The President of the US has meeting to discuss video games and violence

[vorticalbox]

On 09/03/2018 at 10:35 PM, DoctorWho1975 said:

Since I play ESO does this mean inherently I'm going to grab a long sword and chop some cats head off?

Any game that has killing in warps your brain by suggesting that killing is ok. 

 

Spoiler

There are billions of kills in games and yet the murder rate isn't going up.

 

[asus killer]

CBS News reports a study by psychologist Patrick Markey saying that the vast majority of mass shooters, about 80%, show no interest in video games at all. According to Markey, many people want to draw a correlation between violent video games and these extreme acts of violence, but the evidence just isn’t there:

 

https://gamerant.com/study-mass-shooter-video-game/

[Xander Cousins]

On ‎12‎/‎03‎/‎2018 at 12:37 AM, mr moose said:

The saddest thing about these discussions is that people want all the rights to own, buy and use said weapons, but none of the responsibility.  

Owners gun is used to kill someone, Owner be like 'I Didn't do shit, The gun did it....'

[GoldenLag]

Its almost line we resolved this last year, and the year before, and the year before and every year going back to the 90's

[laminutederire]

Wondered what would have happened if they played that video instead during the meeting:

Link

(How can we embed YouTube videos from the mobile website?)

[DoctorWho1975]

On 3/12/2018 at 4:52 AM, LAwLz said:

I don't get why people keep comparing cars to guns as some kind of argument for why gun control isn't needed.

 

Cars are heavily regulated and controlled. You need to pass several tests to get a license (theoretical, practical and medical) in order to drive a car, and if you buy one it needs to be registered that you own that very car.

 

If you want to argue against gun control, making a comparison to cars is rather counterproductive.

 

So with all these controls in place how did this happen?

 

https://www.theguardian.com/world/live/2016/jul/14/nice-bastille-day-france-attack-promenade-des-anglais-vehicle

[LAwLz]

15 minutes ago, DoctorWho1975 said:

So with all these controls in place how did this happen?

 

https://www.theguardian.com/world/live/2016/jul/14/nice-bastille-day-france-attack-promenade-des-anglais-vehicle

Because no system is flawless.

[DoctorWho1975]

10 minutes ago, LAwLz said:

Because no system is flawless.

Ohhhh, now no system is flawless, same system you were pointing back at.

[LAwLz]

2 minutes ago, DoctorWho1975 said:

Ohhhh, now no system is flawless, same system you were pointing back at.

What are you trying to say? I really don't understand your argument.

[Shakaza]

15 minutes ago, LAwLz said:

What are you trying to say? I really don't understand your argument.

I'm not sure, but maybe they were trying to say that because no system is flawless, any of the present systems in place are equal in legitimacy? But that seems stupid, so hopefully not?

[AngryBeaver]

On 3/9/2018 at 4:34 PM, Shreyas1 said:

I think this was already posted?

 

also, cod isnt that violent at all, its just really popular and therefore scapegoated often. 

While I don't think games are really the problem, but instead the lack of parenting that actually happens these days... I just can't not respond to this comment.

 

So how is Call of Duty, a game that is based on nothing else, but killing others, not a violent game? That is the very definition of a violent game, now it might not be a GORY game. It is however, a VIOLENT game.

[LAwLz]

4 minutes ago, Shakaza said:

I'm not sure, but maybe they were trying to say that because no system is flawless, any of the present systems in place are equal in legitimacy? But that seems stupid, so hopefully not?

Yeah that seems to be what he is saying. But I think that's weird because:

1) It's a really, really stupid argument.

2) I never said I was for or against gun control. All I said was that comparing gun control to cars is really stupid because we essentially have "car control" in the form of strict regulations. My post is completely neutral and doesn't give any hint of being neither for nor against gun control.

[Eduard the weeb]

3 minutes ago, AngryBeaver said:

 

So how is Call of Duty, a game that is based on nothing else, but killing others, not a violent game? That is the very definition of a violent game, now it might not be a GORY game. It is however, a VIOLENT game.

censoring of blood and stuff like that also compared to other games like GTA 5, etc its not very violent, but video games in off them selves don't show real terror, which is having to talk to new people 

[Shreyas1]

5 minutes ago, AngryBeaver said:

While I don't think games are really the problem, but instead the lack of parenting that actually happens these days... I just can't not respond to this comment.

 

So how is Call of Duty, a game that is based on nothing else, but killing others, not a violent game? That is the very definition of a violent game, now it might not be a GORY game. It is however, a VIOLENT game.

True, though plenty of other games arguably have more violence, and yet COD/GTA are always the one to get punished due to their popularity. 

[AngryBeaver]

3 minutes ago, Eduard the weeb said:

censoring of blood and stuff like that also compared to other games like GTA 5, etc its not very violent, but video games in off them selves don't show real terror, which is having to talk to new people 

Do you know what the definition of violence is?

 

Quote

Violence is defined by the World Health Organization as "the intentional use of physical force or power, threatened or actual, against oneself, another person, or against a group or community, which either results in or has a high likelihood of resulting in injury, death, psychological harm, maldevelopment, or deprivation,"

Straight from Wikipedia.

 

So a game where your only intent is to kill and/or harm either other players or AI.. is a very VIOLENT game. The whole purpose of the game is violence.

[Eduard the weeb]

1 hour ago, AngryBeaver said:

Do you know what the definition of violence is?

 

Straight from Wikipedia.

 

So a game where your only intent is to kill and/or harm either other players or AI.. is a very VIOLENT game. The whole purpose of the game is violence.

 first of all yes I do, 

 

also next Wikipedia isn't very credible of a source

 

but in the sense that its making kids more violent or desensitizing people too it violence is all around dumb, the truth is unbiased reports and scientists say it's clearly not doing so  and wall technically it is a game about killing people, its equally is a game of begin the best inherently in multiplayer and single players well, most people play it for shits and giggles tbh

[AngryBeaver]

1 minute ago, Eduard the weeb said:

 first of all yes I do, 

 

also next Wikipedia isn't very credible of a source

 

but in the sense that its making kids more violent or desensitizing people too it violence is all around dumb, the truth is unbiased reports and scientists say it's clearly not doing so  and wall technically it is a game about killing people, its equally is a game of begin the best inherently in multiplayer and single players well, most people play it for shits and giggles tbh

I am not saying that video game is any way related to the violence we have lately. It is just a scapegoat as usual. They blame the guns, they blame the games, they blame everything under the sun.

 

The truth is that parents are not as engaged in their kids as they should be. A lot of these incidents should have been noticed by the parents, especially the one in Florida recently. Then you have to look at the other part of the problem. Most (if not all) of these shootings are done by people with mental health issues. Our country is terrible when it comes to mental health issues.

 

So if you look at that problem, them maybe we should be doing a better job of teaching people how to manage their mental health, offering more support to those with mental health issues, and actually have more people in work places and schools that can notice the markers for mental health issues and help provide people they assistance they need.

 

Yes, there is not much need for someone to have an AR-15 or use a BumpStock. However, it is there right and maybe there should be more in-depth background checks done, but in the end if someone wants to cause harm they can do it regardless, if they want a gun they can get one regardless. This just means they have to go about getting them illegally. Which for someone who is going to commit and action like we are seeing... isn't going to be much of a hurdle.

[Xander Cousins]

@AngryBeaver I get where your coming from that even if rules and regulations are enforced that there will still be other means to get said weapon available, but again people are going to go for the easiest route possible if someone who hasn't got knowledge or experience of how to obtain said tool though non legal means they most likely are gonna go through legal means due to it being somewhat easier, If they do have the knowledge then ya they will be avoiding the legal means. But even then like I know in America they have the right to bear arms, But you got to be realistic, Having a weapon capable of firing a 5.56mm round or a 7.62mm round it more than overkill for 'own protection' especially within a house hold. 

 

Now this is gonna sound brutal and harsh but it's the truth, Until someone has ended up killing a friend family or loved one via trying to fend off someone within their property with that high calibre of a weapon then People are gonna keep trying to keep said weapons. If your looking to fend of someone within your house a 9mm is well enough to incapacitate a threat without killing them if able to but at the same time if you have missed a shot that round has a low possibility of passing through the wall and into another room with a family member in it. 

 

But I know what the counter argument is gonna be, ' We will build houses that will prevent high calibre rounds from going through interior walls' Yah how is that gonna work with all the 100 thousand existing houses.

 

A again sound brutal but would you really want to own a 5.56 capable weapon or higher for self defense within your household knowing that you could walk into another room finding your wife, child or close friend lying on the ground bleeding out or dead? Ya No I wouldn't care if I'm allowed a high calibre weapons if there is a chance if that I ain't taking it.

[AngryBeaver]

9 hours ago, Alex Colson said:

@AngryBeaver I get where your coming from that even if rules and regulations are enforced that there will still be other means to get said weapon available, but again people are going to go for the easiest route possible if someone who hasn't got knowledge or experience of how to obtain said tool though non legal means they most likely are gonna go through legal means due to it being somewhat easier, If they do have the knowledge then ya they will be avoiding the legal means. But even then like I know in America they have the right to bear arms, But you got to be realistic, Having a weapon capable of firing a 5.56mm round or a 7.62mm round it more than overkill for 'own protection' especially within a house hold. 

 

Now this is gonna sound brutal and harsh but it's the truth, Until someone has ended up killing a friend family or loved one via trying to fend off someone within their property with that high calibre of a weapon then People are gonna keep trying to keep said weapons. If your looking to fend of someone within your house a 9mm is well enough to incapacitate a threat without killing them if able to but at the same time if you have missed a shot that round has a low possibility of passing through the wall and into another room with a family member in it. 

 

But I know what the counter argument is gonna be, ' We will build houses that will prevent high calibre rounds from going through interior walls' Yah how is that gonna work with all the 100 thousand existing houses.

 

A again sound brutal but would you really want to own a 5.56 capable weapon or higher for self defense within your household knowing that you could walk into another room finding your wife, child or close friend lying on the ground bleeding out or dead? Ya No I wouldn't care if I'm allowed a high calibre weapons if there is a chance if that I ain't taking it.

Even if you get rid of ARs. You can limit high calibers due to hunting. Hell a semi auto rifle with a large clip could be worse than the ARs. They could take out people from enough range that locating them would take a long time.

 

Also I personally have a concealed (which I rarely carry) for mostly traveling, or if I'm going in to a bad area. That being said I use a .40.

 

Legally if you are in a situation where you need to pull your gun, pretty much every training from personal to police/military will say to aim to KILL the threat. Even legally you are better off killing them.

 

I have a wife and kids, so if I'm home alone fine, I'll give you a warning to gtfo. However, if my kids or wife are home... there is no warning, no hesitation... they will just stop living.

 

Once again guns are just the scape-goat. If you outlawed all guns, these problems would still exist. Poison, explosives, large knifes, vehicles, etc...

The mass killers would still find a way, now we have just took away the way of defense from the law abiding citizens

[LoganTNZ]

As much as im a supporter of trump, whats with old people and thinking video game violence desensitizes you.

 

Yeah, it actually does, which studies prove, but not as much as wanting to shoot up a school.

 

Then the other side just starts screaming to take away all the guns, using suicides along with actual murders in statistics.

 

Its ridiculous really. What they need to do, is to ban bumper stocks for the average consumer who havent been thoroughly assessed, and to do background checks. Dont arm teachers, dont ban guns outright...and please...from both sides....stop blaming video games for everything (like mass murders and anita-sarkeesian style "criticisms")