Congresswoman Defends Violent Videogames

[Al-Bundy-da-G]

Wait what? Nancy Pelosi?

Oh wait is this a early April Fools prank? Hah you got me

 

[BlumiereBleck]

Well....no and yes. She's right that censorship will solve nothing, I'll give her that. But I heavily disagree with her gun policy.

 

[darkfox85]

I think this is breath of fresh air, but I?m a little disappointed by the baseless cynicism over this.

Having said that, I?m not sure I agree with the further anti-gun conclusion because I?ve yet to make up mind, but if it really is a choice between something with no relation to violence versus something that?s used to cause violence, it should be clear which is the most reasonable.

And now, because I hate myself:

Now before any of you start with, "guns are tools to kill people," stop...See that attitude? ... The ignorant belief that guns are meant to kill people? That's the mentality that causes violence... Would I be right if I said, "nuclear weapons are tools for destroying cities"?...

Gun are tools to kill people. That is their purpose. The threat of murder and destruction doesn?t negate the existence of convenient murder and destruction. Firearms and atomic weapons have been used to kill people. And they will be used again.

knifes, screwdrivers, or any other sharp/pointed instrument,... hammers, baseball bats, or any other blunt instrument.

These things do not launch metal projectiles with the purpose of (or if you like, threat of,) killing. They have other useful purposes.

automobiles, bicycles, aquatic vessels, aircraft, or any other motorized or non-motorized vehicle.

It?s difficult to kill people with cars. I?ve tried. Also, bicycles? Really? Bicycles?
Gun > bike.

ropes, cords, or any other lengthy object that can easily be wrapped around a limb.

The ease of which something can be wrapped around a limb is dwarfed by the ability to shoot at medium range.

And of course access to the one tool that most people have with them 24/7, and that we are born with. The human hand.

... Yes ... Very dramatic. But why stop there? I think we should ban food because you could choke someone with it.

Seriously. These things have purposes others than killing (or if you like, threat of killing.) This is a very tired straw argument used way too often by pro-gun peoples and it never reflects well.

It always baffles me. I just don?t get it. Maybe I?m missing something. Maybe not. Help me out.

 

[Lyri]

She had me up until she started on gun laws. Games can provide inspiration for a crime as readily as guns can provide a means. Most of us would agree that that doesn't mean we should blame games when someone goes and shoots someone after playing GTA IV, so why would you blame the gun? Both are merely scapegoats to excuse a violent individual.

Furthermore, an assault weapons ban would be especially ludicrous. The VAST majority of gun crime (by which I mean between 99%-100%) is committed with non-assault weapons. Most of them are committed with semi-automatic pistols, most of the remainder with shotguns or bolt-action or semi-automatic rifles that don't qualify as assault weapons. Yet I don't hear anyone advocating that those should be banned. I believe I read a statistic somewhere that said something like fewer than 50 murders in which a firearm was used involved an assault weapon since the 1970's. This is the equivalent of advocating that Lamborghinis should be banned because people die in car accidents.

You're tying the two together when the reason for banning either of the does not, you are effectively destroying your argument before you have even begun.
The focal point is placed on video game violence because it apparently causes people to find the sudden motivation and will to want to go and kill other human beings - GTA could very well inspire you to kill steal a car and kill a hooker, according to the modern media.

This isn't the same for guns though, having a gun in your house doesn't make you want to go out there and put a few in your neighbour because of that one time his dog took a crap on your yard.

People really need to stop trying to defend guns by personification of them, it is thoroughly annoying to see the same tired comparison and shows a lack of understanding.

Do I personally believe the USA should have tighter gun control laws?
Yes, I do in fact believe that but I do not place any fault of the problem on the gun but the fact that people should just not have access to such calibre weapons.

I believe I read a statistic somewhere that said something like fewer than 50 murders in which a firearm was used involved an assault weapon since the 1970's. This is the equivalent of advocating that Lamborghinis should be banned because people die in car accidents

No it is not.

 

[TheDoctor455]

While I'm as grateful as anyone else to have just one person in the US establishment sticking up for games, her argument still isn't a particularly good one. While some very violent games indeed do come out of Japan, the Japanese market doesn rely on anywhere near as much gun violence as the US and Europe, or at least not true-to-life (for want of a better term) depictions of guns. You can't put Call of Duty and Mortal Combat side by side and say that one is 'more violent' than the other, because they're two completely different kinds of violence.

True. But then... North Korea has turned... almost all of gaming (mainly starcraft, but I understand that... pretty much everything has a similar kind of following over there) into a national sport... and you know how many school shootings they've had? Zero.

 

[annoyinglizardvoice]

Much respect to her.

On the guns issue, I wonder if a licence system similar to what they've tried in Germany might work. Making sure folks understand gun safety and aren't too likely to do stupid stuff before they're able to buy guns, and revoking the licence if they commit crimes or show signs of severe mental issues.

 

[seditary]

While I'm as grateful as anyone else to have just one person in the US establishment sticking up for games, her argument still isn't a particularly good one. While some very violent games indeed do come out of Japan, the Japanese market doesn rely on anywhere near as much gun violence as the US and Europe, or at least not true-to-life (for want of a better term) depictions of guns. You can't put Call of Duty and Mortal Combat side by side and say that one is 'more violent' than the other, because they're two completely different kinds of violence.

True. But then... North Korea has turned... almost all of gaming (mainly starcraft, but I understand that... pretty much everything has a similar kind of following over there) into a national sport... and you know how many school shootings they've had? Zero.

South Korea. Not North Korea.

 

[Lyri]

Now I'll leave with this:

If the "rampant access to guns" is what causes violence and crime, then the "rampant access" to the following also causes violence and crime:
Access to knifes, screwdrivers, or any other sharp/pointed instrument.
Access to hammers, baseball bats, or any other blunt instrument.
Access to automobiles, bicycles, aquatic vessels, aircraft, or any other motorized or non-motorized vehicle.
Access to ropes, cords, or any other lengthy object that can easily be wrapped around a limb.
And of course access to the one tool that most people have with them 24/7, and that we are born with. The human hand.

Are you willing to see all those banned?

Your concern for peoples mental state is noted, your argument was actually pretty decent although I didn't agree with it but when you devolved into this part you lost any and all credibility.
Banning guns will not make people start to ban knives, hammers, cars, ropes and hands it's a ludacris follow up that people somehow tie up.

"Oh you can kill people with that too you know? Yeah if you ban guns then your Glockenspiel will be next"

You could effectively continue your list ad nauseam if you really wanted too, I've even seen somebody go so far to say "Water" in one of those lists and it is always a hoot to read, no we would not ban hands.

Look, whilst I don't agree that the nuke was designed to sit and look scary (cold war mentality there), it was designed to be the "be all and end all" once we dropped it on Hiroshima.
The "scare factor" and "looming threat" was just a natural follow up of human instinct, nobody wants a nuke dropped on their country and rightly so. World leaders now collect them because not having one leaves you vulnerable to retaliation, again the cold war mentality.

Guns are designed for killing, the safety factor of having one just comes about naturally. If I was to break into your home, would I be risking getting shot? Yes, because I do not know if you have a gun or not so that puts me at a disadvantage if you have one and I do not.
So ultimately I just back out because my balls ain't that huge and your stuff is safe huzzah.
However, like in the wars where guns and any other form of defense/attack was some form of technological advancement the other side had to get one too.
Now owning a weapon is becoming almost mandatory to remain safe in some parts of the world, because if you don't have one someone else will.

Kind of scary, but that is the world we live in.

Captcha: Abide with me.

 

[TheDoctor455]

While I'm as grateful as anyone else to have just one person in the US establishment sticking up for games, her argument still isn't a particularly good one. While some very violent games indeed do come out of Japan, the Japanese market doesn rely on anywhere near as much gun violence as the US and Europe, or at least not true-to-life (for want of a better term) depictions of guns. You can't put Call of Duty and Mortal Combat side by side and say that one is 'more violent' than the other, because they're two completely different kinds of violence.

True. But then... North Korea has turned... almost all of gaming (mainly starcraft, but I understand that... pretty much everything has a similar kind of following over there) into a national sport... and you know how many school shootings they've had? Zero.

South Korea. Not North Korea.

Whoops. Thanks for reminding me.

 

[Vegosiux]

Most of them are committed with semi-automatic pistols, most of the remainder with shotguns or bolt-action or semi-automatic rifles that don't qualify as assault weapons. Yet I don't hear anyone advocating that those should be banned.

*points at the R&P forum*

Really, if you haven't heard that, you haven't been around the escapist too much. Secondly, why the hell do people assume "ban" the moment they hear "gun control"?

Is it really always "all or nothing" with Americans? I'm sorry if that sounds crass, but I'm starting to get exasperated.

ON TOPIC: Well, she sure had some guts to go with this on FOX. And to paraphrase one of my favorite M's, "Sure, I don't have balls but that means at least I don't have to think with them."

 

[Fireprufe15]

My favorite part is that they think video games are made in hollywood. Fox news, video games don't cause violence and they certainly aren't made in hollywood.

 

[Abomination]

My favorite part is that they think video games are made in hollywood. Fox news, video games don't cause violence and they certainly aren't made in hollywood.

You think Fox News would dare sully their hands with... research?!

 

[theultimateend]

Just because her lips are fake doesn't mean her logic is. Thanks Pelosi.

Honestly I want to mention it but I think women are in the unfortunate position that looking their age is a death knell.

People treat women differently when they look old, kinda sad.

Glad to hear her say it. But its not merely gun laws, but gun mentality, which stems from the laws.

We are a nation need to understand firearms and their purpose.

We also need to not ignore "well regulated" in the 2nd amendment, literally everyone against gun regulation omits that part when they cite the 2nd amendment >.>...

<.<...

For convenience I guess.

 

[Strazdas]

Oh, shes good. She saw the rage agiasnt videogames. she saw how gamers reacted and now she just won a lot of votes by responding at the peak of "we hate goverment that is agaisnt games" rumble. perfectly played madam, you deserve to be in politics.

LoL, and the debate flops back again. It's video games! It's guns! It's videogames! It's guns! And here we have people applauding the flip flop of the whole situation.

while its obviuosly not one-sided causality, the fact that guns area a real life danger remains to be true and lack of any decent regulation of it in america remains a problem.

 

[Formica Archonis]

Nice to see other people noticing that they are just engaging in the same black and white thinking that sadly occurs way too often in our society.

Thanks. I try (though don't always succeed) to avoid being a member of any pitchfork-wielding mobs.

 

[TheMann]

Everyone vote this woman! Now Now Now Now Now Now Now Now!
Thats an order!

She logic in a world of lies and half truths.

[small]*snort, snicker*[/small]

My only thought while reading this article was

GIVE HER ALL THE VOTES!!!!!!!!!!!

but in all seriousness, YAY LOGIC!!!

[small]Pfft. Heh, heh.[/small] Oh hell: HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

Seriously? SERIOUSLY?!! Was nobody paying attention to all the completely irrational, common sense-defying bullshit that pretentious, self-righteous twit burdened the American public with during her tenure as Speaker of the House? Anybody? You know, that stuff that earned her a kick-ass 21% approval rating. Well, I guess it's A-OK to shoulder the U.S. citizenry with crippling debt as long as you say something favorable about video games. Awesome.

I'm a cynic who has politically-active friends in California. I assumed she was doing it specifically to bring up gun laws from the get-go.

Pro-gun needs a different scapegoat, so blames games.

Anti-gun wants to scapegoat guns, so supports games simply to pull pro-gun's scapegoat out from under it.

In the painfully black-and-white us-vs-them mentality that is media-based politics, if you're pro-X you're anti-Y and vice versa. Today's X and Y are guns and games.

YES! YOU WIN! As a Californian myself, and as someone who views politics in an incredibly skeptical light, I can safely say that you win this thread. This thread could go on for 20 pages and you still win the whole damn thing. What you wrote is exactly what I thought when I read the article but you got there first so you win.

This is a very agenda based response, a calculated redirection. See, when the pro-gun advocates tried to scapegoat video games they made a mistake in the fact that it put the video game industry, an industry that has absolutely no stance or stake in the debate, on the defensive for no good reason. So the response would naturally to come right back and say that games are no problem and that everyone needs to take care of those nasty guns. It's a weird circular blame game and is completely unconstructive. I could point out extremely logical ways I could use to win the debate hands down, but that's for another thread.

Well, like I said you win the thread. I'd give you a cookie, but that's way to cliché by now, and since this is obviously going to turn into another raging debate about firearms, here, you win a gun.

Spoiler: Just don't shoot your eye out.

 

[Mycroft Holmes]

All I can say is that I hope no one in this thread going 'vote Nancy Pelosi,' actually lives in the 12th district. You vote to stomp on my rights with the patriot act and wide sweeping domestic spy programs, you're dead to me.

 

[Black_Reaper]

I really thought after reading the comments there would be a bunch of gamers celebrating over the fact that there is a person in congress that agrees with us for once. But you can't mention the word 'gun' without a huge mess. Why are gun laws such a huge issue all of sudden. I know there was a school shooting, and this might make me sound like a terrible person but, that wasn't the first school shooting ever. Gun laws never seem to change even though, after every shooting people go crazy about them. If you want some actually change or if you don't, how about we stop auguring over the internet and come to some agreement. We are suppose to be partying in here guys.