Cartoon Considers Games & Guns

Over at Dissident Voice, blogger Martha Rosenberg writes that the recent spate of mass shootings has hurt the pro-gun political agenda.

More on point for the GamePolitics audience, however is the cartoon at left, which Martha drew to accompany her post.

Tweet about this on TwitterShare on FacebookShare on Google+Share on RedditEmail this to someone


  1. illspirit says:

    Yea, the ‘omg eeevil corporations’ thing always makes me laugh. Unless you really like making and shooting guns, it’s probably not a good industry to be in because the profit margins are quite small. Military and LEO sales bring home most of the bacon, but that mainly just works because of the  volume. Even then, a lot of the major players there are retired military and police who want their guys to have the best stuff. Although, I suppose civilian sector profits are rather decent right now thanks to the administration rattling their sabers about a new AWB. This might be Obama’s most successful economic stimulus to date. :p

    And who else outside of the game industry (namely Valve, Epic, and Blizzard) spends as much time hanging out on forums like arfcom or whatever getting feedback from and helping customers?

  2. Austin_Lewis says:

    If you recall, OBAMA put pressure on them to impose said ban on selling surplus shells to companies for reloading. 

    As for those Dems in the house telling Holder to STFU, good for them, because if he kept talking no one was ever going to come together for jack shit.

    And yeah, Rosenberg’s article is dripping with anti-gun bias.  She just wants to incite fear, and nothing scares the average American like an Ak-47. She’s just a liar, just like JT, manipulating facts to push her agenda.

    What’s really fun those is to read the comments on her page.  I especially like where  they call guns a corporate-profit driven manipulation.  Some of these people live with their heads up their ass I swear.  Also, I went to Colt Manufacturing’s plant, and it didn’t strike me as very corporate.  You had skilled craftsmen doing jobs they enjoyed and that were very rewarding.

  3. illspirit says:

    lol? If we’re so "hurt," then how did we just force the DOD to reverse their ban on surplus ammunition components? And why did half the Dems in the House just send a letter to AG Holder basically telling him to STFU about a new "assault weapon" ban? Rosenberg is a paid propagandist for the gun-prohibitionist lobby, and they’re just upset that we’re winning.

    It also didn’t help her credibility much when she claimed the Alabama shooter had a "cache" of an M16 and an AK-47. Seeing as he had neither.

  4. Lazier Than Thou says:

    The government can take away your rights.  In the case of doing something illegal, the government can detain you and send you to prison.  Moreover, the government has the power to deny people any and all rights they want, as long as they get it passed legally.  The government can say that people no longer have the right to free speech as afforded by the First Amendment so long as they repeal it or replace it. 

    They can, and have, also put restrictions on rights.  I point you to the Assualt Rifle ban by Clinton in the early 90s or the fact that you can’t yell "fire!" in a crowded room.  Rights have also been suspended for periods of time, as well as giving the government descretion as to if they want to restrict certain rights.  For proof of this, I need only point out the Patriot Act, which an absolutely horrible name considering what it gives the government the power to do.

    I don’t really know why I’m pointing this out, other than the simple fact that I am insanely anal about certain things.  Oh well, what’re you gonna do?

  5. Brokenscope says:

    I know what the constitution implies. I was refering to his implication of a right being something the government can take away.

  6. Lazier Than Thou says:

    Gun ownership is a right granted by the Second Amendment of the Constitution of the United States of America.

    "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

    I do not know the law in Canada.

  7. Nocturne says:

    but most people in that area of the UK seem to be against guns (enjoy your knifings)

    Our Knife crime rate is also much lower per capita than in the US

  8. catboy_j says:

    I’m pretty sure the Brittish shouldn’t be weighing in on American gun laws since the countries stances on Gun control are totally different. Not to say that a country defines someones belief but most people in that area of the UK seem to be against guns (enjoy your knifings) and America was founded in part with the idea of having guns to protect yourself.

    Also I don’t like guns but don’t oppose peoples right to have them. I think there should be some kinda leveling system if you want bigger and better guns, but I don’t think it should be mandatory psych screening for Guns. That’s an invasion of privacy and psychology isn’t the god end all to knowing things about people.


  9. Austin_Lewis says:

    Actually, our current system is great.  Just because Cho Seung Hui managed to get through it due to malpractice from the Judge and Pysch ward he was at does not make a system that stops felons from legally getting guns every day a ‘bad system’.

  10. Doom90885 says:

    Well despite what my signatire says I do not blame guns for when people are shot. I blame the people who pull the trigger. However I do believe that many people in the U.S. (I won’t speak for Europe because IDK their gun laws well) do not possess the mental or emotional maturity to own one. Many of these folks I would not trust with a water pistol. I do oppose guns but I believe if they were to be banned that little would change. The bad people would still get them and we’d be right back where we started. Also just as its unfair for gamers to pay for the sins of a few, its wrong law biding gun owners have to pay for these idiots’ crimes. But somehow this country has to stop making it so easy to obtain one. As I said I do n ot blame the guns as they are inanimate objects. However I feel even if the BS with games training ppl to kill were true, I wager many of these killers wouldn’t have the balls to go through with their crimes. True we still have knives and other weapons but nothing says instan kill with little risk to oneself like a firearm. But my signature just states my outrage on how everyone wants to address games when IMO the ease of firearm access is the real culprit for most of these crimes.



    For those who oppose and view video games as murder simulators…When are you going to FINALLY oppose and view firearms as murder weapons?!?!

  11. morgangillard says:


    Just want to clarify here that the Virginia Tech student had a psychotic illness that was the primary reason he committed the crimes he did.  The fact that he had Selective Mutism is not related to his behavior on that day.  An anxiety disorder (such as Selective Mutism) does not lead a person to become violent, whereas a psychotic disorder (such as schizophrenia) in SOME cases can increase the person’s risk for violence.  Also I’d like to request that people please consider terms such as "nut job" when talking about people who have mental illness.  I am sure that the VA Tech student would rather not have inherited a psychotic illness that likely felt like torture to him throughout his life, and would rather not have believed the paranoid beliefs that ultimately led him to kill others.  And next time you meet a child who has Selective Mutism, see how wonderful you think that child is before you make judgments and spread misinformation.  Thanks for reading and considering my input.

  12. Lazier Than Thou says:

    So you think violence against animals is comparable to violence against humans?  If this is so, why haven’t we rounded up those horrible people at KFC that keep slaughtering them chickens?

  13. Brokenscope says:

    Please do not use the word "right" in your statement. What you are referring to is a privilege.


  14. Austin_Lewis says:

    IN the US, when you get a firearm, your background is checked for drug and alcohol addiction and arrests related to them, as well as for any felony or violent misdemeanors. 

    As for pyschological evaluations, why should I have to undergo ‘evaluations’ when I’ve never committed a crime?  Criminals don’t have to come back and be evaluated, so its moronic that I should have to be.

  15. JB says:

    I’m not familiar with gun laws in the US or Canada, for that matter, (I’m Canadian but I don’t own any guns) but the way I see it is if you want to own a gun, by law, you should be required to undergo psychological evaluations and drug tests every few years. And if you’re found depressed, schizophrenic… whatever… or you have problems with alcohol or drugs then you should automatically loose your right to have weapons. Doesn’t it make sense to keep the weapons out of the hands of crazies and addicts? Just my opinion.


  16. Monte says:

    I tend to agree with JB…

    one of my problems with the idea of only waiting for a flag is that people with mental illness may not exhibit much behavior that would raise flags… i mean they can go through life not commiting crimes or doing anything that strongly calls to attention their mental condition… Look at a lot of the shootings that happen; the people who know those who commited the act are often surprised that they did so but if we put them under a microscope we can see possible issues. The thing is, for quite a few people the first flag that’s ever seen is when they do something that gets them or someone else serious hurt or even killed… the early warning signs can be to subtle for regular people to identify them as having some serious problems deep down.

  17. JB says:
    I don’t know if you’re still reading this…
    "Just because a handful of nutjobs go nuts and use a gun to kill people after playing games, does not mean that every person who plays games or owns guns are nutjobs or even potential nutjobs."
     – I agree with you.
    "You also come across saying that someone with a untreated or undiagnosed mental illness will be pushed over the edge by owning a gun. It may not be what you are actually saying, but the tone of what you are saying comes across that way."
     –  I’m not saying that. They may have already been pushed over the edge or maybe they never will be pushed. That’s the thing with mentally unstable people… anything can set them off. But, being untreated and undiagnosed, they may be much much more dangerous then the average person and letting them legally buy weapons seems… crazy.
    "There is no valid justification for mandating psych exams for gun ownership."
     – I have to ask: Do you think an undiagnosed mentally unstable person (who’s a danger to himself and others) should be allowed to purchase weapons legally? If not, how would you prevent such a person from buying weapons?
  18. Krono says:

    So I take it you don’t realize that there’s a distinction between an untreated/undiagnosed mental illness, and an untreated/undiagnosed mental illness that makes you a danger to yourself or others?


  19. E. Zachary Knight says:

    Perhaps I am overanalyzing your comments.

    But I do feel that you are stepping into the same justifications used when attempting to legislate and regulate games.

    Just because a handful of nutjobs go nuts and use a gun to kill people after playing games, does not mean that every person who plays games or owns guns are nutjobs or even potential nutjobs.

    You also come across saying that someone with a untreated or undiagnosed mental illness will be pushed over the edge by owning a gun. It may not be what you are actually saying, but the tone of what you are saying comes across that way.

    There is no valid justification for mandating psych exams for gun ownership.

    E. Zachary Knight
    Oklahoma City Chapter of the ECA

    E. Zachary Knight
    Divine Knight Gaming
    Oklahoma Game Development
    Rusty Outlook
    Random Tower
    My Patreon

  20. JB says:
    But you did say that the act of wanting a gun should be grounds to be put under a psychological evaluation.” Yes, I did. To ensure a gun isn’t sold to someone with an untreated/undiagnosed mental disorder.
    That is essentially saying that if you want a gun you must be crazy.” I honestly don’t understand how you’re coming to this. 
    All I can do is basically copy and paste what I’ve been saying:
    There needs to be a way to prevent a person with untreated/unknown psychological disorders from purchasing or owning guns. I don’t know of any other way to do this other than a psych. evaluation.
    That’s my argument in its simplest form. I don’t know what else I can say…
  21. E. Zachary Knight says:

    But you did say that the act of wanting a gun should be grounds to be put under a psychological evaluation. That is essentially saying that if you want a gun you must be crazy.

    That is why I advocate for mandatory gun safety courses. If someone can’t pass that, they have no need of a gun as their own stupidity will be enough to kill themselves later.

    E. Zachary Knight
    Oklahoma City Chapter of the ECA

    E. Zachary Knight
    Divine Knight Gaming
    Oklahoma Game Development
    Rusty Outlook
    Random Tower
    My Patreon

  22. JB says:

    I’m not saying wanting to buy a gun is abnormal behaviour at all. I never said that.

    What I’m saying is there needs to be a way to prevent a person with untreated/unknown psychological disorders (ie: severe clinical depression, schizophrenia, sever anxiety, bipolar disorder, or what ever) from purchasing or owning guns.
    If you don’t agree with a psych. evaluation then do you know of some other way?
  23. Austin_Lewis says:

    Thank God, the law and most supreme courts disagree with your whole ‘psychological evaluation’ idea.  What a tremendous waste of time and money that would be.  It’s even more idiotic than Illinois’ laws on the subject. 

    You get a psychological evaluation when you merit one.  Talking to walls?  Eval.  Acting like a retard in front of judges, sending pornography to people, stalking and harassing people? Eval.  Buying a gun?  No eval.

  24. JB says:
    I see taking a psychological evaluation as important as having to take safety courses. And I also don’t see it being any more of an invasion of privacy than an athlete having to submit to drug testing. That’s the best comparison I can come with at the moment.
    I guess we’ll have to agree to disagree.
  25. E. Zachary Knight says:

    I used to think that a mandatory psychological evaluation would have been a good idea for a gun purchase, but have changed my mind. It is an invasion of privacy.

    A psychological evaluation should only be performed when there is a valid flag raised by a person’s actions. Wanting to buy a gun is not a flag raising action. Millions of perfectly sane people buy guns. Millions of sane people use guns. So why should that be a flag requiring one to take such an evaluation?

    I do think that a person must pass a gun safety course before being allowed to buy a gun, but that should be a one time thing and once passed they should be free to buy whatever and how many guns they want.

    E. Zachary Knight
    Oklahoma City Chapter of the ECA

    E. Zachary Knight
    Divine Knight Gaming
    Oklahoma Game Development
    Rusty Outlook
    Random Tower
    My Patreon

  26. Austin_Lewis says:

    He legally wasn’t, but because the judge and pyschologist decided not to send that information to the FBI, he wasn’t disqualified.  And the reason they didn’t send that information to the FBI is because they feared it would make it impossible for him to go to a college.


    To clarify, he legally was NOT able to purchase a firearm.  

  27. JB says:
    Why do I think people should have to under psychological evaluations to buy weapons? To ensure they’re competent/sane enough to have weapons without being a danger to themselves or others.  
    Seung-Hui Cho (Virginia Tech massacre) was diagnosed with a severe form of an anxiety disorder known as selective mutism in middle school, as well as depression. Should people like that be legally able to buy and own guns?
  28. ZenAndNow says:

    Port Arthur massacre occured in 1996. The gun restrictions came into effect shortly afterwards.

    It’s currently 2009 meaning thirteen years have passed… two decades? Umm…

    Not to mention that the only large scale killings since that time have either been between criminal mobs or through the use of fire, it’s hard to see where you’re coming from.

  29. insanejedi says:

    But deathrates-per attack generally go up because knives are more deadly than bullets. If I had the choice of being shot with a 9mm compared to being stabed with a 6 inch blade, i’ll take the 9mm any day of the week. Knives rip flesh more effectively and have higher chances of severing artiries than the most common handgun caliber bullets. They also cause greater blood loss because of their size, and if it’s stuck in your body, it can cause much greater infection than any bullet would.

    Either way, their both bad, but if you want to reduce crime rates you do it the old fashion way,More police officers. These are just quick and lazy fixes that don’t actually adress the problem, it’s like putting duct-tape over a broken car.

  30. ZenAndNow says:


    One big massacre. One set of gun laws. None since.

    Pretty much the only people dying to gun crime are criminals who put out hits on each other.

    Of course, thanks to ass-backwards politicians most of the benefit has been lost due to police numbers dwindling and actual patrols becoming non-existant in favour of stupid solutions they can parade in front of the media, so the violent pricks still manage to be violent in other ways.

    Just with less victims.

    Hard to attack more than one person in a short space of time with a knife after all, since most knives they can get their hands on weren’t designed with killing people in the most effective manner possible in mind.

  31. Austin_Lewis says:

    On the other hand, look at cities in the US like New York City, LA, and Chicago.  Huge crime rates, ridiculous gun laws. 

    Nowhere have I ever seen a nation or city that became safer when they gave up their firearms. 

    Those who hammer their guns into plows will plow for those who did not. -Thomas Jefferson


  32. insanejedi says:

    Yup. Switzerland is one of the places that anti-gun groups will never ever mention. Every male there is a millitary conscript with full military training, and each household with a millitary conscript is equipped with a FULLY AUTOMATIC Sig 550 assualt rifle with free ammo to boot. And Switzerland has one of the lowest gun violance in the world, my suspect is because any attempt at shooting would basically be suicide, everyone around you has an equal ability to take you down as you have taking them down, so no one really tries anything.

  33. Saxy says:

    I agree. In one country, (Switzerland, I think) they actually have a law requiring everybody to have a gun with them at all times. And, wouldn’t you know it, they have the lowest death-by-shooting rate in the world. Also the lowest crime rate, I think. Don’t quote me on that, though.

  34. insanejedi says:

    The problem is gun-control in school is backasswards. The people with guns in schools are the people who are going to shoot up everyone, and the people without are always the victoms. I think everyone especially in collage and even highschools should each classroom have at least 1 trustworthy student with a firearm. It would make classrooms actually much more safer, not more dangerous.

    1 guy with gun vs 30 without= 30 people without die

    1 guy with gun vs 5 with guns and 25 without = higher probability of less people dead

  35. Wraith108 says:

     A large knife like a kitchen knife or a hunting knife is probably about the same length or longer than some pistols, though the only pistols I have seen in real life are the ones carried by police officers around places like the Palace of Westminister in London which IIRC are small revolvers rather than semi auto.

  36. Austin_Lewis says:

    Right.  Because a person with a knife is easy to spot.  

    1 gun in columbine was legally owned, the rest were straw purchased.

    As for V-tech, what they did was already illegal.  It still is. 

  37. Wraith108 says:

    Heh, perhaps, but I doubt that if any of the school shooters had been stabbers instead that they would have taken as many lives, if any at all.

    About the guns at Columbine and V-tech. I thought that the Columbine guns were owned by one of the kids parents. My mistake. As for V-tech, I  wonder what was done to fix the system to stop it happening again.

  38. Krono says:

    Then some urban areas of the UK do still have gun problems too, but I hate to think what it might be like if guns were still legal here.

    Less knife violence perhaps?


  39. Austin_Lewis says:

    Actually, Columbine’s guns were not legally purchased.  They were illegally purchased from a third party. 

    As for V-tech, those purchases would have been illegal had a judge and psychologist done their job.

  40. Wraith108 says:

    Well me pointing out that if people didn’t have such easy access to guns then the likes of Columbine and V-tech, which AFAIK  were done with legally purchased guns (though the columbine kids guns weren’t specificly theirs), would have not of happened may not help. lol

    Then some urban areas of the UK do still have gun problems too, but I hate to think what it might be like if guns were still legal here.

  41. Shadow D. Darkman says:

    …wut? How will Zerodash’s post start a flame war?


  42. nightwng2000 says:

    The big difference with blaming guns versus blaming media products is that the gun, itself, is the tool used to do harm.  Of course, that’s not to say that less guns will ensure less violence any more than less violent media will ensure less violence.

    The fact is, if someone wants to do someone else harm, they’ll find a way and a reason.  And they’ll find something that will push their buttons because, if they are bad enough off to reach the point of doing someone harm, ANYTHING will do the trick, no matter how innocent it is.

    On the subject of background checking, definitely necessary, but at the same time, understand that it isn’t foolproof.  Remember the NIU shooter?  There was no reason from anyone’s perspective to deny him a weapon.  What harm had he done in the past?  Yes, he was in a group home at one time.  Should that be on his record?  He was praised by many over the last few years.  Many didn’t know he had any mental illness.  Maybe the system needs upgrading/updating. 

    On the issue of privacy Rights, yes, both sides of the argument are valid.  On the one hand, there should be no reason to hide such information as what drugs (legal or illegal) you’ve taken, mental status, criminal records, and so on.  Want to know what’s on my criminal record?  Nothing except a single bad check problem that was never served because the issue was resolved, and that’s over a 30 year period.  And I have no problems taking drug tests anytime, anywhere.  BUT, there are individuals in authority, and some not in authority, who will abuse the opportunity to demand record and drug tests over and over.  And then "Oh My God!  Look at all those record/drug checks!  They may have come back clean, but who knows what’s REALLY going on since he’s checked so often!  He must be a HORRIBLE person after all!".  You know good and well there will be people who will do that.


    NW2K Software

    Nightwng2000 has also updated his MySpace page: Nightwng2000 is now admin to the group "Parents For Education, Not Legislation" on MySpace as

  43. Krono says:

    Seeing as Praetorian said "guns" not "handguns", I’d say it’s still a fair analogy.


  44. the1jeffy says:

    "Handguns are designed for the sole purpose of killing people."

    This is just anti-gun rhetoric.  My answer is, "So, what?"  Handguns are still simple inanimate objects.  The decision to kill is made by the human actor, every single time a handgun is fired, legal or not.  The lethality of the weapon is not an indicator of criminality or immorality – only actions are.

    ~~All Knowledge is Worth Having~~

  45. Saxy says:

    It may be false, but I think it still applies. Look at video games. The’re useful for other things, but people still look at them like they’re all out there to train killers. People will overlook things to see what they want to see in something, be it a handgun or a hammer.

  46. Austin_Lewis says:

    I always thought the ultimate irony was that what helped to get him into college was what should have prevented him from owning a firearm.  A rational and less idiotic judge or pyschologist would have filed the paperwork and let his parents sue the college if rejected for mental problems.  But no, they let it slide, and it came back to bite the community on the ass.

    Really, REALLY macabre irony.

  47. Saxy says:

    Strangely enough, it’s usually the groups who complain about the invasion of privacy that also complain when some whackjob shoots at them with a gun they shouldn’t own.

  48. Austin_Lewis says:

    What a completely unbiased article.  Seriously, I think it’s great that Miss Rosenberg can sit on her high horse and judge people for hunting.  Really.  God what a dumb bimbo.

    I don’t know what groups she’s talking about that are less perceptive to pro-gun stances now, but I was at a criminology conference last week in Boston attended by the best criminological minds in America talking about school shootings, and I can tell you that the facts are clear; Concealed Carry on Campus is a great and widely accepted idea.  It’s just not a politically accepted idea.  But that’s fine, we can wait while we get to sit through ‘Stimulus, the REMIX!’ and Obama’s team pretending he didn’t know about AIG’s bonuses that had to be paid. As of writing this, I know of nine states working on legislation that would allow concealed carry on (public college) campuses, as well as many others that are still talking about it.  Public schools in Utah and Colorado have been doing this as well, letting the same responsible law-abiding citizens who

    Also, @ZERODASH:

    Are you serious?  Do you own a gun?  One of the questions on the form that you have to fill out says ‘have you been adjudicated (judged, basically, by a court or court’s expert) mentally defective?’.  Of course, the answer you give doesn’t even fucking matter, what really matters is if NICS says you have been.  And if some groups would stop bitching about it being an ‘invasion of privacy’, there’d be no problem at all.

  49. KaylaKaze says:

    That’s a false analogy (assuming you mean the common, everyday hammer and not a war hammer). Handguns are designed for the sole purpose of killing people. Hammers have other purposes. When used the way they’re meant to be used, handguns put bullets into people. When used the way they’re meant to be used, hammers put nails into wood and stuff. Handguns are not for hunting so that doesn’t even into it.

  50. Praetorian says:

    Holy crap! Look out! I play violent games AND have a gun! I’m gonna go shoot people because the game made me do it!

    The only time I will ever have a problem with a gun is when the guy robbing me has one at my head and I don’t have one that I could have used first.

    As for the correlation to both, guns don’t kill people anymore than violent games do. What if instead of a gun — people used hammers? They’d be thinking that hammers were evil. Yeah, it’s a silly thought, but it is true.

    If someone doesn’t want a gun, good, they don’t have to buy it. As long as they don’t try to take mine away, I don’t really care too much either.


    "I’ve been told I’m the resident skeptic, but I wouldn’t believe that."

  51. Vake Xeacons says:

     At least here, you can SHOOT THAT DOG!

    lol. Seriously, though, they’ve got a point. The people in this cartoon are clearly hunting, and it’s implied that they’re doing it legally. It’s just showing how the NRA and 2nd Amendment supports can be hypocrites at times. 

  52. mr_mlk says:

    I predict a long and dull flamewar now.

    Shall we just say we have done it and move on with our day?

    — Add a marker to the start of your signature.

  53. Zerodash says:

    Blaming guns for crazy people doing crazy things is almost as absurd as blaming games.  Just like games, guns do not have some magical energy field that turns normal people into killers.

    The real trick is keeping guns/games/media away from crazy people…just imagine the logistics of even implementing such a thing. 

  54. chadachada321 says:

    To answer the comic: I’d rather be out hunting with my father than at home playing some video games. I’ve never been hunting. I really enjoy going to the range and shooting a bow or a handgun or small stuff, but my dad never has time to take me, let alone take me hunting with him.

    Family hunting encourages teamwork and strengthens relationships. The same can be said of any team activity, it strengthens bonds. Without even reading the posted article, I can tell that she is some sort of idiot that thinks "zomg guns r teh evels!" without talking about the root of the problem (which is crazy people).

    But whatever, I enjoy having guns in my house for protection, and some people don’t like having guns in their house. As long as it isn’t affecting me, I don’t give a damn.

    -If an apple a day keeps the doctor away….what happens when a doctor eats an apple?-

Comments are closed.