tl dra. It's not the fault of video games that the shooting happened, I read that it was because of mental disability.
That's what NRA vice president Wayne LaPierre wants you to think.
But you know, it strikes me as rather odd that the vice president of a firearms organization is blaming (at least partially) video games. To be fair, he's also blaming media as well, but since we are the gaming community, it's his shot at video games that we focus on. It's actually not odd; it's more like just plain frustrating that he would say that.
It was not more than a week ago that I wrote a small blog about the heinous shooting in Connecticut. I mentioned that I thought it was ridiculous that people were already blaming video games for the shooting based solely on the fact that Ryan Lanza liked Mass Effect's page on Facebook. As we already know, Ryan wasn't even the shooter. But it just gets on my nerves that people are so quick to make games, as well as the media, the scapegoat.
And I swear, every time I defend video games, I say it will be my last time, that I'm done with the subject. I didn't even want to write the blog last week because it was so sad, but I did anyway. This LaPierre guy, though, warrants another blog. He's a very irresponsible person shifting the blame away from the NRA, which is under heavy attack after the CT shooting, and towards the media. Well, LaPierre, you can't shoot people without first getting the guns. That's where your responsiblity lies. Let's not forget that Adam Lanza COULDN'T obtain the guns he wanted legally, that he stole the guns from his own mother. Why are you not blaming the mother? For whatever reason, her neglect to keep her legally obtained firearms secured resulted in her death, the death of her son, 20 children and seven other adults. Let's also not forget that she TAUGHT him how to shoot! And you blame VIDEO GAMES, Mr. LaPierre? I urge you to rethink your statement.
Now, you want to hear the crazy thing? I am FOR everyone's right to own a firearm, and here's why. Banning guns outright affects the responsible owners of firearms, the ones who own guns as hobbyists and use guns for sport. They are protected by our Constitution and we cannot let the actions of the few impact the rights of the many, or before you know it, the Constitution loses all meaning if it can be so easily modified. Besides, you aren't going to stop people who are illegally obtaining guns that are already illegal to own from shooting people.
If my view on this issue upsets you, I want you to ask yourself a quesiton. Do you drink alcohol? If you are above the age of 21 (in the US, could be 18 if you live in another country), chances are you do. You enjoy drinking alcohol, right? It makes you feel good, doesn't it? But what if I said I just drafted legislation that says you lost your right to drink alcohol because too many people are getting behind the wheel of a car and killing people? You would be angered, and your first response would be, "But I never drink and drive. I'm 'responsible'"! Yes, you may be responsible, but the fact of the matter is those people who have killed others as well as themselves driving under the influence were not. And I don't have the statistics, but I'm sure the numbers killed in drunk driving accidents outweigh the numbers of shooting victims. So yes, your outrage of me wanting to take away your alcohol is the same outrage gun owners feel when people want to ban guns.
By the way, I don't own guns. I don't like guns, and I will never own a gun. I've no interest in shooting them for target practice, and I especially don't like the idea of hunting. Far be it from me to restrict someone else's freedom of recreational hobbies, though. Let the people have their guns, because we as gamers surely do not want the government to take away our freedom to enjoy our violent video games.
Guns don't kill people. People kill people. That's the NRA motto, isn't it? Well Wayne LaPierre, video games don't kill people. PEOPLE kill people. People kill people without guns, too. Two of the worst terrorist acts on US soil used vehicles; Oklahoma with a rented truck, New York with a couple of jetliners. Can we blame video games for those, too? No, because I doubt McVeigh and Bin Laden even played video games, or if they did got so absorbed by them that it inspired them to go out and kill people.
I will agree to one point. For a distrubed individual, one who already cannot distinguish fantasy from reality, video games are not the thing for them to be exposed to. But even then, even if it makes them more aggressive, does it actually make them want to plot out a mass murder? No. You might be able to argue that it played a part, but I doubt you could convince anyone that it was the catalyst. And why do I say this? Because if your arguement was true, we'd be seeing hundreds if not thousands more shootings a year.
Honestly LaPierre, that has got to be one of the most poorly handled attempts at damage control I've seen in a very long time. You represent guns, and a gun was used to kill those people in Connecticut. Blaming something else that played a very minor role if any isn't going to help matters. All blaming does is misdirect the feelings of the masses and wastes precious time and energy, time and energy that should be spent first accepting responsiblity, and second educating and informing people, and third fixing the problem. Point the finger back at yourself, Wayne. After all, the person responsible for the massacre was the very person your organization tries to protect.
So no, don't blame the video games. Don't blame media, regardless of how much it sells violence. Art, which music, movies and video games are (video games are art, but that's another blog entirely) reflect society, and that's what society unfortunately is: violent. It's society that you should be playing more blame upon, LaPierre, and the people themselves committing the act. The people who knew they were succumbing to the darkness and the people who failed to save them are far more responsible for their actions than any Grand Theft Auto, Call of Duty and most certainly Mortal Kombat, which doesn't even have guns. You blame the media for selling us violence, and yes, we like violence, but what do you peddle? What do your members sell and buy? Guns; symbols OF violence. I would have thought that someone with an intellect level high enough to be a vice president would have recognized that fact by now.
Now please do the responsible thing and accept responsibility. Only then can you begin to do something constructive instead of dodging the bullet, so to speak.
Oh yeah, and there's that whole lack of mental health care issue as well, but I'm sure it's more convenient to keep blaming video games...
What i find ignorant is how they say the whole Gaming industry is a "Dark Cloud", while ignoring the fact that casual and Family games exist and are becoming popular.
With that logic, Kinect Sports is teaching me to be the texas chainsaw massacre
I think it's unreasonable to accuse either weapons, or video-games as the problem behind this tragedy. The murderer was a psychiatric case that happened to live in a society with guns, video-games, TV programs, and a thousand of other factors.
the interesting thing about all of this is that his mother never locked up her guns, even after she knew he was a threat & was filing to get him institutionalized...
the issue with getting another person institutionalized that is an adult is that their has to be an incident or proof that they have actually done something to hurt themselves or others...
otherwise they can just get a lawyer & back out of it...
the question then comes down to, how are people that are mentally incapable of knowing whats right for them able to make decisions for themselves about being committed...
if they have plans to hurt others then why does the population have to wait until a terrible act happens, in order to commit a sick person?
it makes no sense that they have to commit themselves.
this is a common problem with our system, with mentally sick people..
an incident has to happen & by that time, its too late...
i also agree that his mother should have locked up her guns, if she already knew that he was a threat to others safety...
or she could have at least handed them to a friend to hold onto, in the meantime.
@HailHellfire A person with mental instabilities does not have to commit an act of violence to be institutionalized. It must be proven that they pose a threat to themselves or others, this could be in form of a letter, behavior, or action. Unfortunately, it is generally after an act has been committed that said person is institutionalized. It would also be simpler to have a mentally unstable person see a psychologist or other mental health professional. This can help get the person the help they may need.
@mjp1188 you realize that you just reiterated what i just stated above...
i never went into detail over what that "incident" or "proof" may be, due to the fact that i figured people would just know the obvious...
i think you miss read what i stated since i never stated that this had to be an act of violence...
i made this vague for a reason due to the simple fact that their are many ways to hurt yourself & others...
the issue that i was stating was exactly what you just stated below me, you just reiterated it in your own language..
Great blog bro!! I agree with you, people need to stop pointing fingers and start working on solutions for once. But is it really true that the whole video game issue started because his brother 'liked' Mass Effect on facebook? Not even the shooter himself, but HIS BROTHER?!
I'm a big supporter of right to bear arms and everything, but I despise the NRA and this situation. Good thoughts, sirrah
I believe that responsible people should be able to own guns. That's why there are background checks. The problem is, the government/media is making a big deal about gun ownership and suggesting new laws, but criminals, believe it or not, don't follow the law.
I have no problem when it comes to hand guns (self protection) or hunting rifles (hunting for sport) but assault weapons? That is taking gun ownership a step to far.
@TTDog ummmm an AR-15 is technically not an "Assault Rifle" it's a hunting rifle with a large magazine, an "Assault Rifle" has to have full auto capabilities and those are almost never used because it takes $600 just to get the ticket, and then a six month waiting list, multiple, background checks, and then buying the gun...unless u do it illegal, and gun laws wont stop them anyways.
@TTDog oh also it's illegal to hunt with a clip larger than 5 rounds i think it is, so these weapons are designed for either home protection, or show.
I'm all for people owning guns as a means of defenese and for hunting. But when clowns from the NRA are promoting full automatic? It's like...damn. At the same time, I'm very put off by this NRA bozo scapegoating video games for a mentally unstable person's actions.
I'm not gonna blame that unhinged individual --though it's hard to not hate the sonuvabitch. I do blame his mother for teaching a known mental patient how to shoot and allowing him access to firearms. If she were to survive this ordeal, her ass would have some serious explaining to do.
I couldnt disagree more with the statement that video games kill people. In fact my friends and I have always felt that they are a great way to let off steam. It looks like the NRA is just getting desperate to find someone else to blame.
I getting sick of all this NRA bull S***. If you don't want people to kill other people with guns. Chance the USA constitution and make guns illegal, kick the NRA out of the country ,and use that resources to help people in Africa.
Is so simple.... really.
i commented on another similar topic a while back with words to this effect:
I use video games as a means of releasing anger , some people use punching bags , smoke weed whatever but my stress relief are video games. I have been playing video games for around 32 years from atari 2600 upwards , and not once have i tried to kill anyone outside of the video game. If people cant tell the difference between reality and fiction then the problem lies with them and not the media they choose to partake of.
TLDR the idea that video games make people go batshit mental is complete bollocks.
Yeah when I saw that whole thing where the NRA is pretty much scapegoating video games so that the evil black man doesn't take their assault weapons away because you know so many people died from game discs.
This comment has been deleted
No they didn't, but the people look at this and say "guns would've been banned years ago if the NRA wasn't constantly lobbying" and so instead of defending their stance in a mature manner, they turn around and say "it's not the guns. It's the violent video games!" It comes down to the fact that people want a monster to blame. We don't know what drove this clearly mentially unstable kid to go on a shooting rampage killing children but for some banning guns or video games gives them closure.
I still find it funny that people talk about "kids and violent video games". This guy was a twenty-something, not a kid.
I also find it funny that noone asks, "Why was his MOTHER teaching a known mental patient how to shoot and allowing him access to guns?" I'm wondering just why the Hell THAT hasn't been the main question in the media on this.
I'm all for gun ownership for defense and hunting. But full automatic? Hell no. In full automatic, during an altercation, you'll hit your assailant...and two or three other people who have nothing to do with the situation.
This comment has been deleted
@Suikogaiden @Simplythebest12 Beg pardon? If people listened to what the NRA said after these atrocities took place, then they wouldn't have happened before hand? How does that work?
@Suikogaiden @Simplythebest12 However there are cases that people go into a severe mode of depression as it was in the case of the Connecticut shooting.In such cases people may not actually have a history of criminal background.In my country there was a case involving an army officer who shot a kid just cause he climbed over the compound wall of a barracks.
Oh man, you are going to get some arguments in your comments for this one. I agree with your sentiments.
I personally feel that people are missing the mark in their reactions to LaPierre's remarks. His attack on video games is, to me at least, more of a calculated move to draw attention away from gun control and the NRA and towards something else that the media can focus on. I doubt he honestly believes video games are the issue, but it's been a useful scapegoat in deflecting a lot of criticism heading the way of the NRA before, so why not use it again? His interests lie with the preservation of the 2nd amendment, not with respecting the rights of people to play video games.
I'am not saying that video games,fatty food,etc. ruin kids always but why is it that when a horrible situation takes place,the parents and the other adults blame these products,but fail to mention that they are responsible for it as it is the people of their age group who creates all these things?
You can't have control on you kids all the time, they have friends that they talk to, they go to other kids house to play games, they go to school, they watch tv ( Have you seen some of the kids programs in TV? ).... what you want parents to do ? put kids in a cage and never let them out?
@CaesarIIII No I wasn't talking about control on kids.Its just that people blame the tools not the makers.
So what you saying is that is the NRA fault right ? They made the guns correct ? A gun is just a tool design to kill people.
" People kills games ! " no no, wait "games kills games!! ", that is not right, " games kills people ! ".. that doesn't sounds right too ... I Know !!! People kills people !!!! that's the one. :p
I have anger issues and suffer depression.. I have played Mass Effect more times than I care to count- it had a hell of a lot of violence.. Shootings, punching people, pushing people out windows.
You know what Mass Effect made me want? Liara :P
No homicidal tendencies here. Stop trying to find things to blame just because the only one to blame, killed himself.
It's as simple as this. America are too slack with their gun laws and it needs to change. No more of this 'right to bear arms' crap, it needs sorting. It's actually getting to a point of sheer stupidity. How many of these mass shootings have happened, yet the country is still arguing that guns aren't harmful. It's a joke.
This comment has been deleted
@Suikogaiden If it's harder to get a gun, in general, then it'll help limit who can own them. Sure, pure blooded murders may find a way, but if they are harder to get I'm 100% certain America would have far less gun crime.
2. As far as I can tell the Mexicans barely enforce their gun laws though, and the cartels are left to run wild.
Great Britian, Canada, Germany, Japan etc. have strict gun laws and they have less gun deaths than the USA.
Well if you make certain models, extended clips illegal, they eventually fall off the market; decreasing the amount that are available for everyone. Plus the cops can confiscate any illegal weapons (yes from murderers), or even toss people in prison for it. And I guess you'll be left to defend yourself with a golf club or baseball bat, like anyone else.
I don't live in the USA so I don't really know where I stand on stricter gun laws. I guess if I lived there I'd be for it. Just because I don't think everyone should be armed to the teeth, and I wouldn't wish to be shot.
It's good to criticize a country's founding laws while presenting no data whatsoever. I guess we'll just change America's Constitution because you say so.
@Palantas Do you even know what the founding fathers meant when they came up with the countries founding laws? The 'right to bear arms' actually meant that, in case America was ever invaded or in a case of another civil war, the country could defend themselves. I'd suggest you read up more on it.Also, the facts speak for themselves. America have lacking gun laws and thousands die every year from gun crimes. It isn't hard to see that the connection is there.
Oh sure, I should "read up more on it." Nevermind that every American court has always interpreted the 2nd Amendment to mean exactly what it says: That citizens have a right ot bear arms. You must be some sort of expert jurist in American law. Where'd you get your degree?
And again, why not make a claim without posting any data. You're an expert on American law, so you must be an expert on causality. Any other issues on which we should change the laws just based on your opinions you spent a few seconds formulating?
I'm sorry but the founding fathers probably didn't envision weapons with a high rate of fire like the AR-15 and extended clips in civilian hands. Do you professionally schill for the arms industry or are you just hard up for guns which the average citizen doesn't need? In Canada Adam's mom probably wouldn't have had hand guns, or an A-15, or she would've been extensively trained in firearm safety.
Do you actually comprehend anything I write? I also said I was for making hand gun ownership a lot stricter. The evidence is they had muskets back then, and not AR-15s. So if judges decide on stricter gun laws you'll be all for it?lol.
No, you are right I don't know a lot about firearms, I'm sorry if you think I wanted to make that impression. Personally I don't care to know a lot about firearms, that and I live in Canada. You don't know my full position on handguns and semi-automatic rifles anyway, and you are just, attacking me, and assuming my position is vastly anti-gun and ban everything. Look up Canada's gun laws, I think they are fair. They are stricter than what the US currently has, but the US's version could be loosened a tiny amount. Besides like I said smarter people than me should figure it out, paid politicians etc.
Just like the other guy, you know what the Founding Fathers envisioned...how? Experts in American law (e.i., judges) have interpreted the law to mean that civiliains can own those things. You have determined otherwise...based on what evidence? Write it down.
Lefties love to b!tch about AR-15s. Rifles make up an insignificant percentage of firearms deaths in the US*. The vast majority of firearms deaths come from handguns. Explain why you mentioned something that is tangental to the issue. I'm assuming it's because you have done zero research and are generally clueless about firearms, but I'll give you a chance to explain yourself.
I just had the idea, that the US should compare itself to Canada if it wants to reduce gun deaths. Canada has strict gun laws, almost no one can get hand guns, and I also assume assault rifles. Now just do the math: Canada I assume has 816 gun deaths a year, lets account for USA population, and you get 7,511 gun deaths a year if Canada had the same population size as the USA. The USA has 30,000 gun deaths a year (if my sources are correct). So with Canada's restrictions the USA would save 22,500 of its citizen's lifes. I'm not saying my math is accurate, just something to consider--or something much smarter people than me should consider. There are other factors to consider, and it's a matter of wanting to change, and believing your own military, Police, and government can protect you, especially from all the Mexican crime which is fueled by US sales of assault rifles to them. The police do a pretty good job of protecting us in Canada though. Lots of things to consider if you want to lower gun violence.
This comparison completely fails to account for social differences between the two countries, you know, the stuff that actually causes crime. I could compare Canada and Switzerland and come to the (stupid) conclusion that Canada should hand out guns to save lives.
If you want to write an analysis that's in any way meaningful, look at the same area's crime rate before and after significant firearms legislation.
I'm not demanding anything. I was just tossing out ideas what the USA could possibly do. And I can ignore your "analysis that's in anyway meaningful comment" because it is just your personal opinion, right?
How is Chicago's gun violence crime, due they have any meaningful restrictions in Illinois?
Wasn't the AR-15 used in the Theatre shootings in Colorado too. If that is the case, I'm for tighter restrictions for civilian use, or atleast having a reduced clip, like 6 rounds instead of 12 or 30
You accuse me of doing zero research, what exactly do you know about Canadian gun laws, before blindly attacking, and trying to refute me?
Way to just ignore the "If you want to write an analysis that's in any way meaningful, look at the same area's crime rate before and after significant firearms legislation." Don't do research! Just demand a country change its laws based on your gut feelings!
I just used Canada as an example, I could've compared a lot of other countries with stricter gun laws and lower shooting deaths than the USA; such as, Great Britain, Germany, probably France, Japan, and I could probably find others.
Canada and the USA don't have a lot of social differences. We both speak English, unlike your Canada and Switzerland example. Plus Canada and the USA are both bordered with another. I didn't say it wouldn't be along process to diminish guns in the US, and there wouldn't be concerns, hence I mentioned the USA bordered with Mexico. If it were illegal to own certain guns, and mags, and people with illegal guns were put into prison for 6 months, they would think twice of even possesing any weapons.
22 minutes ago