PS3 News: Politicians, Read This Before You Make Bigger Fools Of Yourselves - PS3 News

Members Login: Register | Why sign up? | Forgot Password?

Politicians, Read This Before You Make Bigger Fools Of Yourselves

In the wake of the Newtown shooting tragedy, the world once again turns its probing eye on the video game industry.

Numerous politicians are calling for new studies focusing on the effects of playing violent games, and community leaders in Southington, CT proposed an event that would involve the burning of violent and potentially damaging pieces of interactive entertainment. This event was recently canceled, as those in charge said the action wasn’t necessary; they were successful in generating “frank talks” between parents and children.

Two points of interest arise— firstly, despite over three decades of significant growth and an average participant age of 35 (according to recent ESA statistics), the mainstream media and the majority of the population apparently still believe all video games are for kids. Secondly, it appears those lobbying for change have forgotten the law that prompted the creation of the ESRB in 1994, which rates video games. For the uninitiated, these ratings are akin to MPAA ratings for movies; “E” for Everyone, “T” for Teen, and “M” for Mature. “M” is the equivalent of an “R” rating, as you must be at least 17 years of age to purchase the product.

In reading comments made by politicians and community leader since the Newtown elementary school disaster, I have found one common thread: Video games and children are always linked. To be more specific, violent video games and children are consistently tied together in these public statements.

Having been a game journalist for over eleven years, I have seen the strides taken in terms of storytelling, artistry, cinematography, and technical capability. One could make the argument that while the “normal” entertainment venues (movies, music, books) are stagnating, the only true innovation can be found in the rapidly expanding interactive entertainment field. Therefore, hearing politicians and parents who are still living in 1985 has long since grown tiresome.

The ESRB has been in place for 18 years and in my experience, the ratings are quite accurate and in some ways, even stricter than the MPAA. Developers have been creating games for adults for the majority of those 18 years. Violent video games and indeed, any games with adult/mature themes are not made for children. They’re not marketed toward children. And yes, it should be illegal to sell them to children. We took the necessary strides to pass that legislation (of which I remain a huge proponent) and the education and information has been available for a long time. “Grand Theft Auto” was never intended for children and hence, conducting studies concerning the effects of an 8-year-old playing GTA should be unnecessary. Kids shouldn’t be playing that game. The industry never wanted kids to play that game.

I believe violent media can and does have significant effects on developing minds. There should be no “frank talks” between parents and kids about the subject; parents should simply not buy “M”-rated games for their children. The town of Southington asked families to drop off their violent video games; presumably, games their kids were playing. What were those kids doing with such games? What were those kids doing playing games not designed for them, games with a big label on the cover saying the product is reserved for older individuals? In short, these families should have no violent games to destroy if we place responsibility in the proper place.

That being said, I believe a loophole for promoting violent games – and other violent media – exists within the advertising realm. Although certain games are not directly marketed toward children, commercials for such titles can still be seen by anyone. These commercials, along with ads I’ve seen for recent horror movies, push the boundaries and are not appropriate for people of all ages. However, seeing a ten-second commercial for something like “Killzone 3” is unlikely to have the same effect as playing the game for many hours. Of course, the game in question was rated “M.”

Video games have been a convenient scapegoat for far too long. Such accusations turn a blind eye to the important strides gaming has taken. Generalized ignorance is unfair to the many highly creative minds who work in the industry. We have rich, beautiful, complex worlds these days, and many are designed for everyone. We also have dark, violent, twisted worlds, which are only designed for a select few. Children are not a part of the latter group. The sooner the mainstream press, various politicians and above all, parents, understand this, the sooner we can stop wasting time asking unnecessary questions.

Tags: video games, violent games, violent game studies, gaming industry

1/23/2013 10:07:25 PM Ben Dutka

Put this on your webpage or blog:
Email this to a friend
Follow PSX Extreme on Twitter

Share on Twitter Share on Facebook Share on Google Share on MySpace Share on Delicious Share on Digg Share on Google Buzz Share via E-Mail Share via Tumblr Share via Posterous

Comments (102 posts)

Snaaaake
Wednesday, January 23, 2013 @ 10:18:38 PM
Reply

And let's not forget that for every beginning of a game or a trailer for mature audience, you'll always see this:
"May contain content inappropriate for children"

Do these people even read?

Agree with this comment 6 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

sawao_yamanaka
Wednesday, January 23, 2013 @ 10:32:02 PM

Nobody ever reads sadly enough. Also, none of my nieces have seen these commercials because they don't come on with their programming schedule. We have the chip in place that other parents should use which they don't. The blame will always be on the adults who don't care. I think the only film I have watched with them was paranorman and they found it scary. Still too young for it, it seems.

Agree with this comment 1 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

Snaaaake
Wednesday, January 23, 2013 @ 10:36:57 PM

Well I'm not sure about TV but in video games they always include the caution.

And to find Paranorman scary...........too young indeed.

Agree with this comment 0 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

sawao_yamanaka
Thursday, January 24, 2013 @ 12:39:12 AM

Oh sorry for not explaining myself. During commercial breaks they show such commercials for kids but unless the parent have their parental settings set children won't see them. They have found other things scary as well not just paranorman. It is actually kind of cute because one of them is afraid of my little pony :p.

Agree with this comment 2 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

The Real Deal
Wednesday, January 23, 2013 @ 10:43:40 PM
Reply

Ben great article, however Call of Duty does market heavily towards children. Its the one game that should be scrutinized and those selling it to minors (which allot are) should be penalized. Not to mention parents need to be educated on these types of games so they are not baited to get them for there kids on lets say christmas. Either way great article, would even ask those politicians that are in charge of the game violence committee to look at it.

Agree with this comment 3 up, 2 down Disagree with this comment

bigrailer19
Thursday, January 24, 2013 @ 12:02:25 AM

Can you please tell me how "Call of Duty does market heavily towards children"?

Agree with this comment 1 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

Ben Dutka PSXE [Administrator]
Thursday, January 24, 2013 @ 12:59:07 AM

In no way does Activision market Call of Duty towards minors. That isn't true at all.

Agree with this comment 2 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

The Real Deal
Thursday, January 24, 2013 @ 6:23:55 AM

Trust me when i say they market to children indirectly. Call of Duty would not be half as successful if they didn't. To prove my point, the movies that have generated the most income over the past 5-10 years have been cartoonish in nature or super hero themed. Add them up and then add the same number of any other movies not kid oriented and you will see the difference.

Kids drive the entertainment market, activision knows this and is why kobe bryant, iron man (robert downey jr.) have been cast in there tv promo's. Not to mention there slogan, "there's a soldier in all of us". In addition these live action tv spots are so over the top and use comedy to suggest violence.

You will not convince me that activision does not target children, take a close look at what they advertise. However activision is only half the blame, Gamestop promotes COD as the next mesiah. Three months before the launch of COD every person that calls, shops, or talks to an employee is asked if they want to preorder COD. Can you tell me that they don't ask teenagers the same thing, they ask everyone. When you call thats there greeting. Actually if i was a smart man, i would sue them for not verifying my age before asking that.

Its a mature game with heavy violence both in single player and online. Yes its true i am beating up the popular kid, but that popularity didn't just happen; it was manufactured. By the money hungry minds of activision and gamestop.

Agree with this comment 3 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

bigrailer19
Thursday, January 24, 2013 @ 10:50:33 AM

Well im glad you thought that out. The first problem though is youre blaming gamestop who has no affiliation with the marketing of the game. They sell it and market their business, they do that sort of thing with any new release. On that point my encounters with gamestop is that they will not sell an M rated game to anyone under 17 let alone pre-order, and on that same note Gamestop does NOT take pre-orders over the phone, I've tried this many times. Going back a second, they market their business by saying they have such game.

The other thing to note is, you can say what you want about the commercials, and I somewhat agree about the nature of them. But that doesn't disregard the fact that before every commercial there is a huge "Rated M for mature" logo. At that point its very clear the game is not intended for children.

Agree with this comment 2 up, 1 down Disagree with this comment

Ben Dutka PSXE [Administrator]
Thursday, January 24, 2013 @ 11:24:25 AM

You're not making any sense at all. Because Activision has other products they DO market towards kids, THAT'S why Call of Duty is also marketed toward kids? ...what kind of logic is that?

No, kids do NOT drive the entertainment market. A common falsehood. They don't drive it because they can't; they don't have the means to drive anything. PARENTS drive it. And based on recent studies, MOST parents have no desire to buy Call of Duty for their 9-year-old and no, that is hardly the average age of a CoD player.

The commercials are humorous; they're not designed for children. GameStop certainly isn't pushing CoD on kids, either. CoD's success is in no way predicated on children. That's just absurd in every sense of the term. That basically says that the entire industry is dominated by children because CoD is the biggest franchise on earth. And that HEAVILY clashes with the statistic that the average age of a gamer is 35.

You're dead flat wrong about this, my friend.

Agree with this comment 3 up, 1 down Disagree with this comment

Ludicrous_Liam
Thursday, January 24, 2013 @ 12:30:24 PM

I can see what The Real Deal is saying. Kids perception of what's 'cool' is often derived from what older brothers or friends or whichever are playing.

And on the occasions I've played COD, I've met a fair share of young children playing it.

Also, weren't Activision around in the NES era, with games that had you with a gun shooting aliens, aimed specifically at children? Just saying, they might've learned from the past.

Agree with this comment 0 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

Ben Dutka PSXE [Administrator]
Thursday, January 24, 2013 @ 12:58:57 PM

Irrelevant. Kids think almost everything they're not supposed to have is "cool." They think alcohol is "cool," too. Doesn't mean beer companies market to kids, nor does it mean they're a driving force of that market.

Agree with this comment 2 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

The Real Deal
Thursday, January 24, 2013 @ 6:08:06 PM

That M rating does nothing to deter anyone. Cigarette packages say they cause cancer, yet people buy them. Alcohol causes many adverse side effects that are known, that doesn't stop anyone. I am calling into question the motive and the integrity of these two institutions and how they promote directly or indirectly to children.

This should be looked into and there should be tougher regulation to stop this form of marketing. Much in the same way there are no commercials for cigarette's, I suggest the same approach for m rated games; or at the very least a place that can verify your age before watching them.

If companies didn't abuse there power and were not money hungry these regulations wouldn't need to exist. Let's see a very heavy regulated COD game that parents know is bad for their kids do 25 million in sales. It wouldn't happen!!!!!!!

Agree with this comment 1 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

The Real Deal
Thursday, January 24, 2013 @ 6:19:53 PM

@Ben,

Your'e right; parents are the root cause of the problem. But that doesn't address the child pulling on the pant leg begging for the next call of duty. Why are kids clamoring for this game, commercials: check, the local game stop employee talking about it constantly: check, the fact that parents are not associating this game with violence or are to busy to see; check.

The bottom line is there's room for improvement, if parents can't be responsible which tends to be the case, then the market has too. If that means regulation then so be it. There is such a thing as being to real, you know?

Agree with this comment 1 up, 1 down Disagree with this comment

The Real Deal
Thursday, January 24, 2013 @ 6:43:00 PM

The only reason the average age of a gamer statistically is 35, is because we don't count underage kids that have there parents buy mature rated games. The average age for a COD player is closer to 25, with a majority of them being in the age group of 12-17.

Look at a far superior product in Battlefield 3, that didn't sell half as near as COD. Why? One they don't market to children, all there ads are adult themed and you know when you see it what you get. The second is they don't have the core audience that COD has. What makes all those kids buy it every year, well its the facebook of video games. Its the ones place where all there friends are at. Its like going to high school in the afternoon, lol.

Agree with this comment 1 up, 1 down Disagree with this comment

Ben Dutka PSXE [Administrator]
Thursday, January 24, 2013 @ 11:57:10 PM

The Real Deal: I'm sorry, I just never see kids "clamoring" for Call of Duty. I really don't.

Agree with this comment 0 up, 1 down Disagree with this comment

Simcoe
Friday, January 25, 2013 @ 11:45:32 AM

I agree with The Real Deal...the part where he says that Battlefield 3 is a superior product (compared to COD)! ;-)

Agree with this comment 0 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

WorldEndsWithMe
Wednesday, January 23, 2013 @ 10:50:56 PM
Reply

Well said Mr. Dutka, couldn't have said it better myself. What ARE these children doing with these games and WHO is actually to blame for said possession. Should we conduct studies on the effect of giving children assault weapons too? (Not that that's the same thing but just as asinine an idea).

Did you all know the FTC has cited the video game industry as being the best enforced in ratings? But nothing can keep a parent from purchasing the game for their child can it?

As we sift through the ashes looking for blame we will find plenty to go around, but I think it's better to listen to Mark Twain: "Do not argue with idiots, they will drag you down to their level and beat you with experience."

The industry is good for capitalism, makes a lot of money, so it isn't going to be damaged much by any of this rabble rousing from people willing to do anything but put in place common sense safety measures.

Agree with this comment 0 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

Cabalavatar1
Wednesday, January 23, 2013 @ 11:28:46 PM
Reply

I've been doing a fair bit of reading on this issue for a while--only in science and psychology publications (and non-published but peer-reviewed experiments). I can't find much in the way of a solid conclusion. Sometimes I read "playing violent games is a predictor of later aggression. But being aggressive isn’t a predictor of playing violent games." So they make us aggressive. However, the amount of excess aggression is often around 2%, which is statistically insignificant, and those articles get published more often than the studies that fail to show a correlational link between aggression and video game playing.

People who tend to be physically violent and aggressive, overwhelming choose to play video games (Lemmens et al 2006). A study of Korean youth found that aggressive and narcissistic personalities were more likely to become addicted to online games (Kim et al 2008). However, as I've said before here, we don't get any CAUSAL links, only correlational links. The latter doesn't really help us.

The debate in scientific circles is contradictory. You can find evidence for and against, about most if it depends on the researchers' interpretations. The two big heads are Bushman and Ferguson. Bushman fears that the violence is changing development. Ferguson tells us that there isn't enough evidence to suggest that. Something to take away, though is that they "both agree on one thing: as fathers, they've banned their own kids from playing violent video games."

I wouldn't ban my kids from any specific media; that's their decision. (And how dare I impose my beliefs on them.) I find humans are quite adept at discerning the difference between reality and fiction (religion aside). We may react to each of them similarly, in the moment, and for a little while afterwards while those neurons are still firing. But we adapt back into reality.

Agree with this comment 0 up, 3 down Disagree with this comment

Snaaaake
Wednesday, January 23, 2013 @ 11:33:35 PM

True mate, my lil cousin played GTA at 11, still a normal kid he is.

Agree with this comment 0 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

Ben Dutka PSXE [Administrator]
Thursday, January 24, 2013 @ 1:01:47 AM

"I wouldn't ban my kids from any specific media; that's their decision."

Kids aren't supposed to make certain decisions for themselves. It's why they're kids, and why parents are supposed to be parents. This BS about "letting them choose to do what they want to do" has resulted in zero discipline and absolute monsters in the schools. I have two aunts who are teachers...it's a freaking MESS, and it stems directly from so-called parents letting their kids run amok.

Either that stops or we will continue to raise individuals with no respect for authority figures and who believe they're entitled to absolutely everything on the planet.

Last edited by Ben Dutka PSXE on 1/24/2013 1:02:12 AM

Agree with this comment 7 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

PSN French
Thursday, January 24, 2013 @ 6:15:42 AM

@Ben, Society didn't just magically change after how many millenia? The entitlement nation has been formed from 100 years of work through propoganda from governments and shadow groups like bilderberg, to convince us that PEOPLE are evil and GOVERNMENT is good, when it's the other way around. So many people around me detest others, it's a disgusting trend that is causing society to decay and bring my country with it. I kindly ask... why is it "people" are so incapable of taking care of themselves or being good parents... except the people YOU know? Is it because it's a bunch of bullcrap and the REAL problem is government? Think for yourself... EVERYONE is capable of great things, but most will become apathetic when others (government) promise to do things for them.

Last edited by PSN French on 1/24/2013 6:20:41 AM

Agree with this comment 0 up, 2 down Disagree with this comment

SirLoin of Beef
Thursday, January 24, 2013 @ 8:50:42 AM

You, as a parent, think you shouldn't pass your beliefs on to your kids? Wow. Do you teach them nothing, then? Where are they to learn things? Television? Magazines? The school system?

Agree with this comment 2 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

Ben Dutka PSXE [Administrator]
Thursday, January 24, 2013 @ 11:26:05 AM

PSN French: Uh...does that socialistic diatribe have anything whatsoever to do with the topic at hand?

All people are equally capable, INCLUDING kids? So parents don't have to tell them anything, huh? Is that what I'm supposed to deduce from your rant?

Agree with this comment 4 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

Underdog15
Thursday, January 24, 2013 @ 1:26:53 PM

If you were so knowledgeable in psychology as you claim to be, you would know how long it takes a child to fully develop socially and mentally to fully think for themselves at an adult cognitive level. Not even adolescence has it fully developed. You would also know that a laissez-faire approach to parenting leads to increased likelihood if unhealthy social interactions, depression, and underdeveloped psycho social abilities. A passive-authoritative approach is best. Even for teachers. Guiding thoughts with a moral foundation is necessary, because kids believe many things. And even if they believe the right things, it's not always for the right reasons. Yes, you encourage them to think independently, but you need to provide a moral compass. You aren't shaping them into a zombie. If you do your job right, they'll make their own decisions as adults anyways, but with a better understanding and foundation for reason. Your method will lead to many personal beliefs founded in "just because" or they will create justifications out of thin air to support their beliefs.

in other words, I disagree with most of your post.

Agree with this comment 3 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

wackazoa
Thursday, January 24, 2013 @ 1:32:45 PM

@French. You left out the templars, the freemasons, and aliens in your conspiracy groups. Your welcome.


By the by... you want a sure fire way to tell if someone is gonna be agressive or more prone to violence ? Watch how they treat small animals...


(Caveat: All animals are capable of violence, if put in certain situations.)

Last edited by wackazoa on 1/24/2013 1:38:14 PM

Agree with this comment 2 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

clockwyzebkny
Wednesday, January 23, 2013 @ 11:45:23 PM
Reply

i couldn't have said it better. I detest it when people use the video game industry as a scapegoat. The industry and a very great amount of video gamers are grown freaking adults!

I get incredelous looks when i say i'm a video gamer Why? Should i look at someone weird when they say they're going to watch a movie?! Read some fiction?!

As you mentioned video games have continuously grown with so much inovation There's tons of categories in video games like there's a myriad of genres in the music industry. To have tunnel vision and think all games are like Mario and meant for everyone is being completely ignorant.

Also the theory that violent games are affecting people to make them into immoral killing machines is a load of crap People with PRE EXISTING MENTAL ISSUES kill people And if a breaking point is reached, they'll kill people for whatever reasons whether violent games, media etc exists or not.

The big issue is that parents, politicians and much of news media don't like to take responsibility and seek the truth behind such matters.

Agree with this comment 0 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

The Real Deal
Thursday, January 24, 2013 @ 6:51:22 AM

"I get incredelous looks when i say i'm a video gamer Why? Should i look at someone weird when they say they're going to watch a movie?! Read some fiction?!"

Classic, incredelous..... funny stuff right here!

Agree with this comment 0 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

WorldEndsWithMe
Wednesday, January 23, 2013 @ 11:56:23 PM
Reply

I have mental issues, but my games help me :)

Agree with this comment 0 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

Killa Tequilla
Thursday, January 24, 2013 @ 12:26:54 AM

What kind of issues?

Agree with this comment 0 up, 1 down Disagree with this comment

WorldEndsWithMe
Thursday, January 24, 2013 @ 9:05:19 AM

Anxiety and panic disorder, nothing helps me relieve the tension of a hard day at school or work(and mine are by nature much harder than they are for most)like saving the world.

Agree with this comment 0 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

bigrailer19
Thursday, January 24, 2013 @ 12:03:15 AM
Reply

This is what I argue all day. Great article Ben! Nothing better than common sense before bed time!

Agree with this comment 0 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

kraygen
Thursday, January 24, 2013 @ 12:46:41 AM
Reply

I think you're wrong Ben, obviously video games are the cause of violence. Video games have been around for about what 50-60 years?

So obviously violence has only been around for about 40-50 years and gun violence has only been around for like 30 years. Proof positive right there. . . .

Oh wait, I think people killed each other with guns before 1940, nah, gotta be video games. That seems logical.

Agree with this comment 1 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

wackazoa
Thursday, January 24, 2013 @ 1:29:27 PM

You didnt know ? When he wasnt fighting vampires or freeing the slaves, Abe Lincoln was a badass Street Fighter player.

Last edited by wackazoa on 1/24/2013 1:29:49 PM

Agree with this comment 0 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

Dirt
Friday, January 25, 2013 @ 4:10:54 AM

I pegged Lincoln as more of a Dead Or Alive enthusiast, myself.

Agree with this comment 0 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

Jawknee
Thursday, January 24, 2013 @ 1:06:48 AM
Reply

Good article but a waste I'm afraid. These pols don't care about facts or reason. Every move they make these days is based on sheer emotion and politicking in a hope it will shore up more power for themselves. I fear some in Washington actually relish terrible events like Newtown. It gives them a reason to attack our Bill of Rights and further empower the state. Ed Rendell said as much not long after it happened. Most of these pols know their 'solutions' will not stop the next Newtown. But it doesn't matter, if they can exploit it to further stigmatize gamers and law abiding gun owners to advance their assault on our individual sovereignty, they will continue to see these horribly evil events as opportunities to grab more power and further erode our Bill of Rights.

Agree with this comment 2 up, 1 down Disagree with this comment

The Real Deal
Thursday, January 24, 2013 @ 6:46:25 AM

Agreed, and yes politicians use events like Newtown and September 11 to further there agenda. Usually thats for the good of America. But in some cases its for there own personal reasons or there supporters agenda. Example: Bush and Cheney = Iraq!!!!!

Agree with this comment 1 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

Knightzane
Thursday, January 24, 2013 @ 5:28:49 AM
Reply

Really cool article Ben. I agree with it 100%. But when i was 9, GTA Vice City came out and i played it. I have played probably hundreds of M games and i haven't killed a single person. Don't get me wrong, i've been tempted to. Namingly the drivers around here.

These "Officials" really need to stop blaming video games and developers, and turn their eyes at the parents. I've said this before, i saw more parents with their kids at the Black Ops 2 release than i did teenagers. Parents use games to babysit their kids. Instead, spend time with them, or at least buy them a game with the tag T, or E. Their not for decoration, they literally are designed for parents to say "Ok you can play this game billy."

This is becoming more of an issue than it needs to. If videos games made children more violent, then why isn't the what... 60 million avid gamers serial killers? Plenty of the people here, im sure, have been playing video games since they were kids. None of you are murderers. The only reason that all of this focus is on video games, is the parents way of avoiding the embarrassment of people turning to their failure of raising their own kids, and allowing the developers to do so.

I blame the parents 100%. I've heard "Oh well his brother plays it so its not fair that he can't" Thats the opposite of what you should be saying. If the brother is 17, he is allowed to play M games, for the most part. They shouldn't allow their little 7 year old to be playing the games the 17 year old plays just because you don't want to be a parent.

Im going to end my post here, because i could keep going, but seriously, to the douchbags who can't fix our economy, but can afford private jets, LEAVE VIDEO GAMES ALONE. Some of us don't have 40g's laying around the house underneath couch cussions, some of us enjoy exploring a mystical world, and endangering that by pointing blame at things other than the REAL problem is BS. I don't go starting petitions to remove the scared and greedy individuals that sit on top of buildings looking down at the world while counting their money.

Agree with this comment 2 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

The Real Deal
Thursday, January 24, 2013 @ 6:37:02 AM

You are 100% correct. Babysitting with movies and video games have long been the norm in many families. I would go out on a limb and say; there are more parents that do this, then don't. Even a good parent in all respects succumb to these practices. Americans are too busy, overworked, and underpaid to worry about such a little thing as taking care of there sons and daughters. I am not a supporter of china's limit on children for families, but some people should not have kids when they do.

Agree with this comment 0 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

homura
Thursday, January 24, 2013 @ 8:08:18 AM

I admit that I have murdered countless cackroaches. Also back when I'm still an Elementary student, I Hadoukened my classmate because he Sonic Boomed me, at first I'm going to used Kamehameha wave but I still haven't perfected it. I also had plans to Finish Him that weekend and do some Fatality on him but it didn't happen because we became friends again during a basketball game. As for now I'm practicing on summoning Bahamut from time to time but still with no success. By the way I've mastered Izuna drop just the other day with my bolo.

Agree with this comment 0 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

Ludicrous_Liam
Thursday, January 24, 2013 @ 12:39:42 PM

I used to play Vice City when I was around 5 or 6. The only thing I did was try to find motorcycles and drive up staircases. Needless to say I often died, and it took me forever to find another bike. :(

I honestly don't think these kinda game have a bad impact on kids. If they aren't aware of what's happening (e.g the consequences of killing someone or being reckless), their minds just skip past it and concentrate on other things. Atleast in my experiance that's the case.

EDIT: Just incase anyone was wondering, the game was my uncles'. I played it when he was at work. When he found out he took it from me until I told him I just wanted to find a gold motorcycle...he actually took the time out to find it I remember. He then gave the controller to me and I promptly crashed and burned. :p



Last edited by Ludicrous_Liam on 1/24/2013 12:42:47 PM

Agree with this comment 1 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

Draguss
Thursday, January 24, 2013 @ 6:11:12 AM
Reply

Yeah, I'm sure plenty of politicians will read this...

Agree with this comment 1 up, 1 down Disagree with this comment

SirLoin of Beef
Thursday, January 24, 2013 @ 8:55:43 AM

You can always send the link to the article it to your congressman...

Agree with this comment 1 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

WorldEndsWithMe
Thursday, January 24, 2013 @ 9:05:53 AM

That's the point of publication, hoping it gets disseminated.

Agree with this comment 2 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

ulsterscot
Thursday, January 24, 2013 @ 10:01:36 AM
Reply

I hate it when kid's play - it should only be sold to 21+ year olds - then did do much better.

Agree with this comment 0 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

airwedge1
Thursday, January 24, 2013 @ 10:14:21 AM
Reply

Agreed 100%. It is so silly that parents allow their kids to play M rated games. It is not just a small percentage of parents either. If you go play COD online, which I stopped doing a couple years ago, literally it seemed as over 50% of the players were 13 or younger. Parents are becoming more and more ignorant.

Saying that playing video games can lead to a person becoming a gun men, I think is ridiculous as well. If you look at the history of these people, there is likely a history of neglect, and not a single person in their lives decided to give that child love. In my opinion If a child is not loved they stop respecting life. That is the issue, not video games.

Agree with this comment 1 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

pavlovic
Thursday, January 24, 2013 @ 10:39:58 AM
Reply

Parents should know that every console in the market right now has parental control, the 360 even allow parents to set play times.

Really, as long as the parents don't care about what their kids are playing, those same parents are going to blame videogames for everything.

Sometime last year my nephew (11) was at my home using my PS3, when he saw CODBO2 he was literally begging to play it because all of his fiends play it. I didn't let him and overreacted and stop taking to me...even stopped playing PS3. My sister was thankfully and told me "everytime he plays at his friends house he comes back irritated".

Agree with this comment 2 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

ulsterscot
Thursday, January 24, 2013 @ 11:06:32 AM
Reply

Children should be seen and not heard.

Or is that women

Can't remember

Agree with this comment 2 up, 1 down Disagree with this comment

wackazoa
Thursday, January 24, 2013 @ 1:25:03 PM

Women are supposed to be barefoot and pregnant in the kitchen...

Your welcome.

Agree with this comment 0 up, 1 down Disagree with this comment

ulsterscot
Thursday, January 24, 2013 @ 11:12:43 AM
Reply

Isn't funny that British Commonwealth countries like the UK, Canada, Australia, New Zealand where video games are equally as popular among youth as in the US - do not seem to have the same problems. They also all have tighter gun control. Do you think there might be a link there ...

Agree with this comment 3 up, 1 down Disagree with this comment

Beamboom
Thursday, January 24, 2013 @ 11:17:30 AM

No way. Seek explanations elsewhere. Nothing more to be found here.

Agree with this comment 0 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

Ludicrous_Liam
Thursday, January 24, 2013 @ 12:44:55 PM

WHAT!?

...don't be ridiclous.

Agree with this comment 0 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

Jawknee
Thursday, January 24, 2013 @ 12:56:37 PM

The US population as well as is diversity Is far greater than those counties you mentioned so your point is a non sequitur.

Agree with this comment 2 up, 1 down Disagree with this comment

Underdog15
Thursday, January 24, 2013 @ 1:31:33 PM

Not true jawk. Both Canada and Britain have higher diversity rates per capita. Canada is the go to immigration country right now.

Agree with this comment 0 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

Jawknee
Thursday, January 24, 2013 @ 1:39:30 PM

You're wrong Underdog. The US is labeled the worlds melting pot for a reason.

Last edited by Jawknee on 1/24/2013 1:39:48 PM

Agree with this comment 0 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

Underdog15
Thursday, January 24, 2013 @ 1:44:43 PM

I was wrong about the UK, but....

Yup. Canada is number 1. US is number 5.

http://telematica.politicas.unam.mx/biblioteca/archivos/040107017.pdf

Agree with this comment 1 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

Underdog15
Thursday, January 24, 2013 @ 1:45:56 PM

I was wrong only about the UK, it turns out in this study. (In the link waiting to be approved at this point)

The US is number 5 behind some extremely peaceful countries.

.... Including the number 1 Canada. (My mother in law is an ESL teacher. I'm not pulling this out of my arse.)

By the way, the study was done at Stanford University, in California. So, a US based study, just for you. :)

Anyways, my point is that "diversity" isn't what makes the US 10 times more violent per capita than the second place most violent 1st world country.

Last edited by Underdog15 on 1/24/2013 1:52:03 PM

Agree with this comment 0 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

Jawknee
Thursday, January 24, 2013 @ 1:51:13 PM

It's a non sequitur to compare counties the way gun grabbers do. 30 million people vs 330 million is a HUGE difference. Throw in our inner city issues and sharing the Southern Boarder with a failed state, you cannot compare the US to Canada the way you and gun haters do. We're different people with a different culture. I find it interesting how many berate the US for its apparent arrogance in telling other countries and cultures how they how they should be yet every time a sensitive subject like this comes up on PSX I'm out numbered by the arrogance of foreigners opining and pontificating about how much better they are than us. Projection I suppose.

Last edited by Jawknee on 1/24/2013 1:56:00 PM

Agree with this comment 1 up, 1 down Disagree with this comment

Underdog15
Thursday, January 24, 2013 @ 2:05:13 PM

Per capita, bro. Lol. Is representative. Even still the us isn't first.baby countries pride themselves in diversity. Lots! Whether is the us melting pot, Canada's from far and wide, or Papua new Guinea, Australia or Brazil. All are proud.

Diversity does not equal the us is so bad. It just doesn't. The us is neither the most diverse nor is it unlike everyone else's diversity. Even if it did, the us doesn't have ten times the people of these other diverse countries

I think you're just scrambling for a scapegoat. :(

Agree with this comment 1 up, 2 down Disagree with this comment

Jawknee
Thursday, January 24, 2013 @ 2:10:29 PM

It's you who is scrambling for a scapegoat. You act as if Canada is so much better when in reality PER CAPTIA BRO your gun violence is hardly better than ours. And that with all your glorious restrictions on people's individual liberty.

Canada doesn't have the gang, drug, city violence or cartel problems the US has.

Non sequitur.

Last edited by Jawknee on 1/24/2013 2:13:46 PM

Agree with this comment 0 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

Underdog15
Thursday, January 24, 2013 @ 6:14:01 PM

You are statistically (objectively) incorrect, Jawk by a huge huge margin. I'm not floundering for any scapegoats. What do I care what happens in the USA?!?! lol I'm giving you straight up statistical evidence. You're just yelling. I'm not sure it's me... Here... the following stats for you: (and by all means... please provide your own for support.....)

Per capita, our gun violence is significantly better. Per hundred thousand people, the USA has 10.2 people. (Which is 10th worst of ALL countries, not just 1st world!!!) This is in comparison to Canada's 2.13 per hundred thousand. So no, you are wrong. Canada is not comparable per capita, either. It's 5 times better!

Also, if you compare major cities, Toronto has 50% of it's population non-Canadians. Compare that with Chicago, which has closer to 40%. Why does Chicago have over 700 homicides, 200 more than all Canada combined?

Diversity by your determination should dictate Toronto to be much more violent. Yet.....


I'm not scrambling, Jawk. I know what is true. And there are many factors to consider in violence. But diversity, according to studies, is more likely to strengthen a community.

You could argue that discrimination is a cause, yes. But not diversity itself. I could see there being a need for more study on discrimination's influence, as there's more history in the states. But other countries more diverse than yours do not have the same amount of violence in total nor in per capita. Also, the melting pot thing is an American label. It's not a worldwide thing. Currently, Canada is the go-to country for immigration into the first world. That's not strange. Eventually, our government will limit immigration and others, including yours, will open it up more depending on economic climates. That's not a surprise. Our economy is relatively strong, so we have more immigration. It doesn't mean we are "better".

But in terms of violence... yes... we are significantly more peaceful. But we are also the second most violent nation in the first world. Just nowhere near the outlying USA.

All I'm saying is, you can't blame diversity. That's just straight up bogus. There are plenty of other things to point fingers at that make far more sense... Discrimination being an excellent one. (Due to American history and continued weirdness in outlying places likely not in your own community)

Agree with this comment 1 up, 1 down Disagree with this comment

Underdog15
Thursday, January 24, 2013 @ 6:26:54 PM

P.s. more links below. I would appreciate you publish factual findings and sources in the future. 4k cannot be true because we don't even have that many homicides and suicides combined, let alone 4k deaths specifically by guns.

It's around 5-600 (That's pronounced HUNDRED, not thousand) homicides country wide. It's literally impossible to have had 4 thousand of 6 hundred deaths be by a gun. Where in the world are you getting your numbers? They just aren't correct!

Agree with this comment 1 up, 1 down Disagree with this comment

Simcoe
Friday, January 25, 2013 @ 2:05:28 PM

Thumbs up for providing credible sources (peer reviewed, none the less!).

Agree with this comment 0 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

Deleted User
Thursday, January 24, 2013 @ 11:33:40 AM
Reply

The U.S. has always been the land of sensationalism. It's always been the key to getting Internet hits or T.V. ratings. If a man gets bitten by a poisonous snake, they would spin it that an army of poisonous snakes are coming for them.

One mentally ill man who didn't get the help he needed and played M-rated games (which he was allowed to play as he was 20) and shot up the school means there's an army of the same ready to shoot up more of them.

These politicians will simply do nothing to change any status quo. After Columbine, I talked to some Americans who worked at my company and they just laughed and said "It's the way it is there." and that was that. It's just talk.

The U.S. will always be behind the times when it comes to politics. They still rely on the same dated policies from 1776. It's not worth wasting time trying to convince Americans to change their Constitution as that would be blasphemy. Then again, this is a country that thinks San Francisco is the most liberal city in the world, which is a laugh.

Honestly, 99.9% of kids who play M-rated games aren't going to shoot up the school. They just need to deal with the mentally ill who possibly could cause another Columbine or Sandy Hook from occurring; that possible 0.01%. Too many schools and governments do not take mental illness seriously. If somebody has issues and wants help, they should get it immediately. It's a bigger problem than people think.

Agree with this comment 2 up, 3 down Disagree with this comment

SirLoin of Beef
Thursday, January 24, 2013 @ 11:58:59 AM

So the U.S. Constitution is the same in 2013 as it was in 1788?

Agree with this comment 0 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

Jawknee
Thursday, January 24, 2013 @ 12:19:18 PM

The Bill of Rights is timeless. Our rights come from God/Nature. Not you or Government or any other man/woman who places themselves into a position of authority.

I always find it interesting that foreigners like you seem to think you have some moral high ground to lecture us about our system of government and the Bill of Rights which has kept us free and much of the world free for more than 220 years. NO ONE has the right to tell another they don't have a right to self defense and must rely on the state for such protection when it's the state who has killed more people throughout history than any law abiding gun owner or even a nutcases like the Newtown shooter. If pols, cops and criminals get to have guns, so does the average citizen. We're not subjects of the state, were individuals endowed by our creator, our rights are inalienable. No amount of whining from a Canadian will change that.

Agree with this comment 3 up, 1 down Disagree with this comment

Deleted User
Thursday, January 24, 2013 @ 12:34:36 PM

@ Jawknee

I don't expect your country to ever change their Constitution, Bill Of Rights or philosophies this year, next year, in 20 years or in 237 years. You built your country on these beliefs and always will, dated as they are now in 2013.

I'm a Canadian centrist atheist, you're a far right American Fundamentalist Protestant. We represent two different viewpoints. Not worth trying to change anybody's opinion in this case.

Agree with this comment 1 up, 4 down Disagree with this comment

wackazoa
Thursday, January 24, 2013 @ 12:51:17 PM

Well to just blame the U.S. for sensationalism is being a bit narrow minded. PEOPLE are prone to hysteria. (especially a mass of PEOPLE) Ever hear of the Spanish Inquisition? Or the Mayan's and their child sacrifices? Or any number of other instances in history where a group of people blamed regular problems they had no answer for on others? (google the Jewish people)

Last edited by wackazoa on 1/24/2013 12:52:29 PM

Agree with this comment 1 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

Deleted User
Thursday, January 24, 2013 @ 12:57:07 PM

@ wackazoa

In our history, we've had many cases like the ones you mentioned. The sensationalism going on in the press is very, very minor compared to the Spanish Inquisition or the Jewish Question as nobody is being persecuted, instead being mostly misinformed. I just feel that telling the naked truth is better but doing so won't get the Internet hits, T.V. ratings or $$$ that everybody desires.

Agree with this comment 1 up, 3 down Disagree with this comment

Jawknee
Thursday, January 24, 2013 @ 1:16:24 PM

Nature gave animals teeth and claws for which to defend themselves. Humans were given a mind which is used to fashion tools. Taking guns away from law abiders only ensures criminals and would be tyrants have them. World War II and events like Tiananmen Square may have turned out very differently had those law abiders been allowed to keep their arms. There is no denying that.

Last edited by Jawknee on 1/24/2013 1:17:02 PM

Agree with this comment 2 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

wackazoa
Thursday, January 24, 2013 @ 1:18:20 PM

Yes history does tell of the power of leading the uniformed masses. Wars were started using these tactics.(actually most wars.) Sensationalism is not new. And Im afriad it is going nowhere. With the invent of 24hr. TV news it will only get worse Im sure.

As for no-one getting persecuted, Im sure a few gamers feel like they might be.

Last edited by wackazoa on 1/24/2013 1:20:43 PM

Agree with this comment 0 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

maxpontiac
Thursday, January 24, 2013 @ 5:55:19 PM

You know something "brighat1971"?

You made some excellent points, but you could have avoided the anti-USA rhetoric.

Agree with this comment 1 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

Underdog15
Thursday, January 24, 2013 @ 6:16:45 PM

@brighat

God doesn't believe in the atheist. ;) (Name of a book, actually... good read. But you are an agnostic. Not an atheist. That's a contradiction in and of itself since there's no way to know for sure, so believing there is no god, is in and of itself, a belief.)

It's a humerous read, not a serious one, by the way.

Agree with this comment 0 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

Deleted User
Thursday, January 24, 2013 @ 7:58:08 PM

If I came out as anti-American, I'm sorry. I'm just sick and tired of the same "blame video games" rhetoric American politicians use every time a massacre occurs in order to turn a blind eye on the real issues that caused somebody to shoot up the school.

Agree with this comment 2 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

wackazoa
Thursday, January 24, 2013 @ 12:36:26 PM
Reply

Good job Ben. And while I do believe that you point "the finger" in the right directions I do believe some of the blame must fall on Sony and Microsoft as well.

Sony by issuing a statement many years ago, steadfastly refusing to allow Adult Only rated games has somewhat helped to feed the belief that games are for kids. Hear me out here. Grand Theft Auto could be rated AO. As it has been stated that it was never intended for children. Im not talking about x-rated or the abomination that was BMXXX. Im talking games for adults, that cover adult themes such as Bioshock, Call of Battlefieldzone:Warfighter 3, GTA, Heavy Rain,etc.

By refusing to allow AO ratings, the examples I give do water down the stories a bit to get a M rating, but it seems to convey the same arguments that we try to fight against, that games are just for kids. And I do belive it could be fixed by just allowing AO games.

As for the ratings comparison, R rated movies are frequently watched by children and young teenagers. AO ratings I believe should fall in the NC17 area. Im am not for porno games. I do believe that AO doesnt have to mean porno however.

Last edited by wackazoa on 1/24/2013 12:38:15 PM

Agree with this comment 0 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

SirLoin of Beef
Thursday, January 24, 2013 @ 12:43:40 PM

It's not the fault of Sony or MS for using the M rating and the parents disregarding them just as it isn't the studio's fault if a parent lets their kids watch an R movie. The labels state why the game got the M rating, whether it be the language, violence, or adult content.

Agree with this comment 1 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

wackazoa
Thursday, January 24, 2013 @ 1:10:33 PM

Not thier fault at all. Are they helping to perpetuate the myth that gaming is just for kids by refusing to allow games just for adults? I think they are.

Agree with this comment 0 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

SirLoin of Beef
Thursday, January 24, 2013 @ 1:28:59 PM

But they're marked "M" for mature and at the top of the label it says "17+" as well as the reasons why. That doesn't perpetuate any myth that gaming is just for kids. How could a parent who's checking what his kid is playing and wants to control what his kid plays see a game marked "M" for things like graphic violence, adult content, and strong language think that that particular game was suitable for kids?

Agree with this comment 1 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

wackazoa
Thursday, January 24, 2013 @ 2:00:20 PM

Well lets compare M and R rating to pictures... say Maxim. And NC17 to say Playboy. And X rated to obviously hardcore porn. Now please follow me here. No parent wants children watching hardcore porn. Good there. Most parents dont want their children looking at Playboy. We're good there. Now as for Maxim, most people see nothing wrong with it. The girls are clothed and beautiful. So most see it as ok.

However, Maxim is not advertised to children. The content is not always suitable for children. The wirters dont sit down and say hey lets tone this down cause children might read it. But many a young teenage boy has seen or frequently reads that magazine.

Now lets make the huge leap to video games. GTA is not advertised nor does Sam Houser sit down and say you know kids are playing this game, lets not discuss this subject or situation.(at least I think he doesnt) But young teenagers or even children have played or even frequently play that game.

Now jump back to ratings. Parents actively try to keep hardcore and softcore pornography away from their kids. My parents for example hid theirs. After they found out we discovered the location, they hide it somewhere else. But R rated movies where kept with the other movies. (just for a quick background my father never let us watch the Simpsons as he didnt like the way it portrayed family situations.)

Now to conclude. The entertainment industry has ratings and that is good. But society has deemed some worse than others. As just as R and M rating are not design for children, society hasnt deemed them as evil as some harsher ratings. Playboy and Maxim are different only in the pictures they include in their magazines. But are treated completely different.

How many times have you heard a parent say my kid is "mature for his age." Sony, Microsoft, and movie companies, in trying to reach as broad an audience as possible and bring in as much money as possible, have fallen in the trap of not declaring adult content for adult only. And the M and R ratings are the perfect example of that.

So yes the myth that gaming is for kids is perpetuated thusly.

Sorry for the really long post.

Last edited by wackazoa on 1/24/2013 2:02:10 PM

Agree with this comment 1 up, 1 down Disagree with this comment

SirLoin of Beef
Thursday, January 24, 2013 @ 2:18:27 PM

It still isn't the gaming industry's fault. They're marking the games that are mature and suggest the age of 17+. The labels explain why those games received the M rating. It's up to the parents to decide whether they want their kid(s) to play a game that is M due to adult content, violence, etc. If the parent thinks that their kid is mature enough to play it, it is the parent who shoulders responsibility if the game screws with their kid's head. The game maker/publisher did its part by informing the parent what to expect, content-wise, by way of the rating label.

The same thing goes for movies. If a parent leaves rated R movies lying around, they shouldn't be shocked if their kids watch them, even if they don't want them to watch it. And when that happens, it's not the studio's fault.

The myth that gaming is for kids is perpetuated by parents who allow their kids to play any game they want to or those who aren't familiar with gaming who don't take the time to educate themselves in what the ESRB does, why games get the ratings they get, etc. It's not the gaming industry's fault that people don't take the small amount of time it takes to read why a game is rated as is it.

Agree with this comment 1 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

wackazoa
Thursday, January 24, 2013 @ 3:44:40 PM

I do apologize. In my many words I have not made myself clear. Not placing sole blame on Sony and Microsoft. Was just saying they are helping.

Agree with this comment 0 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

Underdog15
Thursday, January 24, 2013 @ 1:13:15 PM
Reply

Kobe bryant and ironman are definitely more closely admired by college age and 20's. Kids are more about lebron or Blake Griffin and spider man. Lebron is old now!

Agree with this comment 0 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

ulsterscot
Thursday, January 24, 2013 @ 1:17:44 PM
Reply

Even if you take the US population as roughly 3-4 times that as the British Commonwealth countries mentioned - serious gun crime is still miniscule if you multiply by 4. And Canada is every bit as diverse as the US if not more so. Last time I was in the UK and Australia it was pretty diverse too. Haven't been to New Zealand yet - but plan too

Agree with this comment 1 up, 1 down Disagree with this comment

Jawknee
Thursday, January 24, 2013 @ 1:26:58 PM

Not true. There are on average 4k guns death per 100k per year in Canada. About half are suicides with a population of 30 million people. In the US there are about 15k gun deaths per 100k per year, 60% of which are suicides, the rest gang violence with a population of 330 million, less than 500 are considered accidents. Also the UK was just established to be the most violent country in Western Europe. More dangerous than South Africa.

You're out of your depth.

Agree with this comment 1 up, 1 down Disagree with this comment

Killa Tequilla
Thursday, January 24, 2013 @ 1:29:32 PM

He's out of his element.

Agree with this comment 1 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

Jawknee
Thursday, January 24, 2013 @ 1:38:34 PM

Lets put this in perspective. There are over 39k deaths per year in the US by car accidents. Less then 500 accidental guns deaths. For the sake of argument well compare all gun deaths, 15k per year to all car deaths, over 39k, and people want to ban guns? LOL

I hear the new slogan in Washington about gun restrictions is 'if it saves just one life, it's worth doing'. Well then if it saves just one life, lets ban, cars, trains, subways, knifes, food, medicine, machinists, construction workers, smoking.....it never ends does it?

Those who would sacrifice liberty for temporary security deserve neither.

Agree with this comment 2 up, 1 down Disagree with this comment

Jawknee
Thursday, January 24, 2013 @ 2:45:56 PM

Correction, I just looked it up, the average yearly gun related deaths in the US is about 10k-60% suicides per year in TOTAL. 4k per year in total for Canada. And the US rates have been delcining despite there being more guns in circulation.

So with your 30 million people vs our 330 million and you have only half the gun deaths per year. Given all of your draconian gun laws you would think if they worked so well your rates would be much lower.

If gun control worked, Chicago and Mexico would be the safest places on the planet....yet, they're not.

Last edited by Jawknee on 1/24/2013 2:48:32 PM

Agree with this comment 2 up, 1 down Disagree with this comment

Underdog15
Thursday, January 24, 2013 @ 6:19:26 PM

Jawk, you're pulling numbers out of thin air. Here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_firearm-related_death_rate

Agree with this comment 0 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

Underdog15
Thursday, January 24, 2013 @ 6:20:44 PM

Ah, I see Ulsterscot already posted that link. Sorry.

Anyways, no Jawk... 4 k is not right. We only had 530-something homicides country wide, let alone 4k gun related ones... lol

Seriously. Do your damn research, publish your findings, and stop pulling numbers out of thin air! What the heck kind of resource are you getting 4k from?!?!

Last edited by Underdog15 on 1/24/2013 6:22:22 PM

Agree with this comment 1 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

Underdog15
Thursday, January 24, 2013 @ 6:29:08 PM

If gun control worked, places like Japan and Iceland wouldn't have so many gun related crimes! Oh... wait... yeah... they don't really have any...

Look, there are a lot of areas worth pointing fingers at, Jawknee. Discrimination is an EXCELLENT topic to investigate, as American history, as we all know, is poisoned with discrimination most people there have evolved from. But issues still linger, and likely will for a long time. I believe in that realm, you have excellent points to make and should make them! I bet you even have real life examples of your own, don't you?!

But diversity itself is -not- it. And I can't abide you being so factually incorrect about Canada's numbers. It's just not true. And it's appalling to me you would say such things without doing your research. I do mine... it's the least you could do.

P.s. So sue me for thinking Canada is a better country. You don't have to agree (nor should you as an American, in all honesty), but it is -MY- country, and I love it here. You cannot find an American more proud of America than I, and my family and friends, are of Canada. Maybe equally so, but not more so. And other people think their countries are the best too. That shouldn't offend OR shock you. Not even a little bit.

I love that Frostface loves Ireland. And Beamboom is a proud Norwegian! Lawless and others are proud to be Australian, and some of our Brit friends are proud of the UK. SO WHAT?! You know?

Last edited by Underdog15 on 1/24/2013 6:39:10 PM

Agree with this comment 1 up, 1 down Disagree with this comment

Jawknee
Friday, January 25, 2013 @ 3:42:49 AM

Omy, I must have struck a nerve as you seem to be unable to control the urge to attack my country and haritage while comparing apples and oranges to make your points. America is not Japan, its not Canada, not unlike any other nation on earth yet you continue with the asinine comparisons.

You know Underdog, you played a pretty good game of pretending to be a objective and rational thinker but you're no different than the average foreigner who loathes much about America and makes judgements because many of us don't fall in line with your collectivist world view and the unwillingness to give ourselves and our security to the state. It's fine if you're a proud Canadian. I have never had a problem with anyone being proud of their nation or haritage but you and I are different in that I haven't attacked you or your country for being the way it is other than to point out some of the draconian restrictions on people's freedom even though we see things differently. For goodness sake one can't even publish an article critical of another's religion in Canada without being subject to criminal prosecution for so called 'hate speech' (google Mark Steyn Canada Free Speech, ) yet you have to gall to lecture me about America flaws while pontificating about the virtues of Canada? Typical...

Good day, I'm out.

Last edited by Jawknee on 1/25/2013 3:45:39 AM

Agree with this comment 2 up, 1 down Disagree with this comment

Jawknee
Friday, January 25, 2013 @ 4:01:59 AM

We're unlike*

Agree with this comment 0 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

ulsterscot
Thursday, January 24, 2013 @ 1:40:21 PM
Reply

Ah no

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_firearm-related_death_rate

Before moving to Canada, I grew up in Northern Ireland during the height of the terrorist campaigns. It was still safer that parts of the US. I have lived in Belfast and Glasgow - pretty violent cities - but very very few gun crimes. Terrorism aside - you just don't get free access to guns and the school type massacres that are all to frequent in the US.

I'm not against guns fyi - just not everyone should be allowed them. I have a few myself in a locked unsafe.

Agree with this comment 1 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

Jawknee
Thursday, January 24, 2013 @ 3:44:22 PM

I agree not everyone should have one but we already have laws in place to prevent those who shouldn't have them from getting them. The problem is criminals don't care about laws thus they break them. The new laws people like Feinstein are proposing are targeting law abiding people like me who use my firearms lawfully and responsibly and have them locked away and unloaded when no in use. For her to tell me I have to register with the same ATF who sold thousands of weapons to Mexican drug cartels and that I have to pay for that registration with finger prints, photos and fines for engaging in a lawful purchase years ago is absolutely insane and a gross violation of my Constituonal God given Rights. This from a woman whos husband owns stock in defense contractors, who herself carries with a carry concesl permit which is nearly impossible for the average citizen to obtain in California unless you're the political class. She's no more important than me or my family. Our polticians are not royalty. We're all created equal. Yet she wants to ban a scary looking rifle for looking different than your average dear rifle that functions exactly the same while her palace guards carry fully automatic weapons? She can go to hell.

Last edited by Jawknee on 1/24/2013 3:46:37 PM

Agree with this comment 1 up, 1 down Disagree with this comment

Simcoe
Friday, January 25, 2013 @ 2:02:59 PM

Wasn't the intent of the gun walking scandal supposed to be so that the ATF could track firearms to cartel heads?

Also, I'm sure politicians receive many more death threats compared to regular citizen and I'm sure the vast majority are never made public, so caution should be warranted as they are elected to speak/vote in government for a large number of citizens. Even though politicians maybe trying to pursue the wishes of the majority of their constituents (democracy), they become the target of their constituents wishes. Now while some may not care, there will always be some in that minority that will disagree. Say those constituents in that minority disagree with the new law (or even proposed), the sane, law abiding people, will put their faith/trust in the courts or through some other proper legal channels to prove that their rights have been violated (ex. California Proposition 8, subsequent 9th Circuit federal ruling); but sometimes a very tiny number of these people will threaten violence if *their* wishes aren't followed. Next thing you know, that politician is receiving death threats from that very tiny number of people - all for carrying out the wishes of the majority. Hopefully none of them act on their threat!

Agree with this comment 0 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

ulsterscot
Thursday, January 24, 2013 @ 4:18:21 PM
Reply

W

Agree with this comment 0 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

ulsterscot
Thursday, January 24, 2013 @ 4:20:00 PM
Reply

well - im not really up on the law down there - but up here if you want an assault rifle you have the magizien limited to i think 5 and you have to belong to a gun club. and it has to be locked up in a gun safe

Agree with this comment 0 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

maxpontiac
Thursday, January 24, 2013 @ 5:49:44 PM
Reply

Great article sir, and it is one that is followed by an excellent thread that is filled with discussion.

If, by chance any politicians read this and make their way all the way down to my post, I have a suggestion for you.

Put the 10 Commandments back in our schools, our court rooms and our government. It's that simple.

Oh, but the USA is a land of religious freedoms you say? Fine. I'll just list all the ones that take "God" out of it so I end up PC. I do however, recommend that you read the others because it wouldn't hurt.

1 - Honor your father and mother: Kids minding parents? Sounds good.
2 - Thall shall not commit murder: Don't kill people, yeah, nothing wrong with that.
3 - Don't commit adultry: Only have sex with your husband or wife? Oh, the thought.
4 - Thall shall not steal: Reminding people not to steal from Walmart? Sam approves.
5 - You shall not covet: I don't see anything wrong with telling people not to be jealous.
6 - You shall not be a false witness: Don't lie!? This one is for all my Government friends.

Even with these six that I have posted, they form a great baseline for educating youth and can be considered great advice for all of us "adults".

Agree with this comment 3 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

ulsterscot
Thursday, January 24, 2013 @ 6:43:37 PM
Reply

I blame JRPG games

Agree with this comment 0 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

Ben Dutka PSXE [Administrator]
Thursday, January 24, 2013 @ 11:58:18 PM
Reply

Underdog and Jawknee- Cool it. It's not flaming or insulting or anything but that seems inevitable at this point.

Agree with this comment 2 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

MKM
Monday, January 28, 2013 @ 11:39:48 AM
Reply

Good article, Ben.

I must say, I've heard this garbage from the politicians before. First, it was heavy metal, then it was D&D that was to "blame" for "causing" a mentally ill person to turn violent. Now it's video games.

If someone has a propensity towards violence, they will find something as an outlet for it. It's not about gun laws, it needs to be about getting these people the help they need. We have more than enough gun laws on the books. Like the rules for video game ratings, they need to be enforced better, not have more piled on.

Agree with this comment 0 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

Sighmon8x
Monday, January 28, 2013 @ 9:54:57 PM
Reply

This is the the entire issue.
The parents of the kids playing these games.

I live in Australia and we've had more restrictions on games in comparison to the US for a while now. I can safely say that the issue with highly violent games in their hands is not the problem of classifications and developers but solely the parents that purchase these games for them. Even with our restrictions we see 11 year old kids playing games like Call of Duty and Left 4 Dead online.

There can't be legislation on sub-par parenting, which is why I'd imagine US politicians are pushing towards restricting the developers and retailers for these games. If the parents wont do it, they will.
I'm not saying it's right, regardless of the restrictions that would get put in place kids will still get their hands on these games.

Hell, I'm not saying this is right in any matter. Further restrictions on video games will only hurt developers even more (try getting an indie game sold in Australia, its really not that easy). But in my opinion, it's coming down to a point where politicians are pushing for this nonsense because many parents wont take responsibility in the games they allow their children to play.

Who I'd like to hear from (to even possibly prove me wrong) is a parent that DOES supply these games to their children and a parent who DOESN'T. I'd like to see the two sides to this issue.

Agree with this comment 0 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

Leave a Comment

Please login or register to leave a comment.

Our Poll

Did Advanced Warfare save Call of Duty?
Yes, CoD is back on track!
Possibly; it was a positive step.
The jury's still out...
No, CoD is still doomed.

Previous Poll Results