Forum - View topicNEWS: Video Game Groups Ask U.S. VP Biden to Not Censor Games
|
Goto page 1, 2, 3 Next Note: this is the discussion thread for this article |
| Author | Message | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
unused
Posts: 36 |
|
|||
|
This is just plain stupid.
How about correcting their policy of firearm ownership for starter? There are millions of people all around the world playing games full of violence right now, not just in the USA. But why is firearm related crime rate in that country one of the highest on the planet? And try collecting all of firearm criminal in the USA, and see if everyone of them ever played any violence themed game, all any games at all? Oh one more. If they think "violent" games got anything to do with all these crime. What about porn and rape? |
||||
|
||||
Bored_Ming
 Posts: 242 Location: The Edge of ...... |
|
|||
|
I guess Joe Biden has not kept up with the goings on in Washington DC while he's been Vice President. Because in 2011 this little thing happened a few blocks from his office... In a 7-2 vote, the justices ruled in Brown v. Entertainment Merchants Association that video games are protected under the principles of freedom of speech, just like books, plays and movies.
Ooops. Everyone needs to go back to blaming Rock n' Roll and that crazy dude born in Tupelo Mississippi that was always shaking his hips! Cause then it would just make life easy. Blame some outside entity instead of paying attention to your child. Yikes! I'm a video game player and a gun owner...guess that makes me a real life Johan Liebert. |
||||
|
||||
TitanXL
 Posts: 4036 |
|
|||
|
I'd like to see people crusade against movies or TV for a change. Would make for a more interesting change of pace. Wonder how far Biden would get if he tried to challenge Hollywood.
|
||||
|
||||
TheGameNinja
 Posts: 92 Location: Alabama |
|
|||
|
Just to be fair, as far as I know Biden hasn't said anything about actually censoring games. Correct me if I'm wrong, please. This is just these gaming groups telling him he shouldn't. They are not getting angry at him for suggesting it.
Anyway, there's little chance of the government censoring games. And if they try to, it would be struck down as unconstitutional in no time. |
||||
|
||||
Panzer Vor
 Posts: 648 |
|
|||
Whatever it is you're babbling about, know this: Guns aren't the problem. Finland and Switzerland have some of the highest rates of civilian gun ownership outside of the United States, and yet gun crime rates (and violent crime rates in general) in those two countries are significantly lower than those of the United States. Then again, they also have comprehensive social safety nets and good education systems, both of which the United States lacks. Just as banning firearms won't fix anything, censoring video games won't fix anything either. Firearm ownership and mass media are just bogeymen trotted out by hysterical people who either can't or won't acknowledge the actual root causes behind violent crime. |
||||
|
||||
|
Galap
Moderator
 Posts: 2354 |
|
|||
Yeah, I'd like to see that too. Maybe they could crusade to make american TV a little higher than IQ 85. |
||||
|
||||
victor viper
 Posts: 630 Location: The deep south |
|
|||
Well said. Yes, there have been two terrible tragedies in the last year. Is trampling all over the first amendment the answer? No. Is trampling all over the second amendment the answer? No. It is also important to note that knee-jerk government policy is seldom good policy. |
||||
|
||||
|
Dumnerd
Posts: 152 |
|
|||
Anyway, censoring/banning video games (or anything else for that matter) will NOT solve this problem. Changing the US gun laws would be start, IMO. Some examples: Make it illegal for civilians to sell/possess/trade/use/own/handle Military-grade weapons; make it illegal for anyone with a history of violent crimes or mental illness to sell/possess/trade/use/own/handle any weapons; require all perspective civilian gun-owners/users to undergo training in the proper handling/use/care of guns and submit to not only a background check, but a psychological examination as well; and finally, make the violations of those laws "acts of terrorism." |
||||
|
||||
Divineking
 Posts: 1298 |
|
|||
|
Yep when in doubt blame video games because bad parenting totally isn't the real issue here...
If they absoutely HAVE to do something to video games to satisfy lazy parents, just make it harder for kids to get their hands on M-rated games and make sure store clerks warn parents what their buying their kids(not that it ever really works, but hey it's something). Censoring games that aren't even intended for kids to begin with(and we all know that;s what they'll be targeting) is just plain stupid. Video games have finally been recognized as an art form. We sure as heck don't need anything that's gonna set it back a decade or two. |
||||
|
||||
Spoofer
 Posts: 356 Location: NY |
|
|||
|
If you read other articles, Biden makes it clear that he's not looking for a scapegoat, that he's well aware of the blind crusades against the game industry in the past, and that he's legitimately trying to get a fair and balanced dialogue going with industry reps. I don't imagine much change will come from it, as the game industry is too huge and too embedded in too many generations to see sweeping change.
If you ask me, the problem with games isn't their violent content. It's their online components where the true human nature of today's generation becomes apparent once you strip away social accountability via anonymity (and a problem with online in general, though amplified in competitive games). Though this is simply a reflection of problems with today's society in general, stemming from too many sources to ever hope to tackle. |
||||
|
||||
|
LondinCalling
Posts: 122 |
|
|||
|
Mental health & education. A retard can buy a murderous weapon. Handguns were built for murder. Murder tools shouldn't be given to the mentally challenged. The United states and most of the western world agrees that "madmen" and "dictators" should not be permitted to hold weapons of mass destruction. It makes sense that local madmen should not be permitted to acquire weapons that provide its users a means to end the lives of twenty to forty human beings in an instant regardless of consequence.
These were someone's children that were murdered. If my own child had been in that classroom, I would not want to see another firearm as long as I live. People who have been mugged at gunpoint would agree that no one person should have that much power over the fate of another's life ever. If the Gun lobby in this country is not appeased, foreign nations would be more than happy to be the best customers of people in the arms industry. So it's either our children, or someone else's. So far as I can tell, keeping weapons development industries loyal to the United States exceeds the importance of securing our own children's safety. Giving guns to teachers is just what the weapons industry needs to break into a new market. Giving a gun to a teacher does not save more lives. Someone has to die in that sort of situation. Having a student and a teacher in the classroom, one with an assault rifle and the other with a pistol is hardly convincing enough to prevent or stop further bloodshed. Should substitute teachers be permitted to carry firearms? Should the principle? Let's create a scenario where a gunman enters a school and a teacher is armed. Student walks into classroom with a small uzi in his pocket. He sits at his usual seat while the teacher is writing something on the board. While the teachers back is facing the student, the student pulls out his small uzi and fires on the teacher; ending his life instantly. After the teacher is out of the way, the student turns and sprays indiscriminately on the other kids in the class. A teacher in the class next door overhears the the commotion and enters the room with gun in hand. Unable to justify murdering a minor, the student takes advantage of the situation and murders the professor. The student then takes his gun and fires on himself. Ending his own life. The fallout is incredible. Without anything to further blame, the people become desperate for a solution. An autopsy report is released and shows that both the shooter and the teacher were avid drug users. The people, afraid to give up their murder tools resort to voting in legislation that stops the use and easy acquisition of illegal drugs. All branches of government and law enforcement redirect their law enforcement efforts to the proliferation of drug use in the United States. Consequently, crime rates sky rocket as war and bloodshed becomes a commonplace occurence in the U.S.. Children no longer feel safe walking to school and random backpack checks by law enforcement become a common occurence. While walking to school, one kid is hit by a stray bullet from a driving gang member who misses the law enforcement officer checking the students backpack for drugs. The child is struck in the arm but makes a slow recovery. Upon discovery, this little girl decides that she hates guns and decides that she would like to keep guns off the streets. Despite everyone around her trying to convince her that guns are a good thing for society, she can't help but disagree. If it wasn't for guns, she might have feeling in her right arm. Obviously this is an upsetting dillema for her as an adult since guns imply the intent to mame or kill in her mind. Sadly, many Americans would rather see more children murdered before making sensible changes to Americans' access to firearms. |
||||
|
||||
Tenbyakugon
 Posts: 800 Location: Ohio, United States |
|
|||
|
Just another unnecessary headline in this debate on gun control...
Yes, let's remove the access to firearms for the people that need to defend themselves from attacks by other people with firearms. I will use the same argument that people use for street drugs: you can limit firearms up to the point of the Second Amendment, however much you want, but the people that want them enough will still get them, mark my words. Limiting access really only limits those that would need to defend themselves.
He knows well enough not to. It's Hollywood, and celebrities like Barack Obama and Joe Biden can't upset their other celebrity backers. |
||||
|
||||
Polycell
 Posts: 4623 |
|
|||
EDIT: You know what, it deserved to be said: the gun control arguments presented in this thread do nothing but use this tragedy to back a political agenda. None of these proposals to "stop another Sandy Hook" deal with the fact that the shooter didn't own the gun - and legally couldn't own one. EDIT2: If you really want to change the world for the better, do your research first. It does no good to reinforce the lock on the barn door if the horses are getting out through a hole in the side. |
||||
|
||||
|
victor viper
Posts: 630 Location: The deep south |
|
|||
|
I am always amazed when people think that prohibition of anything is the answer to a societal problem. Alcohol prohibition was a failure (if anything, organized crime in America can point to prohibition as a "growth opportunity"), and the same can be said for drug prohibition. However, of course gun prohibition will be different. We'll just weed out those disturbed people. Who? Those diagnosed with autism-like conditions, ADHD, anyone with a current prescription for Prozac or other drugs which treat similar conditions? There goes probably 20% of the population. Of course, this conveniently ignores that there's an existing black market for guns in the United States, so those disturbed people will just have to arm themselves that way instead of going to a sporting goods store (as Polycell pointed out).
It's times like these that I dust off my copy of The Federalist Papers. Let's review: The 2nd amendment to the constitution: 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. This does not say "shall not be infringed unless some nutjob commits well-publicized homicide". Oh, but we don't have a militia! That's an outdated idea! Plus, it was never the intention that civilians should have "military-grade" (whatever that means) weapons! Federalist Paper 29 (Hamilton): ...it will be possible to have an excellent body of well-trained militia, ready to take the field whenever the defense of the State shall require it. This will not only lessen the call for military establishments, but if circumstances should at any time oblige the government to form an army of any magnitude that army can never be formidable to the liberties of the people while there is a large body of citizens, little, if at all, inferior to them in discipline and the use of arms, who stand ready to defend their own rights and those of their fellow-citizens. This appears to me the only substitute that can be devised for a standing army, and the best possible security against it, if it should exist. Note here the three justifications for the right of citizens to keep and bear arms: 1. Defense of one's personal rights and those of others. 2. The capacity to quickly raise a corps of qualified arms-holders in crisis situations (they didn't call them the Minutemen for nothing, you know). 3. A protection of liberty from the danger posed by a large, federal, standing army. |
||||
|
||||
Cyberphobe
 Posts: 194 |
|
|||
|
No wonder why kids are so messed up now in days. 89% of parents are stupid.
|
||||
|
||||
 |
All times are GMT - 5 Hours |
|
|
|
Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group