In a few months, Grand Theft Auto V will be available in stores.

[Bicoastal]

And mark my words, all of this "guns don't kill people, video games kill people" stuff will be rehashed. As a video game fan (who also has a job and a social life and no violent tendencies, thankyouverymuch) I've been looking forward to this release for about a year. The game always takes place in a simulation of an American city, and this time the setting is a thinly-veiled satirical version of Los Angeles--a city I was born in but no longer live in. So my enthusiasm for the game is partly based out of nostalgia and partly due to the fact that the series has been uniformly excellent.

Yes, as always, the character you control is an amoral criminal. Yes, gun violence is presented in blood-splatteringly realistic fashion--probably more realistic than ever before. And YES, you do have the option of making your character go on a mindless rampage, gunning down hundreds of innocent civilians before you yourself are inevitably killed by the in-game cops. Nothing in these games ever DEMANDS that you go on a homicidal spree, but just like in real life, the option is always there. (No, there are no children or even schools in these games; Rockstar Entertainment isn't that stupid.)

But here's a point that the game's critics are going to miss--almost any weapons you own in the game can be acquired LEGALLY. Sure, you can try to find them in secret locations or yank them off of dead foes, but the easiest way to arm yourself in Grand Theft Auto is to drive to a chain store entitled "Ammu-Nation" and buy your firearms and/or bullets like any law-abiding citizen. You can do this, walk out of the door, and immediately start firing at civilians. Why? Because this fictional Los Angeles takes place in the real-life USA, and in this country (and only in this country), you can do feasibly the same thing in real life. The man in the screenshot above is not some crazy nut in his basement; he's the unnamed owner of an Ammu-Nation outlet, from a GTA game that came out in 2004.

The company that makes the Grand Theft Auto series actually originated in the UK, but they've gone on record many times as saying that Grand Theft Auto could never be set in any other country. Satire has always been at the heart of the series, not ultra-realism, but a GTA game set in Tokyo or Sydney or even London would be too far-fetched even for them; there is no Ammu-Nation equivalent in Rockstar Entertainment's native Scotland. People all over the world will play this game, but only in America will conservatives blame gun violence on a game that accurately reflects the paranoid, gun-centric, violent society they themselves helped to create.

And they will blame it, naturally. They will spit at the mirror because they don't like the reflection.

[longship]

1. I want a rail gun.

Sorry. I don't game anymore, not since Doom. But the rail gun on that was great for getting the nasties at distance. (Close-up, the chain saw.) I could go through the entire game without dying once.

And, no. I do not own a gun. But that was my last gaming escapade, other than an occasional evening of Nethack every few months.

[Posteritatis]

11. Dammit, I'd forgotten Nethack existed.

Now I'm going to be asked if I want my possessions identified for the rest of the evening.

[longship]

15. "You are in a maze of twisty passages, all alike."

Do you remember that one?

XYZZY
PLUGH

Colossal Cave Adventure, the grand daddy of them all. I played it on a DEC System-10.

[Posteritatis]

16. I just missed that one, more or less

Nethack was the first game I played. I love that there are still lots of roguelikes around; Dwarf Fortress is magnificent in the scope of its insanity.


(Also, just fired up Nethack. One move - one move! - and I got nailed by a sleep wand and gnawed to death by a kobold afterwards. Gah.)

[longship]

19. You need the Nethack spoilers.

The strategy is as complex as any game I've seen. And every time you play it, it is different. Watch out for midnight on Friday, the thirteenth.

I love Nethack.

[Posteritatis]

21. I've read those; if the dice gods want me dead on the first move though, that's that.

A bit less glamorous than "embark inside a volcano" in Dwarf Fortress, but hey, it's vintage.

[longship]

28. The fucking Eyes on first level if you don't have a blindfold.

ARRRRRGH!

Getting through the Gnome mines without starving to death!

And don't get me started about Gehannon. Those fucking Lichs! To say nothing about mindflayers in the lower levels.

End game with the Riders? Forgetaboutit!

[Comrade_McKenzie]

2. As a staunch supporter of strict gun control, I will be playing the hell out of this game. nt

[Initech]

52. I will be downloading off Steam at midnight on launch!

[zappaman]

3. Love that game!

Can't wait!

[JesterCS]

4. There is nothing wrong with this game

It's rated M for a reason, and parents who choose to disregard that are responsible. Also the person is responsible to keep reality and fantasy separate.

[RebelOne]

13. Right. I bought the original game for my grandson

who was 13 and he has not had a desire to commit any violent crime or steal any autos. He is now 16 and a basketball star at his school.

[Logical]

80. What does being a basketball star have to do with anything? n-t

[TeamPooka]

5. who needs real guns if you can play cool games like this and COD?

Games are better and I don't have to leave my couch.

[jberryhill]

6. They should include a background check on the in-game purchase....

That would be a hoot. When you buy a gun, the guy runs a background check, you clear, and you're on your way!

[athenasatanjesus]

7. These games should be banned for having no plot,and boring gameplay.

[Bjorn Against]

10. Grand Theft Auto is one of the best written game series on the market

There are plenty of games to criticize for not having a compelling story but GTA is not one of them. The writing in the game is absolutely superb, the game is a satirical masterpiece that mocks American culture better than nearly any movie released in recent years.

[Skip Intro]

8. The question of whether such games desensitize some to real-life violence and death,

and possibly act as some motivator for a mentally-unstable person to act in reality in ways similar to the game experience, is a valid question, imho.

I don't see how an honest discussion about the causes of gun violence in our society is possible while ignoring the glorification of gun violence in our society, via games, movies and music.

[Glassunion]

12. It is a valid question to ask, however should we restrict the 1st Amendment because of it.

Look at it like this...

The latest Call of Duty is a violent and rather graphic video game. In just the first week of sales, they had moved enough units to give a unique copy to every man, woman and child in the entire state of Ohio.

Now, would you restrict the 1st Amendment rights of the game's creators and the same rights of those who purchase and enjoy them because someone might be unstable and might buy a copy? Is it the fault of the creators for making something that a disturbed individual might buy and might be influenced by?

Or, do these creators, make something that the average person could enjoy for whatever reason they choose? Should free speech be restricted because of the possibility of an unbalanced person is unable to process the game/movie/etc. unlike the way a normal, average, and balanced individual might?

[Skip Intro]

14. Many ask those same questions re: the 2nd Amendment.

I'm not for infringing on either, but if the goal is to find the causes of gun violence, if we embark down that path, I don't see how we can refuse to look at the ubiquitous glorification of gun violence in various media.

Btw, there are many who'd applaud laws against what is termed "hate speech."

Slippery slopes abound.

[Glassunion]

32. Other countries have just as much violent media

but nowhere near the level of violence that we have.

There are a lot of factors at play...
Wealth disparity
Available healthcare
Culture
Media
Drug policy
Etc...

[KittyWampus]

18. I never suggest banning these violent games. Trying to get players to see the hypocrisy of consuming

this crap while supposedly also claiming to be proponents of peace is another story.

[Glassunion]

29. Is it really crap?

Or is it an artform that makes you uncomfortable? Art is subjective. What you may see as crap others will see as fun or exciting.

I was at a museum years ago, and was at first shocked and then made very uncomfortable by an exhibit. The exhibit was just a bunch of actual naked people standing around the museum in doorways or near exhibits. This really bothered me, and at the time made me uncomfortable. I was always aware that there was a naked person in the room with me while I was trying to enjoy some of the other exhibits. My initial thought was "what kind of pervert would like this kind of thing?"

After I got home I had a change of heart. Art is always subjective to the viewer, it is the gift the artists give to those who take it in. A song can have limitless meanings to different people and may be way off the mark of emotions that the artist used to create the song.

The artist at the museum created an excellent exhibit. She made me uncomfortable. She made me emote something. This is what art is. If you, through a creation, can draw an emotion, be it pleasant or unpleasant, then you are a good artist.

At the end of the day a proponent of peace can enjoy many seemingly violent things and not be a hypocrite. Video games, movies, and art are not reality. It is unreasonable to connect an unreal, make believe art with reality.

[Bjorn Against]

33. Well said, people can try to deny it all they want but games are a form of art

Some of them are getting to be fine art even, games like Bioshock and Journey are artistic masterpieces.

Grand Theft Auto recreates major American cities in a very satirical way and provides some brilliant and hilarious social commentary. Anyone who looks at GTA and sees nothing but violence needs to look closer because there is a lot of brilliance beneath the surface. There is a reason this series is loved by so many people, it is very easy to abhor violence but love games like Grand Theft Auto.

[Fumesucker]

20. I think you may have missed the part where the game would not even exist without US culture

This game couldn't be set in Japan, or the UK or Germany or Australia because the people in those places don't act this way.

Your complaint seems to be that GTA is a little too accurate a mirror of our society.

[Posteritatis]

23. Er, the franchise was created and initially set in the UK. (nt)

[Fumesucker]

26. Is this quote from the OP incorrect then?

The company that makes the Grand Theft Auto series actually originated in the UK, but they've gone on record many times as saying that Grand Theft Auto could never be set in any other country. Satire has always been at the heart of the series, not ultra-realism, but a GTA game set in Tokyo or Sydney or even London would be too far-fetched even for them; there is no Ammu-Nation equivalent in Rockstar Entertainment's native Scotland.

[Posteritatis]

36. Considering there's installments of the series set in London, yes. (nt)

[Bjorn Against]

44. Only an expansion pack to a really old game, none of the main games in the series are set in London

The London expansion was made for the first GTA game, since then there has never been a GTA game that has taken place outside the US. The series has changed so drastically since the release of the first two games and the London expansion that many people don't even consider those games to be a part of the series we know today. Many people say the series really started with GTA 3 which was set in the US and every game following it has been set in the US as well. The statement from the Rockstar executive is largely true, there has not been a GTA game set in anywhere but America since they turned the series to the more realistic open world experience rather than the basic top down action of the first couple of games in the series. You really can't compare the original GTA to any of the recent games, they are not even remotely similar experiences in terms of gameplay or story and what worked for the first GTA would not work in the modern titles.

[Bjorn Against]

30. It was created in Europe, but nearly every game has been set in the US

All the major titles in the series have been set in the US. The only time the series has left the US was in the London 1961 and London 1969 expansion packs to the original game, the retail title of the original GTA did not include London, it was only available if you bought the expansion. That was before GTA became a blockbuster series so very few played it, all of the well known titles in the series have been set in the US.

[Arcanetrance]

37. Did you also believe ozzys suicide solution caused people to kill themselves.

Some people have fragile psyches and are ready to explode regardless of anything. Blaming tv, video games and music for it is really a cop out

[Skip Intro]

50. Is blaming guns for it a cop out? nt

[Arcanetrance]

55. That's an interesting question

Guns serve only one purpose and while guns themselves are inanimate objects I would blame the easy accessibility of them as the problem more than the gun itself.

[Odin2005]

51. Do you think kids playing War outside with sticks "desensitizes"?

I am reminded of how my mom always got after me for being on the Internet constantly, but thought nothing about talking on the phone for hours. The vast majority of the folks that want to ban violent video games are people too old to have played them. Yet if you tried to ban kids from playing war, or cowboys and indians, these same people would be in an uproar.

[Posteritatis]

9. Ahhh, the annual GTA-induced moral panic.. (nt)

[KittyWampus]

17. So you enjoy blowing people away with guns bought legally in a game.

Good for you.

Your subconscious mind doesn't distinguish between "just a game" and "not a game".

If you want peace, then seeking peace should be a habit.

Spending hours playing a game that desensitizes players to violence to such an extent is sad.

Denounce the culture of violence on one hand and then engage in it with the other.

I own probably hundreds of video games of all types. Not one features blowing people away with guns.

[kysrsoze]

25. What does that mean? It may stimulate the same areas...

Of the brain, but it doesn't mean you get off on killing people. These are animated characters, not people or animals.

Just what does you think it means when you're supposedly desensitized to violence? Because I still find real violence horrific, as do most people. Dozens of kids in my area of Chicago have been killed over the years due to gang-related violence, and it never desensitizes you.

[Odin2005]

54. "Your subconscious mind doesn't distinguish" got any proof of that???

Or are you engaging in moralistic emotional thinking without evidence?

[kysrsoze]

22. My friend and I killed 30,000 people in GTA3.

Last edited Thu Jan 17, 2013, 02:20 AM - Edit history (1)

We uses to grab a bus or fire truck and started running pedestrians down, or create a big traffic jam and toss in a grenade. We tried to get to 6 stars and get back to the hideout alive. The police cars would just go berserk, flying through the air trying to get you. It was hilarious.

The game and violence link is B.S. it's just a game. I've never owned a gun and want don't want one at all. Can't remember the last time I was in a fight. MILLIONS of people play these games, and I've only seen one incident linked to a game - some idiots stole a car and tried to crash into other cars. It's the guns' availability and peoples' lust over them, combined with mental health issues.

[Posteritatis]

24. And god help those of us who play Paradox Interactive's games, of course...

Victoria II leads to some frightening numbers at times. (Of course, it's also as good a look into how things worked in the nineteenth century as you can get without a stack of history textbooks.)

[kysrsoze]

27. Interesting. I'll have to check that out

I think people forget how brutal the past was. The number of deaths in WWII, by country, is staggering.

[Posteritatis]

38. It's ... very much not a casual game, but an incredible piece of work

You pick a day between early 1836 and sometime a couple decades into the twentieth century; it gives you a historically accurate map for that day (not year, day). You pick any country on the planet at the time, and you're off to the races in a terrifyingly detailed economic/social/political/diplomatic/military simulation.

It's easily the most complex game I've ever seen, and pretty amazing as a result. Very, very niche though.

The same company makes some WWII-era games with a similar of devail, as well as exploring other periods going back to the medieval era.

[Cali_Democrat]

31. The question should be asked

Violent video games are just as prevalent in countries like South Korea, Germany, Japan, UK, Ireland, France etc...

How come they don't have as many gun deaths per capita as the United States?

[AverageJoe90]

34. I'll be buying GTA V in a few months.

And I'm liable to enjoy the hell outta it like I did with San Andreas, Vice City, GTA IV, and the originals.....

[Llewlladdwr]

35. But if banning these types of violence-glorifying games saves even one life...

...wouldn't it be worth it?

If not, then why would that logic apply to banning guns?

[Posteritatis]

39. By that logic everything, without exceptions, should be banned. (nt)

[Llewlladdwr]

42. We have a winner!

So why then is this logic being used to advocate for a ban on certain types of firearms and/or magazines?

It doesn't seem to make much sense...

[Bjorn Against]

45. Because guns actually kill people directly, games have never killed anyone

Guns and games are not even remotely the same thing, no one can use a game disc to kill somebody.

[Llewlladdwr]

47. You are wrong.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Video_game_addiction

The linked article has a section on notable deaths from video games.

[Bjorn Against]

49. None of the deaths cited in that article are deaths from video games

There is a death from a seizure disorder, death from drowning, malnutrition, murder and suicide. Not one of those deaths were caused by the game directly with the only arguable exception being the seizure case, but even there seizure disorders can be triggered by many different things.

Even if every single one of those deaths had been caused by video games however they still have absolutely nothing in common with guns because guns are designed to kill and games are not.

[Llewlladdwr]

59. Does it hurt tying yourself in a knot like that?

A person starves to death because they refuse to stop playing a video game, but the video game has nothing to do with it. People kill each other over a video game, but the video game has nothing to do with it. Sounds like rationalization to me.

[Bjorn Against]

62. If that is the criteria you use then you could say everything kills

I am sure you could find several cases of people dying while they were cooking as well, but to take those few cases and claim that cooking is a deadly activity would be absurd.

With guns however it is not just a few freak cases, it is tens of thousands of cases every single year. They have cost us people like Abraham Lincoln, Martin Luther King, JFK, RFK, John Lennon, so many great people along with such vast numbers of lesser known people who were loved by many who were close to them. Guns are designed to kill, you can't compare them to things that are not designed to kill.

[Marrah_G]

64. It's not the game, it is the persons inability to control themselves

I've been an online gamer for 15 years. It's a cheap form of entertainment. Yes, there are a very small percent of people who can't control themselves, but if it wasn't games it would be something else.

I've spent countless, countless hours in those 15 years whacking humans, monsters, animals, snakes, etc with everything from swords to spells to martial arts. I am not violent and nor are any of my friends who play.

The numbers of incidents you are talking about is microscopic compared to the number of people who play video games.

On the list of things people do that can cause death... gaming is way down at the bottom of the list.

[Llewlladdwr]

73. Couldn't the same be said for guns?

I've never seen a gun jump out of the safe, load itself and then head out the door for some mayhem.

As you correctly noted, it's the person, not the inanimate object which is the problem.

[Marrah_G]

78. oyyyyyyyyyyy...........

[kysrsoze]

89. That was a completely inane argument. They EASILY facillitate Accidental death and murder

Its pretty hard to kill someone with a Blu-Ray disc. Try again...

[jeff47]

48. Because the only purpose of these guns is to kill people.

The guns under discussion aren't as good for hunting as other weapons - for example, people aren't talking about banning 30-06's.

Leaving "killing people" as their only role.

Everything else has a non-killing-people purpose, but may kill people as a side effect.

[Llewlladdwr]

56. I'm not sure what you're point is.

Are you trying to say that preventable deaths are only a problem when a gun is involved? Do children who drown in a swimming pool not count as equally tragic? Doesn't it make sense to ban swimming pools if it saves just one life?

[jeff47]

63. That's because you're desperately trying to not understand it.

What's the point of a video game? Entertainment. Have they ever killed anyone? Not really. There's some people who've died in some way connected to a video game, but people have died the exact same ways with other forms of entertainment.

What's the point of cars? Transportation. Have they ever killed anyone? Sure. But their primary purpose remains transportation.

What, exactly, is the point of an AR-15? There's better guns for hunting and much better guns for target shooting. So what's the use of these guns?

Protect yourself or your property? How's it going to do that? By killing someone.
The laughable "resist tyrannical government"? How's it gonna (fail to) do that? By killing someone.

The only point of these guns is to kill people.

[Llewlladdwr]

67. Okay, so you are saying that some deaths are acceptable.

At least the ones caused by things you like.

[Bjorn Against]

68. No that is not what I am saying at all, you like to put words in people's mouths

I am not stupid enough to believe that every death can be prevented, but I think we need to try to prevent deaths where we can. I see no evidence whatsoever that a video game ban would save any lives.

[Llewlladdwr]

71. And studies show that assault weapon bans and restrictions on magazine capacity...

...do nothing to reduce violence or violent crime. So why do it?

[Bjorn Against]

74. It is a starting point, but I will admit we do need something better

I really want to see a handgun ban even more than an assault rile ban, a handgun ban would result in a far larger drop in deaths than an assault rifle ban would.

[jeff47]

75. Citation required

While the AWB was in effect, as flawed as it was, there were a lot less shooting deaths. Australia has fewer gun deaths after their new strict gun laws. UK and other countries where assault weapons were already greatly restricted/banned have fewer gun deaths.

So could you show us these studies?

[Llewlladdwr]

81. Here's a couple to start with...

This one from the CDC:

http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/rr5214a2.htm

And here's one from the Natinal Research Council:

http://books.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=10881&page=1

I'll provide more soonest...

[jeff47]

85. Can't even bother to read your own links?

From study #1's summary (My god! You'd have to read like the first paragraph!!! OMG!!!)

The Task Force found insufficient evidence to determine the effectiveness of any of the firearms laws or combinations of laws reviewed on violent outcomes. (Note that insufficient evidence to determine effectiveness should not be interpreted as evidence of ineffectiveness.)

So....they say they can't declare them effective nor ineffective. Boy, that sure backs up your position.

Also, you'll also note they were talking about violent crime as a whole, not gun homicides. Those of us seeking to eliminate certain guns/magazines/etc have no illusions that violent crime will go away as a result of various bans. What we expect is that those violent crimes will result in less dead people because the alternative weapons are not as deadly.

Or to put it another way, you can kill a couple people in a movie theater with a knife. It's hard to kill a bunch of people in a movie theater with a knife.

On to study #2:

While much has been learned, much remains to be done, and this report necessarily focuses on the important unknowns in this field of study. The committee found that answers to some of the most pressing questions cannot be addressed with existing data and research methods, however well designed.

So study #2 also says "I dunno". My, how definitive.

And again, study #2 is about violent crime as a whole. The point of proposed gun control legislation is to make crime less lethal, not to eliminate violent crime.

So again, Citation Needed. Maybe this time you'll actually find studies that back up your claims.

[Llewlladdwr]

87. So, you agree the studies found no evidence that the AWB was effective? nt

[jeff47]

88. No, these studies weren't asking that question.

Your studies are about violent crime as a whole, not gun crime. I have no idea why you think gun bans eliminate violent crime as a whole. What they do is make violent crime less lethal. And a simple perusal of the rate of firearms homicides show a decline when the AWB was in effect that went away when the AWB was not renewed.

Again, you are not this dumb. Stop pretending that you are.

[jeff47]

69. Nope. Not at all. But keep desperately spinning.

What do you think is the point of an AR-15 with a 100-round magazine?

[Llewlladdwr]

77. Again, I'm not understanding your question

If you mean what is the *function* of an AR-15, then yes, it's built to kill things. That's kinda the definition of "weapon". They are tools used to kill things.

Now, is that the only *use* to which an AR-15 can be put? Not at all. It can be used for target practice, as a hobby item or even as a door stop. It's potential uses are really only limited by your imagination. Even its function of killing can be put to legimate use in pest control, hunting or self-defense.

So anyway, what do you mean by "point"?

[jeff47]

79. You aren't that dumb

Seriously, you are nowhere near as dumb as you are pretending to be. The act is very tiresome.

The alternative uses you propose are better served by other devices. There's much better weapons for target practice. There's much better doorstops. There's better hunting weapons. There's better "pest control" weapons. And self-defense is killing people.

The only reason to select an AR-15 over other devices is to kill people.

[Llewlladdwr]

82. You seem to be confusing your opinions with facts.

There are better weapons for target practice? Based on what criteria?

Better weapons for hunting? Again, based on what criteria?

Okay, I'll give you the doorstop.

So are you conceding that the AR-15 is a legimate weapon for self-defense? If so how do you justify a ban?

[jeff47]

86. No, you're just still trying very, very hard to deflect

There are better weapons for target practice? Based on what criteria?

Accuracy, recoil, sound volume, safety, required range characteristics and so on.

Better weapons for hunting? Again, based on what criteria?

Suitability for taking down the relevant game animal. A traditional rifle is far better suited for deer hunting. A shotgun is far better suited for lots of smaller game. And so on.

So are you conceding that the AR-15 is a legimate weapon for self-defense?

Well, criminals are people, and it is a weapon designed to kill people.

However, a pistol or a shotgun would work far better.

Oh, and you still manged to not answer "What is the point of an AR-15 with a 100-round magazine if not to kill people"?

[jeff47]

41. You realize how many lives would be saved by banning cars?

If it saved just one life, wouldn't it be worth it?

[Llewlladdwr]

43. According to the President...

...yes, it would.

[Bjorn Against]

46. Please show me where the President has said any such thing

If you say "according to the President" you should be able to back that up with an Obama quote saying cars should be banned. Please show us that quote.

[Llewlladdwr]

53. Here you are.

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/OTUS/full-transcript-president-obamas-remarks-gun-violence/story?id=18229151&page=3

This link goes to a transcipt of the President's speech on gun control today in which he says "...if there's even one life that can be saved, then we've got an obligation to try.". If this is true in the case of guns wouldn't it logically also be true in every other case?

[Bjorn Against]

58. Nowhere does he say we should ban cars, nor does he suggest that we should ban most guns

If we can save one life we do have an obligation to try, but that does not mean kneejerk bans on anything and everything. Obama never suggested anything near all out bans on everything as you seem to be suggesting he did, he only suggested banning a small group of assault rifles and large magazines. For you to compare that to banning all cars is absurd.

[Llewlladdwr]

61. So in other words, we don't *really* have an obligation to try saving lives...

...unless it concerns something you don't like. Cars are apparently off limits, as are swimming pools, ladders and showers.

[Bjorn Against]

66. Go ahead and try to organize a swimming pool ban if you are so concerned about them

Contrary to your belief neither me nor Obama wants to ban every last thing on Earth.

[Llewlladdwr]

70. I'm not concerned about swimming pools.

Nor am I concerned about assault weapons. My chance of dying from either is practically nil, so why should I be?

That's the point I'm trying to make here. The odds of one dying in a mass shooting are extremely small, only slightly greater than being struck by lightning. I don't think restricting the civil rights of millions of American citizens is neccesary for such a black swan-type event.

[Bjorn Against]

72. Many of us knew someone who is now dead because of guns

I will grant that handguns are really a bigger concern than assault rifles and as long as handguns are in the picture an assault weapons ban by itself probably won't save many lives. The assault weapons ban is a starting point, but handguns should be the real target because those are the weapons people really murder with.

[Llewlladdwr]

83. I'm sorry for your loss Bjorn Against.

I'm just not understanding why you want to punish *me* for it.

[Bjorn Against]

84. I'm not punishing you, I just don't think you need to buy any more assault rifles or handguns

[Politicub]

60. No. Want to try a slippery slope argument next?

Or something else as equally useless?

You know you're obscuring the issue, right? You seem to think the EOs from today have something that's not there.

[Llewlladdwr]

65. I seem to remember hearing the President calling on Congress to re-instate the assault weapon ban.

That was earlier today. Which I was told for many years was *never* going to happen.

Yet, here we are.

[datasuspect]

40. cool

[Motown_Johnny]

57. We should track the effect in Canada, Japan, Australia and the UK.

Guess what... there won't be any.

[backscatter712]

76. I'll be buying it, just to tweak the NRA...

which is desperate to displace blame for the deaths caused by its member's products by creating yet another mind-bogglingly stupid moral panic.

[Victor_c3]

90. I played the hell out of this game when it came out in 2004

I was deployed in Iraq at the time and I thought it was kind of messed up. I'd go out on patrol shoot people in real life, then come back and play this game and shoot people in a pretend world

A bunch of the guys in my platoon were playing whatever that Tom Clancy Rainbow 6 Medal of Honor Game was called at the time. I used to make fun of my Soldiers after we were shot at in real life. "Why didn't you jump up and do something heroic like you did in your video game in real life?"

I made fun of one of my guys for screaming like a little girl when an IED blew up his vehicle until a few weeks later an IED blew up my HMMWV and I couldn't stop stuttering for much of the day...

Good times. There is a lot of fun to be had when lots violence in involved.