British Writer: Why Are Games, Not Guns, Blamed For U.S. Rampages?

April 6, 2009 -

With the United States rocked by a series of mass-murder incidents in recent weeks, Dalitso Njolinjo of The Moderate Voice wonders why the influence of video games, music and movies are often blamed for such events:

As an avid hip hop fan... When my favorite rappers veered into subjects of violence and gun play, my thought always seem to lead me to one question, how do they get these guns so easily? ...

I remember the Columbine High School massacre... Instead of having a serious conversation about gun crime and gun control, the majority of the news stories based on sensationalism. ‘The Trench Coat Mafia’, ‘they played violent video games’, ‘they were fans of Marilyn Manson’ and ‘they were fans of Natural Born Killers’... as soon as the conversation did veer towards gun control, the NRA would call foul play and blame someone in pop culture...

Fast forward to the aftermath of the Virginia Tech massacre, what did Fox News ‘journalist’ Bill O’Reilly want to talk about? [rappers]...

 

When anyone can purchase a fire arm with such ease and with impunity and thereafter go and take somebody’s life, someone somewhere has failed the victims.


Comments

Re: British Writer: Why Are Games, Not Guns, Blamed For ...

Hammers don't build houses, but try building without one.

------- Morality has always been in decline. As you get older, you notice it. When you were younger, you enjoyed it.

Re: British Writer: Why Are Games, Not Guns, Blamed For ...

Defending yourself doesn't mean using a gun, but have fun defending yourself with anything else...

Re: British Writer: Why Are Games, Not Guns, Blamed For ...

Tell you what you attack me with a gun, ill defend myself with bulletproof glass.

we will see who comes out on top.

Re: British Writer: Why Are Games, Not Guns, Blamed For ...

ok but I get to have legs so that I could walk around the glass...

Re: British Writer: Why Are Games, Not Guns, Blamed For ...

ok but i get to have the power of living in a 3-dimensional world, where i can be INSIDE an object (e.g. a car or house) with bulletproof glass.

Have fun walking around and around all day long.

Re: British Writer: Why Are Games, Not Guns, Blamed For ...

Am I allowed to shoot out the tires as you speed away, and then shooting at the gas tank if you are still alive?

 

Also i get to be able to shoot out a lock in the house and come after you...

 

Seriously your bullet proof glass idea doesn't work unless you lock yourself in a bullet proof room... I agree that panic rooms are useful to have in a house... but their are rather expensive... a gun is cheaper to defend yourself with... also if you think a car or house stops a gun then what is your problem with guns???

Re: British Writer: Why Are Games, Not Guns, Blamed For ...

A nailgun? OOhh... that's 2 for 1 there. It's a gun thats primary purpose is CLEARLY not for killing, and a way to build a house without a hammer.

Re: British Writer: Why Are Games, Not Guns, Blamed For ...

 Really 0.o your arguments are so thin that you are grasping at the word gun being in nailgun to defend why people should be allowed guns?  Really, I'm calling this one guys Deus is fucking with us.  

Re: British Writer: Why Are Games, Not Guns, Blamed For ...

Of the dozens upon dozens of points i've made, you take 1, and determine that makes all my other arguments invalid. That's some quality deduction skills you have there. Man, we've had strawman arguments brought against my points, we've had loaded questions... I guess it was just time before the attacks became ad homenim.

Re: British Writer: Why Are Games, Not Guns, Blamed For ...

I'm not going to call it until Deus Godwins... haha

------- Morality has always been in decline. As you get older, you notice it. When you were younger, you enjoyed it.

Re: British Writer: Why Are Games, Not Guns, Blamed For ...

 ooo good call.

Re: British Writer: Why Are Games, Not Guns, Blamed For ...

oh please...

way to miss the point.

A Nailguns purpose is not to kill someone. the objects being discussed in this article are 'guns' in teh sense of guns that fire bullets that kill people and you know it.

A GlueGun is also a 'gun', but you know full well that isnt what is being disucssed here. Its a straw man example.

Re: British Writer: Why Are Games, Not Guns, Blamed For ...

Actually, you made the strawman argument here. A gun, by no definition is something used for the express purpose of killing. There are many many guns, including glue guns, calking guns, tranquilizer guns, tazers, handguns, rifles, blowguns. Instead, you're limiting the argument to "guns that fire bullets that kill people". Well.. in that case, how can anyone argue. Clearly, by definition, guns are only things that kill people with bullets. So does that mean that when a pistol is fired into someone's arm, and it doesn't kill them, it's not a gun? How about a tranquilizer gun? Or how about a rubber buck shot? Or how about tear gas bullets?

Re: British Writer: Why Are Games, Not Guns, Blamed For ...

Okay... now that I'm throwing my hat into the ring.

You make a remark about it being a strawman argument (though I don't agree that it is) and then turn it around and make it an argument about semantics.  I don't think that anybody here thinks we're debating glue guns, or even nail guns.  To suggest that we are just shows how specious your argument is.

Anyhow.  I am not against gun ownership (even though I myself hate guns), under the condition that the person who owns the gun is responsible.  And to be responsible (my opinion), one must be healthy, educated and feel safe.

Unfortunately, when people are denied health care, are told that creation is scientific fact and are constantly told that they're going to be killed by every one and every thing, we shouldn't even be thinking about letting them have firearms.  Give those people guns and it's a recipe for disaster.

------- Morality has always been in decline. As you get older, you notice it. When you were younger, you enjoyed it.

Re: British Writer: Why Are Games, Not Guns, Blamed For ...

UTTER FACEPALM

 

you SERIOUSLY think its relevant in this context that guns can have rubber buck shot or there are guns like tranquilizer guns?

you know full well that guns 'killing people' is the whole context of the article.

You dont hear about a rampage where a madman stormed a school and shot everyone with rubber buckshot or ' Today a demented ex-student stormed a school and tranquilized 32 individuals, before turning the gun on himself and tranquilizing himself'.

 

 

Re: British Writer: Why Are Games, Not Guns, Blamed For ...

Why would you? People get injured every day, why would this be any different. Did you hear about the guy who got beat up outside my local bar? Or did you hear about the local highschool football game where 4 people were hospitalized, my friend had 2 teeth knocked out, and at least 2 arrests were made? No one died, no one was seriously hurt, no one had any major charges brought up against them. There's no way it would receive national (or international) attention. It's just another crazy guy doing crazy things that freaked a few people out. The reason you have the news story, is because he KILLED people. It's the KILLING that is the story, not the gun. Yet, sensationalists would have you believe that it's the gun they're reporting on, and that the gun killed 32 people, not the insane man behind the gun.

Re: British Writer: Why Are Games, Not Guns, Blamed For ...

But this discussion IS about guns. Lethal guns at that. Hence the title of the article.

Re: British Writer: Why Are Games, Not Guns, Blamed For ...

"Today a demented ex-student stormed a school and tranquilized 32 individuals, before turning the gun on himself and tranquilizing himself'."

So... once again you bring up a point, and then when i argue against it, you say it's not what we were arguing about. And you have the audacity to call me a troll?

But if you REALLY want me to bring guns back into the discussion, why is it that you don't hear anything about the 500,000 crimes a year in which a gun was used and no one was killed? Because there's nothing to blame guns on. No one really cares of someone lost their wallet, or was forced to give up their car. But because someone was killed, THAT is the story. Not the gun.

Re: British Writer: Why Are Games, Not Guns, Blamed For ...

"4 people were hospitalized, my friend had 2 teeth knocked out, and at least 2 arrests were made? No one died, no one was seriously hurt, no one had any major charges brought up against them."

Probably because no gun was involved. 

Probably would have been a completely different story if there were guns.  Probably would've made national headlines.  Probably would've been blamed on videogames (not football).

Oh yes... and probably would have been young people dead.

------- Morality has always been in decline. As you get older, you notice it. When you were younger, you enjoyed it.

Re: British Writer: Why Are Games, Not Guns, Blamed For ...

Actually, that would be hilarious.

"The whole classroom was forcefully subjected to a nice, long nap today.  The suspect is being charged with aggressive sleeping."

-- Sometimes the truth is arrived at by adding all the little lies together and deducting them from the totality of what is known

-- Sometimes the truth is arrived at by adding all the little lies together and deducting them from the totality of what is known

Re: British Writer: Why Are Games, Not Guns, Blamed For ...

lol

Reporter: 'We managed to interview some of the victims..'

Reporter: 'so can you describe your ordeal?'

Victim   : 'Yeah one minute i was just having class as normal, then the nutjob came storming in. Thats the last thing i remember. When i awoke i felt re-energised and refreshed'

 

Re: British Writer: Why Are Games, Not Guns, Blamed For ...

Jack Thompson: "This could have all been avoided if everyone listened to me and we banned that comic book 'The Sandman'.  He trained on that comic day and night to put people to sleep"

(He then proceeds to sue Sealy and other bed makers.  He sends porn to the makers of Nytol and praises the efforts of Starbucks in promoting wakefulness)

------- Morality has always been in decline. As you get older, you notice it. When you were younger, you enjoyed it.

Re: British Writer: Why Are Games, Not Guns, Blamed For ...

LOL pure awesome.

Re: British Writer: Why Are Games, Not Guns, Blamed For ...

The argument is limited to the lethal guns because those are the guns we have been discussing the entire time. Surely then, given your argument, you'd join me in requesting that all LETHAL guns be banned, therefore leaving you your glue gun and your tranquilizer?

Re: British Writer: Why Are Games, Not Guns, Blamed For ...

hahah there 'just as effective' dont you know.

NOBODY MOVE... OR ILL GLUE YOU!, IN FACT SCRATCH THAT, ILL GLUE YOU ANYWAY, THEN YOU CANT MOVE!

Re: British Writer: Why Are Games, Not Guns, Blamed For ...

 LOL Rock on that just painted a great picture.

 

I can see it now

Police: Sir Im sorry but your daugther well she was well .. she was glued sir

Father: NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO ::sobs::

Police: I'm sorry for your loss you will have to wait 2 weeks while we get the glue remover in.

Father: Who could have done this WHO TELL ME DAMMIT WHO!!!!! ::shaking with anger::

Police: We believe his name was Khan.

Father: KKKKHHHHHHHAAAAANNNNNN KKKKKHHHHHAAAAAANNNNN!!!! ::fists raised to the air::

 

=)

Re: British Writer: Why Are Games, Not Guns, Blamed For ...

ROFL...I was having a smiliar picture of a madman going postal with a gluegun

Re: British Writer: Why Are Games, Not Guns, Blamed For ...

So you SERIOUSLY think that this article is asking why glueguns arent blamed and games are?

you SERIOUSLY can say with a straight face, thats what you think the article is talking about, that you think that a gluegun would be accurately reprasentative of the 'gun' being debated in the context of the article ?

you dont recognise that PERHAPS when the word 'gun' is banded about, that perhaps the context of the discussion can perhaps mean that there is an implication as to just what type of 'gun' is being talked about?

It certainly isnt glueguns.

And to say that guns (in the context of firearms that fire bullets to kill things) are then somehow justified because a 'gluegun' is useful is just a baffling leap of logic.

 

Tell you what, you find me an example of somebody going on a school rampage using a gluegun, since thats the context of the guns being discussed in this article.

Until you do.. im done talking to you, and ill classify you as a T R O L L .

Re: British Writer: Why Are Games, Not Guns, Blamed For ...

Feel free to call me a troll. But that's easy to do when you just ignore their actual arguments, and latch onto small pieces that you don't like. Yes, I know we're not talking about glue guns and calking guns, but I'm making a point. Guns are not lethal by definition. They must be used in a lethal manner. And to continue that line, the guns themselves are even less to blame than the ammo. But when you put lethal shots into the definition of guns, of course it makes guns that much harder to defend. Because you're completely ignoring all the other aspects of guns that you don't enjoy. Rubber buckshots are a non-lethal way of taking down a criminal. A step further than that is the Taser Xrep, which is a wireless taser round that can be fired from standard issue shotguns. And tranquilizer guns are quite the effective method of non-lethal protection. Do you really think that a would-be criminal is going to check twice if the gun you're holding fires bullets or tranq darts or taser capsules?

Maybe I went a bit too far in the gluegun comparison, but it's an exaggeration to dramatize the point of ignoring all the non-lethal guns that exist in the world. And how by narrowing down the argument to only lethal guns, you're ignoring a huge subset guns, even in the traditional sense of the propellent being gunpowder.

 

Re: British Writer: Why Are Games, Not Guns, Blamed For ...

Guns are not lethal by definition

Did you read the article befor you posted?

If not go back and read it.

Its about school shootings. The problems causedby killers having access to guns for the purpose of killing people in a school shooting.

So in the context of this entire discussion, yes, guns ARE lethal by definition.

those are the guns we are discussing the access to.

Re: British Writer: Why Are Games, Not Guns, Blamed For ...

So... because you want to, you just exclude all other forms of guns? No where in the article is it making a distincion about lethal vs non-lethal. You chose to narrow the argument to only a section that you can actually defend, when in actually the 2nd amendment is SO much more than that. Gun control is not a black and white issue, no matter how much you try to make it out to be. When discussing lethal guns and their pitfalls, it is also necessary to discuss the non-lethal aspects of guns.

 

But let's take a step back here. First, I was asked to show why guns should be allowed at all. Then I was asked to show how they can be used for things other than killing. Then I was asked to show that killing wasn't the primary purpose. And now that I've shown that, i'm being told that guns that kill are the only ones that we're talking about. If that's the case, then clearly asking me to show how guns can be used other than killing is a loaded task. If by your definition, guns must kill, and then you ask me what a gun can do besides kill, there's nothing that can satisfy your question.

As I've said before, take a step back from your 'guns are evil' mindset, and think for a minute that there can actually be some good that comes from a gun. Regardless if you try to narrow down the definition to your liking.

Re: British Writer: Why Are Games, Not Guns, Blamed For ...

lol awesome analogy!!

really nice way to illustrate the point.

Sure i could use a rock and bash the nails in, but anyone who says itd be just as easy or effective is kidding themselves. Otherwise youd see 'nail bashing rocks' sold in stores, and selling just as well as hammers.

Re: British Writer: Why Are Games, Not Guns, Blamed For ...

 I would buy one 

Re: British Writer: Why Are Games, Not Guns, Blamed For ...

AMEN

 

sometimes i feel like im the only person who acknowledges this fact. Its so frustrating.  Typically though you get people then arguing that the person would have killed just as many people with a knife. Ignoring the fact that the whole reason behind developing guns for military use and advancing the rechnology behind them has one purpose. To make killing more efficient. Simple as. Hence the military dont go into a warzone armed solely with knives. Oh or you get the 'bomb' argument. However I fail to accept that making and successfully using a bomb is just as easy as using a gun. I mean its 1) point. 2) squeeze trigger.

Re: British Writer: Why Are Games, Not Guns, Blamed For ...

oops the safety is on?

it jams?

no bullets?

or the most common one, you just can't aim:

http://www.metacafe.com/watch/200007/one_lucky_robbery/

 

Re: British Writer: Why Are Games, Not Guns, Blamed For ...

sure those things happen.

But with realtion to the bomb argument, ifd argue its FAR easier for something to go wrong with a homemade bomb (e.g. it doesnt work, or goes off accidentally)

 

Furthermore... how is challenging the idea that guns are more efficient than cars , knives, and homemade fertilizer bombs, an argument as to why guns ARE needed? surely if these other methods are just as efficient and less error prone as you claim, then you have no problem using these instead of guns right? whats that i hear? *flip* *flop**flip* *flop*

Re: British Writer: Why Are Games, Not Guns, Blamed For ...

Those ones are more efficient to kill large numbers of people. I never said that  guns should be around because its easier to kill with them... I have consistently argued against it...

The gun is more efficient for defending yourself and others...

unless you are saying that you can defend yourself with cars or homemade fertilizer bombs...

as for knives, I always carry one with me, however for defense its a lot easier to scare an attacker away with a gun then a knife... killing an attacker with either is similar in chances of success but the point is not to kill but to survive...

 

Re: British Writer: Why Are Games, Not Guns, Blamed For ...

Yes, and the 646 people killed by Timothy McVeigh with products available at your local Home Depot? Or how about the dozen or so people that can be killed in a single driving of a car through a friendly farmers market? Might I bring up that no guns were used to hijack the planes that ended up killing close to 3000 people? Guns are just one of many many many many many ways to kill a person, and not a terribly effective means in the big scheme of things.

 

Re: British Writer: Why Are Games, Not Guns, Blamed For ...

Might I also remind you that the stance on hijacking up to that point was to be compliant and do whatever the hijackers say.  Theres a reason one of those planes didn't reach target, the men and women aboard figured out that this was not a simple just sit there and do nothing situation it was a time to fight.  I would also like to point out that there have been several situations in which someone freaked out on a plane and the passagers took that person down since that day.  The reason why; the sit there and do nothing mentaility is gone.

Re: British Writer: Why Are Games, Not Guns, Blamed For ...

so.. why are the military armd primarily with guns?

surely they could save much research and development costs by using the methods you've just mentioned?

 

is it perhaps because using guns is easier and more efficient than the methods youve listed? If so, then your argument falls flat on its face.

Re: British Writer: Why Are Games, Not Guns, Blamed For ...

@

"so.. why are the military armd primarily with guns?is it perhaps because using guns is easier and more efficient than the methods youve listed? If so, then your argument falls flat on its face."

uhhh no. The military uses guns because bombing a building to get a single shooter and dozens of civilians is not a tactic used by armies of nations who's representatives are elected...(well usually)

So you can't blow up every building, then your tanks can't go up the stairs so you send soldiers up there... and while it is not the most effective way to fight, it is one of the better ones... (after you threw in a few flash grenades and some tear gas...)

Re: British Writer: Why Are Games, Not Guns, Blamed For ...

the methods listed included knives and cars.

explain how my point was invalid.

you think guns are not as efficient at killing as cars and knives?

Re: British Writer: Why Are Games, Not Guns, Blamed For ...

From a distance guns are better but from a blow delivered they aren't, but what would you rather have:

a)get shot once by an average gun owner

b)get stabbed once by an average knife owner

c)get run over by a car once by an average car owner

Your highest chances of survival would be A... yet it is somehow more efficient? explain this one to me...

 

Also my previous post had nothing to do with either cars or knives so does that mean you agree with my point and want to talk about something else or what?

Re: British Writer: Why Are Games, Not Guns, Blamed For ...

In Iraq and Afghanistan, the majority of deaths were caused by AIRSTRIKES AND MORTARS.  YOUR argument has fallen flat on its face.  The rifle is a useful tool in as much as allowing for safety of a team or forward observer until they can direct missile strikes, bombs, or artillery onto the target.  

 

Re: British Writer: Why Are Games, Not Guns, Blamed For ...

Today, right this very second, it is EXTREMELY easy for any single person in this country to get in a car, and run over dozens of people, potentially hundreds in the right situtation before getting caught. How is this any different than the licensing and registration process of guns. Yet there's no outcry to the 'magnitude' of crime that can be commited with cars. Why? Because we're all willing to accept that a few bad apples shouldn't ruin it for the rest of the responsible adults in the world.

Re: British Writer: Why Are Games, Not Guns, Blamed For ...

Cars also serve a vital purpose in the functioning of our society.  Guns do not.

Re: British Writer: Why Are Games, Not Guns, Blamed For ...

.. umm...

a cars primary purpose is for transportation. it can be used to kill something but thats not what it was designed for.

a gun's primary purpose is to kill. Thats what it was designed for.

Yes i acknowledge collecting, and hunting etc. however that does not alter the nature of the gun.

Let me ask you, why do you not see hundreds of stories on the news about people murdering other people using a car as a weapon? (not saying it doesnt happen.. just that it rarely happens)

Why are there (statistically) far more murders commited using guns, than with cars?. I mean its 'extremely easy' right? Just as effective right?

Or could it be that no matter how you spin it, the fact is that guns will always be a more appropriate 'tool' for killing that a car. Thats the problem.

Re: British Writer: Why Are Games, Not Guns, Blamed For ...

Now you're just dancing around the argument. Saying 'the fact is', and then when refuted, saying 'well, the REAL fact is'.

But to refute yet another of your arguments. A gun's primary purpose is to defend, sometimes by killing. By making them better at defending the owner of one, it makes them better at killing as well. But, going back to cars, the same can be said about them. One of the side effects of making cars better at transporting people (faster top speeds, quicker acceleration, sturdier frames), is that they too become more effecient in killing people.

Killing as the 'true' nature of a gun is just a way of concentrating on the one aspect of them that you don't like while ignoring the rest. I can just as easily say, the true nature of a knife is to kill. I acknowledge cooking, and whittling, but that does not alter the nature of the knife. 

Re: British Writer: Why Are Games, Not Guns, Blamed For ...

A gun's primary purpose is to defend, sometimes by killing

it is?. Um.. how else can it be used to 'defend' other than killing?

how does it prevent an assailant from harming you?. Is it as effective as a bulletproof vest for stopping bullets? Is it as effective as a knifeproof vest for stopping blades?

I really dont agree that a guns 'primary purpose' is defence. Yeah it can be used in the process of defence.. but you surely cant believe that is its primary purpose?

The very fact that this item was originally designed to propel bullets over a distance to hit a target surely is counter intuitive to the idea of primarily being used for defence.

It is generally accepted that guns were invented by china in the 14th century for use in warfare. Yes, a part of warfare is typically 'defence', with one amry attacking another, but i fail to see anything that suggests only the defengin armies used guns.

Re: British Writer: Why Are Games, Not Guns, Blamed For ...

Of all the places to shoot someone, why does it have to be a lethal shot? The threat with a gun will protect you from pretty much anyone in the world. A shot to the leg will stop even the most hardened of criminals. And a shot to each hand can just basically incapacitate any assailant. And that's completely ignoring the defense it provides the entire country from an opressive millitaristic governemnt on a daily basis.

 
Forgot your password?
Username :
Password :

Poll

Have you visited a video game arcade in the last year?:

Shout box

You're not permitted to post shouts.
MechaTama31I sure have. Dorky's barcade in Tacoma, WA.08/20/2014 - 5:56pm
Matthew WilsonI have not been to a arcade in years. I know arcades are still big in japan.08/20/2014 - 5:38pm
Sleaker@AE - Ah no it's called GroundKontrol - I was just referring to it as a Bar-Arcade.08/20/2014 - 4:39pm
Andrew EisenStill looking for confirmation that High Moon Studios (dev behind the PS3/360 versions) isn't working on it.08/20/2014 - 4:38pm
ZenGotcha.08/20/2014 - 4:37pm
Andrew EisenI already updated the story with it!08/20/2014 - 4:36pm
Zenhttp://www.gonintendo.com/s/235574-treyarch-isn-t-working-call-of-duty-advanced-warfare-for-wii-u-either08/20/2014 - 4:36pm
ZenLet me send the link for the Tweet as well...they state Treyarch is not working on it. Grabbing it now.08/20/2014 - 4:34pm
Andrew EisenWhere does it say that "NO dev is working on it"?08/20/2014 - 4:33pm
ZenHere's the link for my last comment: http://www.ign.com/articles/2014/08/20/call-of-duty-advanced-warfare-not-coming-to-wii-u08/20/2014 - 4:24pm
ZenWell, Call of Duty is skipping Wii U completely it seems...they updated that NO dev is working on it. Great way to just skip a market.08/20/2014 - 4:24pm
Andrew EisenYeah, Dave and Busters back in 2011 was the last time for me.08/20/2014 - 4:16pm
ZenWell, I tried lol. We just got a Dave and Busters on the beach but haven't been there yet...may go this weekend.08/20/2014 - 3:52pm
Andrew EisenIt's called The Bar-Arcade? Missed opportunity. I would have gone with Barcade.08/20/2014 - 3:25pm
SleakerThe Bar-Arcade however did have a lot of good pinball machines, they were however always taken as the place was packed..08/20/2014 - 1:17pm
Sleakerso I've been to an Arcade-Bar, not that great of a place has some okay machines, but generally over-packed. And then all the kid-friendly ones have is ticket-games nothing actually good unfortunately :(08/20/2014 - 1:14pm
Andrew EisenIf it has an area dedicated to arcade machines, I'd say it counts. Arcade machine in your house though, nope.08/20/2014 - 12:16pm
ZenDoes it count if you have actual arcade machines in your house?08/20/2014 - 12:01pm
E. Zachary KnightWith the current poll, I guess it all depends on how one defines "arcade". If Chuck E Cheese or similar multipurpose businesses count, then that is a yes for me.08/20/2014 - 11:59am
ZenLet the ax fall Sleaker...lessons MUST be learned...08/20/2014 - 11:44am
 

Be Heard - Contact Your Politician