Video on the Relationship between Guns and Games

[Colarmel]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=endscreen&v=jeIHH0XEs6E&NR=1

It's an anti-gunner, who says he doesn't care if other people aren't anti-gunners, so start with that knowledge. He makes an interesting point I think in that the purchase of games, which often pay licensing fees to depict the guns in them, actually supports gun manufacturers.

I'm not sure if I have any strong thoughts on what this means, but I thought it was an interesting perspective.

Also, sorry, couldn't figure out how to embed properly.

 

[Sgtusmc]

Human attraction to guns is also related to other weaponry and tools. I'm talking deep seated attributation in Causality. The philosophy of causation dates back to the development of ones (animal or man) mind to further aid in it's survival.

Pick up rock....to throw rock
Throw rock...to kill bird
Kill bird...to eat

Nowadays, humans use causality not only for survival but to feed the ego.
I (the ego) can affect an object outside of my being (the super-ego) using tool (x)

I can hit that target using this rifle

It all works the same with video games. To say that video games is the cause of gun violence is not taking it deep enough psychologically. The past-time of remote causation has taken many forms over the years.

Fishing
Hunting
Trapping
Ball sports
Dice games
Board games
Etc.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The Anti argument

Case (A): Boy learns to hunt at early age using real guns.
Effect: Boy learns to respect the power of guns and uses them to put food on the table.

Case (B): Boy plays violent video games at early age using fake video guns
Effect: Boy attributes the experience to fun, learns nothing about the true power of a weapon or the dangers involved to himself or others.

 

[Hoosier Daddy]

Interesting indeed. Thanks for the link.
I'm looking forward to sharing it with my anti-gun coworker who is pro-virtual-gun.

 

[VikingWarlord]

This is an interesting take from a while back. It's got some language in it so watch your delicate ears.

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L7mrQFo23_A[/ame]

 

[jon5212]

I blame parents and the person's themselves. I played "violent" video games from like age 10 and still play "shoot em up" games and I'm 30. Never once did I have a thought, oh let me go grab a real gun and do this in real life.

Seems there are a lot of mentally disturbed people who can't grasp reality. Or just plain criminals.

 

[ryan3030]

This is just...

If this is a moral quandary, then driving a car in a video game before you are licensed is a theoretical crime. You're missing the point of simulation.

 

[Colarmel]

This is just...

If this is a moral quandary, then driving a car in a video game before you are licensed is a theoretical crime. You're missing the point of simulation.

The argument isn't that cut and dried, he explicitly says he has no problem shooting fictional guns that aren't licensed by gun manufacturers. But it's an interesting point that anti-gunners who play CoD and the like are actually putting money in gun manufacturers' pockets.

Now if you have no problem with the manufacture and sale of firearms this is no issue at all, it certainly has no bearing on my willingness to purchase a game, but plenty of people do have issues with those things, and play video games that pay licensing fees to the very organizations they oppose.


To some of the other commenters, It's worth noting, the dude does say he doesn't think violent games have any causal relationship to violent behavior. (IIRC, but he may not have put it in terms quite that clear.)

 

[jerryv]

For the gun manufacturer, this is just another form of advertising .. like selling candy cigarettes to children. Creating gun-friendly children will lead to future sales to gun-friendly adults.

But the manufacturer is trying to make money. That's the primary objective. They're not always too concerned with who is buying their weapons, or why. Sales is everything. I don't trust that mentality .. not with gun makers, not with anyone. Not everyone should have a gun.

I don't believe that video games cause violence IN MOST PEOPLE. But imagine the pimply-faced, unattractive 12 year old with no friends who spends all his free time killing imaginary people. Imagine that kid with an under-developed frontal cortex, with little ability to link causes and effects, imagine him with a growing resentment toward 'normals',imagine him bullied and ostracized in school .. and you've got a potential powder keg. For this kid, TV violence, video games, even the news .. could feed a growing obsession.

For my money, the big villain at Newtown was the shooter's mom who, knowing how odd her son was, left him able to get at her ample (and legal) supply of weapons. This is a kid who should not have had access to a gun. And she should have known that. She paid dearly for her mistake, and so did many other families.

The trick .. the problem .. is in trying to figure out who can't handle the responsibility of owning/using/having access to a weapon and making sure they don't get one. Now .. everyone has access to a knife, or a rock, or a pointed stick .. so we can't eliminate all risk .. but we ought to be able to keep a gun out of their hands.

I'd also add, before leaving my soapbox, that we are completely unable to guarantee the safety of everyone in all cases. S**t happens. There will be crazies with bombs, and crazies with guns, and crazies with pointed sticks. Get used to it. It's always been that way. We do the best we can individually, and we hope it leads to a better society.

$.02

 

[Double T]

For the gun manufacturer, this is just another form of advertising .. like selling candy cigarettes to children. Creating gun-friendly children will lead to future sales to gun-friendly adults.

But the manufacturer is trying to make money. That's the primary objective. They're not always too concerned with who is buying their weapons, or why. Sales is everything. I don't trust that mentality .. not with gun makers, not with anyone. Not everyone should have a gun.

I don't believe that video games cause violence IN MOST PEOPLE. But imagine the pimply-faced, unattractive 12 year old with no friends who spends all his free time killing imaginary people. Imagine that kid with an under-developed frontal cortex, with little ability to link causes and effects, imagine him with a growing resentment toward 'normals',imagine him bullied and ostracized in school .. and you've got a potential powder keg. For this kid, TV violence, video games, even the news .. could feed a growing obsession.

For my money, the big villain at Newtown was the shooter's mom who, knowing how odd her son was, left him able to get at her ample (and legal) supply of weapons. This is a kid who should not have had access to a gun. And she should have known that. She paid dearly for her mistake, and so did many other families.

The trick .. the problem .. is in trying to figure out who can't handle the responsibility of owning/using/having access to a weapon and making sure they don't get one. Now .. everyone has access to a knife, or a rock, or a pointed stick .. so we can't eliminate all risk .. but we ought to be able to keep a gun out of their hands.

I'd also add, before leaving my soapbox, that we are completely unable to guarantee the safety of everyone in all cases. S**t happens. There will be crazies with bombs, and crazies with guns, and crazies with pointed sticks. Get used to it. It's always been that way. We do the best we can individually, and we hope it leads to a better society.

$.02

So basically, you want to take responsibility and accountability away from the parent and individual?

I think the government can keep their noses out of people's personal lives. Quite frankly, it's none of the .gov's business. If gun free zones were illegal, then those people who are sitting ducks would have the chance to be armed, and if they die; made a choice not to be armed.

 

[actaeon277]

This is an interesting take from a while back. It's got some language in it so watch your delicate ears.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L7mrQFo23_A

Loved the video. Tried to rep ya.

 

[jerryv]

So basically, you want to take responsibility and accountability away from the parent and individual?

I think the government can keep their noses out of people's personal lives. Quite frankly, it's none of the .gov's business. If gun free zones were illegal, then those people who are sitting ducks would have the chance to be armed, and if they die; made a choice not to be armed.

I don't think I'm saying that .. but perhaps at some level I am. I blame the individual shooter at Newtown, and I blame his parent for enabling him. Had he not been able to get a gun, there would be fewer dead children. It is to all our benefits that people like that don't have access to lethal weapons. Obviously, not everything can be controlled. And I'm not advocating that responsible gun owners sacrifice any rights because of the actions of a lunatic. But I do think the rights of the lunatic should be sacrificed for the greater good of us all. The trick is in how to do so.