Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Games

Video Game Industry Starting To Feel Heat On Gun Massacres 1006

Posted by samzenpus
from the put-down-the-controller dept.
An anonymous reader writes "While much of the scrutiny following the lone gunman-perpetrated massacres at Aurora, CO and Newtown, CT has fallen on the National Rifle Association and its lobbying efforts against gun control, the shooters in both of the aforementioned incidents seemed to have been encouraged by violence in movies and video games. The New York Daily News' Mike Lupica reported last week that investigators of the Newtown case found a huge spreadsheet in the Lanza home where 20-year old Adam Lanza had methodically charted hundreds of past gun massacres, including the number of people killed and the make and model of weapons used. A Connecticut policeman told Lupica 'it sounded like a doctoral thesis, that was the quality of the research', and added, '[Mass killers such as Lanza] don't believe this was just a spreadsheet. They believe it was a score sheet. This was the work of a video gamer'. In response, the Entertainment Software Association and other lobbyists representing the video game industry have ramped up their Washington lobbying efforts. While still tiny in dollar terms next to the NRA's warchest, this effort seemed to help derail a proposal to fund a Justice Department study of the effects of video games on gun violence, offered as an amendment on the gun control bill by a Republican senator. A spokesman summarized the ESA's position: 'Extensive research has already been conducted and found no connection between media and real-life violence.'"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Video Game Industry Starting To Feel Heat On Gun Massacres

Comments Filter:
  • by meerling (1487879) on Monday March 25, 2013 @11:10AM (#43271965)
    Not to mention two more things about that.
    First, since when is a cop qualified to make such and unsubstantiated psychological conclusion and it be seriously considered?
    Second, video gamers, hard core or otherwise, don't make spreadsheets of kills with weapons. That's far more like something a dev does to fine tune popularity and effectiveness of their games arsenal. Sure, there's a few ocd types that'll do something as pointless and unfun as that, but then again, I bet you'll find more government employees making those exact same things right now.
  • by night_flyer (453866) on Monday March 25, 2013 @11:11AM (#43272009) Homepage

    3000+ people were killed by people using box cutters

  • Censor what? (Score:4, Informative)

    by rsilvergun (571051) on Monday March 25, 2013 @11:13AM (#43272049)
    Do you watch the news in America? All economic discussion regardless of who does it is from a corporate/conservative standpoint of low taxes, few regulations and minimal government intervention (except for bailouts). Yeah, there's some liberal bias in social issues. But what the hell does that matter in the real world. In economics there is no dissenting opinion. What in Gods name do they need to censor? They already have control over everything that matters. If I control your economy I control you. You're not free unless your economically secure.
  • by night_flyer (453866) on Monday March 25, 2013 @11:36AM (#43272471) Homepage

    its not the NRAs job to enforce the laws on the books, that's the justice departments job... Chicago has the highest gun crime rates in the USA, they have some of the tightest restrictions and of 90 cities they rank 90th in gun law enforcement.

  • by Squiddie (1942230) on Monday March 25, 2013 @11:49AM (#43272699)
    Yeah, and we already have gun control. And let's face it, when was the last time someone was murdered with a legally owned machine gun? The second amendment of the US constitution guarantees an access to small arms. Read the court cases. If you don't like it, you can always amend the constitution.
  • by LordLimecat (1103839) on Monday March 25, 2013 @11:51AM (#43272743)

    The Second Amendment is a stupid anachronism. It needs gutting.

    Fine, then lets do it properly and repeal the amendment.

    The WORST thing we can do is to try to violate the constitution by legislating around parts we dont like; every time we do that we're basically saying "the only parts of the law that matter are the ones the legislators want to matter".

    We have a strict amendment process for a REASON. The government is not supposed to be able to easily decide that it doesnt have enough power. Yes, school shootings suck, but not as bad as things can get when the government throws off all restraint, and thats why we started this country with very strict limits on government power.

  • by SilentStaid (1474575) on Monday March 25, 2013 @11:52AM (#43272773)

    How long do you think the militia with the weapons it is legally allowed to own is going to last against the US military?

    Oh I don't know, roughly a dozen years or so, give or take. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_in_Afghanistan_(2001–present)

  • by Sique (173459) on Monday March 25, 2013 @12:39PM (#43273431) Homepage
    Given that at least half of the homicides involving guns are the gun owner killing himself and a big part (about half of the other cases) of the other homicides are committed within the household or the near family of the gun owner, the gain-risk-ratio for guns is quite questionable. In about 75% of all cases, gun ownership was mainly causing tragedies.
  • by NeutronCowboy (896098) on Monday March 25, 2013 @12:41PM (#43273455)

    And the reason they're lasting for that long is because they do not engage the military in battle. Every time the Taliban have openly engaged the troops in anything resembling large-scale combat, they lost. They haven't won a single strategic or tactical battle, and the only reason we're getting out of there is because we have no reason to be there.

    If the US military turns against its own population, it will be much more like Syria or Libya.

  • by Electricity Likes Me (1098643) on Monday March 25, 2013 @12:55PM (#43273645)

    I live in Australia.

    Guns are amazingly hard to obtain. Organized crime generally uses guns to shoot each other, but it's very rare. There have been precisely 0 bombing.

    Isn't that fascinating? That despite the fact that guns are actually a progressively rarer illegal commodity, no one has bothered trying to blow people up?

    I've seen this "oh they'll just use a bomb, look how well dairy creamer works" comes up all the damn time as though it's obviously that easy to make explosives. Hint: it's not. Bombs are heavy, and indirect. They require being placed in advance, being not-noticed, and then actually working not to mention acquiring the materials without getting a friendly visit from the Feds to ask what's up with the multiple credit cards and fertilizer. You might notice that the attempted terrorist attacks using bombs in the US have all been thwarted usually by someone calling in and saying "hey, I noticed a weird package".

  • by shutdown -p now (807394) on Monday March 25, 2013 @01:01PM (#43273729) Journal

    And if we took reasonable precautions like background checks and limited magazine size to no more than 10 rounds, it would greatly inconvenience people that want to do this.

    No, not really. I suspect the worst gun massacre is yet to come, and it will involve the use of a shotgun (with magazine size less than 10 rounds) in a crowded area. 5.56/.223 is a weak round, comparatively speaking. Its goal is to incapacitate (i.e. wound - not necessarily kill) an enemy soldier potentially wearing light body armor at distances of 100-200 yards. It is a poor choice for someone whose goal is to cause as many deaths as possible in the minimal amount of time - a shotgun will be much more efficient for that.

  • by DaHat (247651) on Monday March 25, 2013 @01:20PM (#43274013) Homepage

    Nor do you need a PC nor cell phone to talk with other people.

    I hate to break it to you... but it's called the "Bill of Rights"... not the "Bill of Needs"

  • by CanHasDIY (1672858) on Monday March 25, 2013 @01:26PM (#43274093) Homepage Journal

    Countries with strict gun control laws have fewer gun deaths than those who don't.

    ... but not less violence, nor less deaths in general. Japan, for example, has some of the strictest gun laws in the world, as well as one of the highest suicide rates. According to recorded statistics, [wikipedia.org] if we assume accuracy, the US is well below the global average homicide rate of 7.6 per 100,000 people, at 4.8. One thing I noted from the aforementioned chart, there doesn't seem to be any correlation between presence/absence of strict gun laws and homicide rates.

    Citing "less gun deaths" in countries with strict gun laws is like citing "low auto-accident rates" in Nambia - complete non sequitur.

    I want fewer gun deaths.

    That's a silly thing to want - what about bank robbers who shoot it out with the cops? Do you think the cops shouldn't be allowed to shoot back? Because, realize it or not, that's what you mean when you say, "I want fewer gun deaths."

    Personally, I'd be happy with fewer intentional homicides, regardless of the method.

    I don't give a shit about your right[s]

    Aaand we come to the crux of the issue, and why nobody with a lick of sense gives a fuck what you gun grabbers have to say.

  • by mariox19 (632969) on Monday March 25, 2013 @01:42PM (#43274275)

    You do realize that, statistically speaking, hardly any deaths in this country of 300-plus million people occur per year as a result of being on the wrong end of an "assault" rifle, and that most of the gun deaths occur from handguns, right?

  • by CanHasDIY (1672858) on Monday March 25, 2013 @02:02PM (#43274529) Homepage Journal

    The point is that firearms are largely unregulated,

    Bull-fucking-shit; the thousands upon thousands* federal, state, and local regulations contradict your claim.

    * Doesn't seem like anyone can come up with an exact number (scary thought), but it's generally accepted that there are somewhere between 9,000 and 20,000 gun control laws in effect in the US.

    it's easy to legally buy firearms without a background check.

    Excluding private sellers... Where? From whom?

    P.S. if you're implying that there's something wrong with my father handing his prized deer rifle down to me without giving me a background check, you can go fuck yourself, Chief.

    Whereas with explosives, there are specific licensing requirements and the supply of the components is tracked and monitored much more closely.

    Since when did the government start tracking bleach and ammonia purchases? FYI, the shit under your kitchen sink is far more dangerous to society than the gun sitting on my hip.

    Yes, one can make ones own explosives, but a lot of those folks just blow themselves up as making them outside of industrial facilities with specific safety equipment is very risky.

    Point? Where in the Constitution does it state the our rights are allowed to be curtailed if they become "too easy" to obtain?

If builders built buildings the way programmers wrote programs, then the first woodpecker to come along would destroy civilization.

Working...