@Derceto
Or maybe read between the lines, if he was on topic then his statement is absurd. If he was as you say "making the simple connection that stricter gun laws, equate to less mass destructive violence." Then he was off topic as the discussion is about cause not about the method. That is what I was pointing out, try to keep up.
Unfortunately you cant just de facto say that "Games have been scientifically proven to not cause violence." and expect to be taken seriously. It sounds like you haven't actually tried to prove anything scientifically before.
When I was in college I did many a papers defending violence in media citing study after study that found "Violence in media is not a direct cause of aggression in children" what a lot of them did find is that personality traits...
The irony that you believe video games dont cause violence and then bring up guns, an inanimate object in a discussion of CAUSE... You sound as radical as these politicians.
No more of a joke than blaming guns for the actions of what people do.
One is an inanimate object, the other is an interactive experience... Query which one has MORE of an ability to influence a person to do something?
I'm not blaming video games but everyone deflecting from the games but still blaming guns sounds just as logically implausible.
"This kind of scrap is just pandering to those with ignorant ideas about certain things. Those who choose to remain ignorant, but make big fussed. It's a shallow attempt to look like something is being done, all whole the real causes are ignored."
Ironically this is exactly what the other side is saying to people who want more gun control.
Both sides are calling each other names and no one is actually going to do anything because no one is r...
Obviously you are not familiar with the US constitution. If you were then you would know that it is the answer to why you cant do that.
Wouldnt the knee jerk reaction be thinking you would get in trouble for not doing anything wrong?
"Just to reassure you that we are working with Sony to make sure that there are no account penalties if you downloaded the demo."
Under what type of circumstance SHOULD anyone who downloads something offered be penalized for it? This right here worries me, why would this even need to be said?
I just want to hear that they have a "new" engine for the next game.
@Moon
The right to bare arms is not the right to murder people. I dont know why that sentence even had to be said but apparently it did because you seem to not know the difference between bearing arms to protect yourself and murdering school children.
@Chaosdreams
You said there has been 8+ school shootings in the last year... You arent worried that the number of SHOOTERS is 8+ you are worried that they are SHOOTERS. 8+ PEOPLE decided to shoot up a school and you are saying lets take care of the guns while the rest of us are reeling that children feel the need to kill others and themselves more often.
When guns are gone it will be something else because you treated the symptom and ignored the problem.
...
"Now tell me, what other method kills so effectively, so quickly?"
Bombs and vehicles come to mind.
"A what if statement."
Of course it is a what if statement... everything proposed is a what if statement. What if the killer didnt have an assault rifle? because that is what you are proposing.
"...I would certainly love, just love to know why on earth any civilian needs their own AR-15? For wha...
They know it wouldn't pass. Their only hope is to middle away the rights little by little and hope the Supreme Court doesn't overturn any new regulations.
Removing the method doesn't prevent the attacker from attacking it would just change the strategy.
And the second amendment was not about muskets more than just muskets existed well before the document was drafted. If they wanted it to be only muskets it would say muskets. And it would have been changed long ago if that was the intent. Using that now is convenient but completely contrary to anything the founders believed or wrote about.
How does bearing a firearm infringe on someone's right to speech, religion, press, or assembly?
Now you are being ridiculous.
Are you really suggesting that MORE victims is better as long as guns aren't used. So a prevented crime stopped by a gun turns into a committed crime and now you have two victims instead of one and you think that is better?
@Chaosdreams
It is hard to take you seriously.
"So then the questions should logically be how that gun came to be used, what can be done to stop it from happening again"
Removing the gun completely does not stop the attacker from committing an attack. It changes the method. We need to figure out the cause of the attack which isnt "guns"
"Arming teachers for instance is as stupid as labeling vi...
@GamesMaster1982
As long as anyone in this world wants me dead I should be allowed the tools to defend myself. That is the whole point. You may disagree, or you may put your trust in local or the federal government to protect you, but as for me I am the first responder to a threat against my life. I would rather the opportunity to protect myself if I can than have to wait for someone else to protect me.
Not one gun law will prevent anyone from killing any...
"They want to talk about movies and games and rock music, or whatever other scapegoat they can think of..."
You mean like GUNS?
Because Guns isnt what is making these people shoot up schools. The "Problem" isnt the GUNS the problem is that more and more people are carrying out larger and larger mass murders. The tool used may be a gun but its not the "problem" and it never was.
When you come back and want t...
Honestly I really hope its not another WWII game.
I like where the authors head is at. Probably for different reasons but most the ideas brought up would be a "refreshing" change of pace. I have reservations about anyone being able to pull it off in a genuine manner in today's politically charged world but I think it would be awesome to play through a campaign following some true accounts of soldiers and battles who are not widely seen.