that is one of the reasons for the 2nd ammendment. I think the writers at the time didn't want future America to have to go through what they did to arm themselves and stand up for freedom and so they put the provision in. The 2nd ammendment covers a broad range of issues and if I'm not mistaken is not entirely about an armed milita or army. That is more of a federal creation and the National Guard is more of a state based creation. Since the militia in those times was really our current National Guard if you will, I would say the 2nd ammendment applies more to local militia than it does the larger federal forces.


Funny how the constitution as it is today would never be were it not for the Bill of Rights or the first ten ammendments. Without those the constitution would never have passed. And I think the ammendments and the order they fall in is still indicative of what we in America value and always will speak for, stand for, and die for.

If a gun is just the tool and doesn't add to the violence, where would you draw the line ? What is illegal to own in the US and why ? If the weapon is just a tool, why not allow people to own tanks or attack helicopters ? After all, you have to blame the people, not the tool, so don't ban the tool. Let me have my WMD, you can blame me afterwards, but don't restrict WMDs.

Where do you draw the line between a weapon that must not be restricted and a weapon that has to be restricted to a point where you invade foreign countries ?

Originally Posted by bubba

Blaming guns for murders is just misdirected anger, empathy, and won't help anything.

So having access to a automatic rifle did not contirbute one iota to this guy going on a killing spree?

I disagree.

How far would he have got armed with only a bolt action 22 or a knife?

I don't think he would have got out of his bedroom.