Best Buy Website De-emphasizes Common Sense Media Ratings

Best Buy Website De-emphasizes Common Sense Media Ratings

July 31, 2007
In May GamePolitics reported that the online store of mega-retailer Best Buy would carry game content ratings from watchdog group Common Sense Media alongside those of the ESRB.

At the time, GP's analysis of the Best Buy-CSM deal judged it to be bad news for the video game industry and the ESRB in particular. If Best Buy considered the industry's own ratings reliable and parent-friendly, why run CSM's side-by-side?

We note what appears to be something of a change, however. On BestBuy.com's game listings, CSM ratings now appear fourth in a vertical tier which is topped by the ESRB rating, followed by reviews from GameSpot and GamePro. The words an additional resource for parents appear next to the CSM link. Readers can see the new layout on Best Buy's Gears of War page (left).

In regard to CSM ratings, there's also the issue of coverage. As one might expect, big sellers like Gears of War are rated. But less important games may not get attention from the watchdog group. That's understandable given the number of games released each year and the time required to comb through an entire game. Still, it's not much help to parents if the game their child wants to purchase hasn't been rated by CSM. This is one topic where consistency matters.

By way of example, Pimp My Ride, an underwhelming PS2 game based on the T.V. series and released last October, has no CSM rating. Compilations may also fly under CSM's radar. We note that the Medal of Honor Collection for PS2, released in March, has no CSM rating despite the fact that two of the titles within the MOH collection, Rising Sun and European Assault, are individually rated on CSM's main site.

Nor is it difficult to find relatively significant game releases without a CSM rating on BestBuy.com:

Dawn of Mana 2 (RPG), Tenchu Z (action), Final Fantasy PSP (RPG) and Grand Theft Auto: Vice City Stories (PS2) all lack CSM's distinctive traffic light ratings. Regarding Vice City Stories, we have to wonder why CSM didn't simply cut and paste their review of the PSP version, which is the same game and which CSM called "another brutal, unabashedly adult game"?

Inconsistencies like that don't help CSM's overall credibility as a content rating service.

While the CSM ratings do indeed offer parents additional, more detailed information than the ESRB's content descriptors, they don't come near the ESRB's 100% coverage of retail titles. One thing CSM does have, however, is color. It may seem a trivial point, but perhaps the industry's black-and-white rating labels are due for a paint job.
Posted in

Comments

Submitted by GoodRobotUs - July 31, 2007 at 5:45 pm -0500
ESRB ratings are a guideline, they give a general idea of what to expect in a game, basically, people who turn around and say, 'Well, I knew there were shootings and blowing up buildings, but I didn't realise you could shoot down helicopters too!' is really barking up the wrong street, the content descriptor already gives a fair warning that this is NOT 'My Little Pony'. It's for details like this that sites like GamerDad exist, but a parent can easily get a general idea of what the atmosphere of the game is from the ESRB rating.

I think it's important to get as many viewpoints on what your child is playing as possible, partly because ANY review will be biased, whether by the parents opinion, or the games impact on their own views of the world etc, I certainly get the feeling with CSM that some of those reviews were based more about what people thought the review should be, rather than actual experience with the game.

So, I say to GamerDad AND CSM and any other organisation out there which is trying to give parents the very information that politicians say doesn't exist, 'Keep up the good work'.
Submitted by GamerDad - July 31, 2007 at 5:10 pm -0500
All,
I'm happy to see you guys talking so positively about my (and my extraordinary team of volunteers) efforts in this area. To address a few points - sorry I'm too pressed for time to attribute:

1. Yes, CSM has resources. Look at their board of directors! They can - gasp - send out press releases! All of my press comes from interested parties and people like you. I often wish Joystiq, Kotaku, and GamePolitics took a greater interest in promoting us - but they don't. I don't know why exactly because I'm hardly competing with them - at all. But I accept all the help I can get. Case in point: The Hartford Courant wrote this piece about me yesterday and I tipped everyone ... but no linky for me!
http://www.courant.com/features/lifestyle/hc-playlede0730.artjul30,0,968...

2. I'd love to run a media empire and I do write movie reviews for FamilyFun.com - but I can barely cover all the games. Bringing accuracy to movies, books, DVDs, would be impossible at this time. Maybe someday, if I can get financing.

3. Thanks again for your support guys. It means so much.
Submitted by Soldatlouis - July 31, 2007 at 4:12 pm -0500
I don't have problems with Common Sense Media. In fact, I like them. Of course, I disagree with their vision of "violent games", and I may like or dislike the way they rate a specific game, but compare to other watchdog organizations (such as Al Menconi's Ministries or the late Lion & the Lamb), I find them much more open-minded. In particular, they don't focus only on "violent/nonviolent" games, but they try to rate every kind of game.

I think they can do better though (Heroes of Might & Magic 5 ? Medieval 2 Total War ? Europa Universalis 3 ? Come on, take a look at them, I'm sure you'll like).
Submitted by cullarn - July 31, 2007 at 4:17 pm -0500
my problem with them is they think they can do a better job than the esrb but refuse to do a complete job like the esrb either all in or all out gentlemen
Submitted by JC - July 31, 2007 at 2:43 pm -0500
Honestly, I don't think I'd like to see GamerDad approved by the PTC unless his site isn't changed by being approved. I'd fear something like NIMF or PTC would try to control his site in some way if it were approved by them...

I just know in about 5 years when I'm in my 30s, I'll be looking at GamerDad for help with videogames for my children when I may lose touch [with games] trying to support the little rascals.

GamerDad, it is great you're putting more work into reviews, but try to not overwork yourself to stay ahead of them. As it stands, they've do so little in 2 years, and have junk reviews to show for it; so just keep at the pace you are.
Quality > quantity.
You have both, and they don't have either.
Submitted by Erik - July 31, 2007 at 12:16 pm -0500
I applaud what Common Sense Media and GamerDad attempt to do to educate the public. Problem being they are up against a rather powerful enemy. No not floridian lawyers, his only nemesis is sanity. I'm talking about parental apathy. Many parents will buy up inappropriate games for their children regardless of the ratings, in part due to the tired old stereotype that all games are for children.(Resident Evil 4 must be a children's game, its a video game afterall[/sarcasm). Despite what out of touch Parliament members believe the size of the ratings don't matter, parents can see them, they don't care though. You can make the rating be the entire front of the box and 3/4 of the back and they still wont care!
Submitted by Brokenscope - July 31, 2007 at 12:26 pm -0500
CSM isn't trying to be informational. They can't seem to muster any kind of objectivity in their reviews.
Submitted by Dogface - July 31, 2007 at 11:44 am -0500
CSM's worst offense is definitely their review of HL2. The general gist of it is that its depiction of a fascist regime and the oppressed people living under it is too much for people under 17, and if they see it, their heads will blow up from sheer terror. Better not let those precious kids near a copy of 1984, either! I wonder how many FPS games the reviewer has actually played, since he seems to be saying this is one of the most violent ever. Most people found HL2 pretty tame for an M-rated FPS. Also, I love how they deride the game for depicting a fascist regime being taken down by violence, and killing fascist soldiers, and then recommend a Call of Duty game as a more appropriate alternative.
Submitted by Dogface - July 31, 2007 at 11:48 am -0500
^ A footnote to my last comment: the CoD recommendation is actually in the HL2 Episode 1 review. They complain about killing fascists in that review, too.
Submitted by Bill - August 3, 2007 at 11:19 am -0500
Just so we're clear, Commonsense media is socially conservative at best and homophobic at worst.

From their website (http://www.commonsensemedia.org/bestbuy/about-our-ratings.php)

For Ages 5-7:
Nothing sexual is age-appropriate.
Concept of boy/girl relationship is okay but no more.

For ages 11-12:
No nudity but simple kissing and boy/girl social dynamics okay. No simulated sex.

Homosexuality (even implied relationships that are not shown to be sexual in nature) is straight to 13+ to 17+ territory. The fact they single out homosexuality to me points to some blantant prejudice.
Submitted by nightwng2000 - July 31, 2007 at 11:10 am -0500
GamerDad,
I know running the site you have is major work, and I've seen the forums so I know you do allow discussions about other forms of media, but have you ever thought of either:
(A) Opening seperate sites for Movies (MovieDad), Tv (TVDad), books (BookDad), and perhaps others like music and magazines.
(B) Creating "MediaDad" where all these forms of media are subcatagories under the overall site.

I suspect this isn't an original idea and it probably does boil down to the amount of time it would take to run such an expanded system. But I thought I'd ask about it anyway. (Or, knowing me, I probably already have in the past and forgot. :) )

Nightwng2000
NW2K software
Submitted by E. Zachary Knight - July 31, 2007 at 10:59 am -0500
@ Gamer Dad

I think the problem with getting your links onto more sites comes down to your media exposure. CSM has a lot more media exposure than you do at this time. If we could get more media outlets looking your way, then it would be natural for people to click a link to your reviews.

I am not blaming you for this, as I am sure you have been trying to work the media for a while. Right now, the CSM is on the approved ratings list of watchdog group like the PTC.
Submitted by Ace of Sevens - July 31, 2007 at 10:45 am -0500
Not only is the current scheme high-contrast, it doesn't clash with cover art. Imagien a big red M on a largely green cover. It would look awful, much like those colored case Microsoft used for Xbox.
Submitted by arowe87 - July 31, 2007 at 10:47 am -0500
I was just looking at the CSM website at the meaning of their rating. Isn't the "know your kid" pointless. Shouldn't they just rate every game with that since every person will respond to every game differently. For example, I get angrier playing games like Madden (broken a controller) than I do playing GTA.

Then they have what ages the game is "age appropriate" for, but they give it an off, on, or that "know your kid". They just seem to be a big pool of redundancy. If a game is age appropriate for 17+, wouldn't it be assumed that is "off" for kids younger than that. To me their rating is way more confusing than the ESRB's ever could be.
Submitted by Miraba - July 31, 2007 at 10:25 am -0500
I like the idea of moving the rating to the top of the box. With English and other left-to-right, top-to-bottom languages, the closer the text is to the upper left corner the more eyeball time it gets. The cover art designers would probably throw a fit if the rating were shoved right below the console name, but I think it could work if it were shoved in the whitespace at the top, maybe at the top right.
Submitted by GamerDad - July 31, 2007 at 10:31 am -0500
@Nightwing

I love you man! Point of fact, and Dennis knows this but maybe has forgotten, GamerDad has published over 1000 reviews in 4 years while CommonSense Media has published 300+ in 2 years.

Yes, my little outfit is outputting 3x the number of reviews as a giant non-profit!!

How about that for a news story Dennis?
Submitted by Robb - July 31, 2007 at 10:14 am -0500
I actually sent an e-mail to BB Customer Service stating how confusing it was to have more than one rating system. Especially when they were emphasizing a system that wasn't put on the box to begin with. Also, when the systems clashed, you had to "pick one." Could it be I was a small part of the solution? I hope so.
Submitted by pen gun - July 31, 2007 at 10:06 am -0500
http://www.commonsensemedia.org/game-reviews/Half-Life-2.html

You are on a mission to liberate the human race from an oppressive alien regime. Too bad it's coated in blood.
what the fuck. so am i sapposed to do hug the combine
Submitted by PHOENIXZERO - July 31, 2007 at 10:12 am -0500
They've made a Dawn of Mana 2already? O_o

Fix that typo now! I command thee!

*Gets struck by lighting*

AHEM, if I can be serious for a moment....... Those ratings are a joke, aren't they one of those groups that say the ESRB should play through all games before rating them? Then they don't even come close to that.... Hypocrites.
Submitted by tyler - July 31, 2007 at 9:55 am -0500
i can't believe this guy thinks about democrats like this! aright, so this guy on a blog i go to is talking serious trash about democrats. check this out: http://www.mypetpeeves.com/plog/index.php/archives/2741
Submitted by E. Zachary Knight - July 31, 2007 at 10:00 am -0500
@ pen gun

Here is a better link. The one you posted requires a membership:

http://www.commonsensemedia.org/parent_tips/healthsurvivalguide/violence...

@ tyler

Take your annoying self promotion spam somewhere else. No one cares about your political opinions. Especially when they have nothing to do with the subject matter.
Submitted by pen gun - July 31, 2007 at 9:53 am -0500
http://www.commonsensemedia.org/tips/Smoking-in-Movies/?ref=Homepage-Fla...
They cartoon violence cause real violence.
Submitted by upgray3dd - July 31, 2007 at 9:55 am -0500
@Jason McMillan
I apologize for the double post. I noticed that also. Weirder still (and funnier) They allow teenagers and children to rate their games. Look through every ultra violent game and you will find several green lights. I wish I could give you an example, but I don't think their site likes Firefox very much.
Submitted by Zigs - July 31, 2007 at 9:48 am -0500
It's too bad that the ESRB waving its little AO pecker in everyone's face didn't weaken the overall impact of the rating (as it did when they 'Hot Coffee'd' San Andreas to an AO rating). I'm seeing the same nonsense out of the MPAA and their coveted NC-17 rating (Giving the rating to primarily violent fare like SAW IV). I guess the best thing I could hope for is a lawsuit to come out of all of this, one where they end up having to drop the cert (ala the MPAA's 'X' rating).
Submitted by upgray3dd - July 31, 2007 at 9:49 am -0500
I don't think we need a color change. White boxes stand out on every box. Black on white always offers high contrast. Black on red doesn't draw your eye nearly as much.
Submitted by E. Zachary Knight - July 31, 2007 at 9:03 am -0500
@ JC

I think they were talking about having the Gamer Dad reviews on the Best Buy website as well as others. Not on the ESRB site.

But yes the CSM does seem to be dropping the ball on the aount of games they review. I don't even think there is a way to add a game to their list as a user; so you would have to wait for them to add the game to the list before you can post a review.
Submitted by Jason McMillan - July 31, 2007 at 9:28 am -0500
When this was first covered i decided to take a look at the entire site. i found it somewhat odd that they also rated the game not only for content advisory but also like ign would rate the game. There is a lot of bias on their web site. one of the catagories is Educational Content. A lot of the entries just use the term none. however, if you look at a game that they seem to hate like... halo 2 for instance, you will see that instead of "none" it says "nothing that you would want your children to learn". i found that very alarming, along with the fact that they give it one of the lowest ign type ratings as well. i'm all for opinions.. hell i am starting a web site about arguements, but when it comes to an orginazition that wants to inform people/concerned parents about content in video games i think it is important to be fair and not be bias at all when it comes to their content advisory.
Submitted by Brokenscope - July 31, 2007 at 9:10 am -0500
@AM

I think the industry should be a little proactive on it and ask via the ESA. Heck I thought that the ESA was on good terms with the IEMA.
Submitted by kurisu7885 - July 31, 2007 at 8:37 am -0500
@CyberSkull

I don't think anything short of a holographic projection and an audio message would do it
Submitted by JC - July 31, 2007 at 8:49 am -0500
I don't think the ESRB would put GamerDad's link along with their own as another source, they'd probably feel that they may not be needed at some point, but I think GamerDad would give better descriptions than the CSM ratings.
The questions as demonstrated do seem to be like something out of a high school debate essay... I really dislike the cut-off.

I really disagree with the color idea, they'd probably blend in, similar to something like the Grand Theft Auto box art and look like a colorful panel and people may just not notice it.

On retailers hiding the ratings, I find that strange, but I've seen Target do it, but the Wal-marts here don't do that. They have a cover box planted on its own support and the rating tag is there, along with a sticker on the glass giving a thorough description on what each rating means.

Anyway, this group may just die or fall off the radar at some point due to costs of maintaining a website. Nothing is more of a failure, than not having each game with a rating, especially with the coming of more indie games being available for sale (XBLA and later Virtual Console originals), which litteraly defeats the purpose of ratings. They seem to go after the most popular titles instead of every title and likely aren't paid nor arsed enough to rate each game and will understand the difficulty of actually playing each title to rate, rather than view the worse on a reel tape.

I think after some time, CSM will give up the ghost due to costs for a website that one would have to go out of the way to read for a supposedly detailed description, that may not exist for a game, instead of having the convenience of seeing the rating right on the box to begin with...
If GamerDad somehow does get a partnership with the ESRB, it would fill this "more details" piece that may be wanted by some.
Submitted by CyberSkull - July 31, 2007 at 8:13 am -0500
I don't think that ESRB needs color either, it would get lost in many game's box art. Box art is to draw the eye of the consumer, and another bright colorful icon would simply get lost in the noise.
Submitted by ~the1jeffy - July 31, 2007 at 8:23 am -0500
I agree with Nightwng2000. Personally, I'd like to see GamerDad's rating/link right below the ESRB. When I have kids, I will use those two things as my main resource.
Submitted by Akbar - July 31, 2007 at 7:37 am -0500
Am I the only one who hates the way the CSM treats "M" rated games? They give you an age group, and a rating for age-appropriateness. There are absolutely {no} games listed on their site as "age appropriate" for the "17+" age bracket. ???

There are exactly two (2!) games listed as "Know your kid" for 17+, Mercenaries and Splinter Cell: DA. How is it that someone who is (for all intents and purposes) an adult can't have any games listed as age appropriate for them? Aside from that, as mentioned above by Shoehorn, the descriptions of the 17+ games are muddled at best. I haven't had a chance to read their write-ups for the lower age brackets, but all of the ones I've read so far read like they have an agenda. An agenda, or a High School English project... For instance, Saint's Row:

"Families can also talk about why they think so much effort goes into making violent, sexed-up games like this. Is it simply because escapism and raunchiness sells? Why or why not? Do you think it's desensitizing people to violence or does it have no effect? Does it make society more violent or does it have no effect?"
Submitted by AM - July 31, 2007 at 7:40 am -0500
@Brokenscope

That's a fair point, but I'd say it falls on Wal-Mart to address it, perhaps by using clear plastic in that shelving system where it would cover product. If the game industry is going to try to work around that, it has to consider every possible obstruction. Multiple labels would need to go on the front and back, in case of sloppy stock staff stickering over the label, and the label would have to go on the spine, too--many games are shelved spine out when they're overstock or old, and PC games are USUALLY spine out (though they're not as frequently locked up).

Let's not forget the game has to come out of the case to be purchased. The buyer WILL have the thing in their hands before purchase, or can by simply telling the sales associate, "Hold on, please. I want to take a look at it before you ring me up."
Submitted by E. Zachary Knight - July 31, 2007 at 7:42 am -0500
I would like to add, that I am glad to see thatt he CSM website is at the bottom of the list of game review sites. After all that is what they are. The fact that they have a raitng that they apply to the game is just their way of trying to stand out from all the other review sites out there.

I also agree with Brokenscope and find the display cases at Target and Walmart to be defeating the purpose of the rating by hiding them behind the shelving. Maybe that is why all these politicians think we are hiding the rating. I guess if they went to an actual game store they would be able to clearly see the rating.

On that note however, maybe it would serve us better to move that rating to the top corner. But that is for the ESRB to decide.
Submitted by Brokenscope - July 31, 2007 at 7:32 am -0500
At some stores, target and Walmart come to mind, that lock the games (console games at least) in a glass cabinets have a shelving system, that completely covers the rating till the game is removed from the shelf.

Random thought since we were talking about visibility, sorta bothers me, but I don't think about it very often.
Submitted by E. Zachary Knight - July 31, 2007 at 6:50 am -0500
I don't think they need a paint job. As monochrome they stand out against the cover art of the game and are more easily spotted. If they started doing a green for E, yellow for T and red for M (I am not sure how AO would fit in the CSM color scheme), then cover art where the primary color is one of these colors would cause the rating to blend in with the rating making it harder to spot. Then we would get all kinds of heat for hiding the ratings.

As monochrome they more easily stand out as no one like to make monochrome cover art. It just isn't flashy enough to get that first look when trying to real in impulse buys. But when you have a colorful cover and there is this monochrome square down in the corner, it catches your attention and your view drifts to that corner. This makes it more likely that someone will look at the rating before buying the game.

There is a reason behind the monochrome. It was not just picked at random.
Submitted by Shoehorn O'Plenty - July 31, 2007 at 7:08 am -0500
I understand and applaud the CSM's attempts to make things clearer for adults who are not familiar with games, but nothing is gained by being biased about it. The review mentioned for GTA: VCS which said “another brutal, unabashedly adult game”. What is wrong with a game being for adults? They could have left it at "This game should ONLY be played by adults" and gotten the message across clearly, but seem to feel the need to put the boot in. Would they review a Barney title as "another playful, unabashedly childish game"?

In relation to their position in the Best Buy website, I believe it's only right they should be the last resort for parents. The ESRB is neutral and covers EVERY game giving clear information. The CSM are very biased and as evidenced in GP's article, have haphazard at best coverage of game releases.
Submitted by MaskedPixelante - July 31, 2007 at 6:51 am -0500
A paint job would be a good idea, but... what colors would they use to make it stand out, and not seem totally... weird to look at.
Submitted by nightwng2000 - July 31, 2007 at 7:03 am -0500
What I'd like to one day read:

"The words an additional resource for parents appear next to the GamerDad link."

:)

Nightwng2000
NW2K software
Submitted by cfulp - July 31, 2007 at 7:21 am -0500
Don't really understand CSM myself. Without the ESA, it doesn't seem like they'll be able to be the dominant ratings source in the industry.
Submitted by AM - July 31, 2007 at 7:22 am -0500
"One thing CSM does have, however, is color. It may seem a trivial point, but perhaps the industry’s black-and-white rating labels are due for a paint job."

I'm inclined to disagree, for different reasons than the other posters so far. The labels don't need a paint job because the only way a parent will miss them is if they simply don't care. No one is playing "hide the rating." The ratings and content descriptors are not placed inside the flap (on deluxe PC packaging that has such a flap), they're not being camouflaged, they're not being shrunk. Any person who cares to see the rating, WILL SEE the rating. The only way to miss the rating is not to give a damn. It comes back to parental responsibility. These are people who've chosen the single most important responsibility in the world: raising a child. How much hand holding is really necessary on the part of the game industry? If they look at the box at all (and if they don't, colorful labels won't make a difference), they can find the ESRB rating.

If a parent is out of the loop enough not to UNDERSTAND the ESRB rating, that's another matter. Frankly, if that's the case, they're probably not doing their job very well, as those ratings (and pamphlets explaining them) are ubiquitous, but it would deserve at least a LITTLE more benefit of the doubt. I do rather miss the RSAC ratings for this reason. An early competitor, the RSAC ratings provided a "thermometer," indicating not just "violence," but violence on a scale of 1-4, making it clear with their graphic just how bad it was. The RSAC seemed to switch focus to rating web pages at some point, and now no longer exists.
Submitted by Conejo - August 1, 2007 at 8:42 am -0500
i don't know about anyone else, but i filed complaints with Best Buy when they added the CSM junk (both in the local store and online).

i know just one person getting on their case wouldn't have done anything but i still uphold my end of the complaint by not buying games from BB and urging everyone i know to do the same.

CSM is a half-hearted attempt at sensationalism, otherwise they'd review every game and not just the R* and Disney ones.
Submitted by purchase domain name - March 10, 2008 at 2:46 pm -0500
I don’ t care a lot one way or the other, but I agree with the comments discouraging long, hyphenated names. I rather like Asher’ s suggestion that we use Bob’ s abandoned name: Argument Clinic (probably ought to avoid anything beginning with“ the”). Off Colfax’ s suggestion is also good but too long.
Submitted by increase backlinks blackhat - March 10, 2008 at 3:53 pm -0500
Wikis are great for online training because they encourage interaction. They probably works best when training is seamlessly integrated with day- to- day work. The wiki sets a direction for the workforce and raises the standard without the word‘ training’ even being mentioned.
Submitted by solid works - March 12, 2008 at 7:43 am -0500
I know, I know… it’ s pretty widely understood that good, available domain names are nearly impossible to find these days. I guess I just didn’ t realize how bad the situation was until I started looking for one myself. I’ m currently spending a lot of my time learning Ruby on Rails , and I finally decided on an application I wanted to build. I’ m creating it mostly to learn the entire process of Rails development— from designing models and database tables to actually deploying a production application on a...

GamePolitics ShoutBox

Posted 11/07/09 at 04:27pm
ZippyDSMlee: man I got alot of junk and dup files too >< god I need orginization...and no not the knee capping media mafia kind :P
Posted 11/07/09 at 04:26pm
ZippyDSMlee: replaced :P
Posted 11/07/09 at 04:23pm
ZippyDSMlee: beemoh:hey its like 60GB porn,400GB anime 100GB games and crap I have took from all my DVDs, I hate waiting on dvds to install stuff..... oh and 40GB of my porn was in the found.000 folder...mostly corrupted.... least I got names of wut needs to be repa
Posted 11/07/09 at 04:18pm
beemoh: @Zip: ...and you'd have to spend all that time re-downloading that porn?
Posted 11/07/09 at 03:34pm
ZippyDSMlee: ggrrrrr......vista lost one of my hard drives and I had a heart attack thinking I lost 1TB of data....
Posted 11/07/09 at 10:58am
JDKJ: Which could be explained by both (a) and (b).
Posted 11/07/09 at 10:56am
Austin_Lewis: JDKJ: You forgot C) the fact that, for some reason, every time he did something that would suggest he shouldn't be in the military, let alone an officer, higher ups ignored it or let it slide.
Posted 11/07/09 at 10:51am
JDKJ: Part of the problem is, I believe, that (a) the Army had a lot of time and money already invested in him and which they were unwilling to simply write-off and (b) an increasing need for the type of skills and services he provided.
Posted 11/07/09 at 10:48am
JDKJ: And that even if he was begging not to get cut loose, he was apparently a real good candidate for being cut loose, anyway.
Posted 11/07/09 at 10:11am
JDKJ: @chada: And while Kennedy once noted that there's usually more than enough blame for everyone to get a slice, the possibility that the Army was unwilling to cut loose someone who was asking to get cut loose could be a factor.
Posted 11/07/09 at 10:07am
ZippyDSMlee: *noms on his feet*..nomnomnomnom*droooll* ...wuuutttttt uuu looking at?
Posted 11/07/09 at 10:05am
JDKJ: I'm no psychologist, but I'm told that crazy people have a tendency to do crazy things.
Posted 11/07/09 at 10:03am
chadachada321: Whoops, was out of the convo for awhile. I do wonder what type of ammo he used etc, but the real issue is WHY he did it, not HOW
Posted 11/07/09 at 09:56am
JDKJ: But if it turns out that they actually did, they'll have Hell to pay.
Posted 11/07/09 at 09:45am
JDKJ: And I'd tend to rule out the possibilty of FN Herstal supplying restricted ammunition to someone merely because they're ordering it from a military base.
Posted 11/07/09 at 09:37am
JDKJ: I know you don't leave your gated community and get around much in dark alleys, so you may be surprised to learn that there's this thing called "the black market" where, if you've got enough money, ain't too much of anything which can't be bought.
Posted 11/07/09 at 09:36am
Austin_Lewis: Or, maybe he or someone else at the base ordered the SS190 from FN Herstal.
Posted 11/07/09 at 09:32am
Austin_Lewis: the hands of private owners. They run about 300 dollars minimum for a box of 50, and boxes of AP 5.7 are extremely scarce, mainly residing in the hands of Class III stores or individuals who for one reason or another got a demo box of it.
Posted 11/07/09 at 09:30am
Austin_Lewis: There are other firearms that fire the 5.7. However, I too would like to know where he got the ammo and what kind was used. Maybe Hasan, planning not to live through this, went out and bought one the boxes of SS190 that are floating around in
Posted 11/07/09 at 08:44am
JDKJ: And it isn't yet clear what type of ammunition Hasan used. It's strange that he purchased a gun but didn't purchase ammunition for it at the same place and time. Especially because the calibre required is peculiar to the actual gun.
Login or register to post shouts