EA Chief: Game Violence Worries Are a "Perception Problem"

[GAunderrated]

They are blaming entertainment because the real culprits got our representatives and media in their pocket. I am of course speaking of the legal prescription drugs and the mental health institution. You shouldn't be worried about taking guns away from people who want to protect themselves because criminals and those involved in mass shootings are usually mentally unbalanced and they don't have registered guns. They will get the guns illegally regardless of what rights you take away from people.

Well actually pretty much all of the mass shootings in the US have been from legally registered guns.

[quote/] Why is it unreasonable that the right to bear arms could be changed to war time only?

Because criminals who don't obey gun laws now won't obey them then, while law-abiding citizens will. Suddenly, all the criminals have guns and all the citizens who are their victims don't.

I really really dislike this argument. The difficulty for somebody to get a gun legally has a tremendous effect on the difficulty to get a gun illegally. It also effects the ability of officers to enforce regulations.

One other thing to note is that the lax gun control in the US actually effects a lot of other countries. Its far easier to get a gun in the US and smuggle it over a border then to get one in a neighboring country. So not only are the pathetic gun control laws in the US making it easier for criminals their to get guns but in other countries as well.[/quote]

I respect that you have a different opinion but I would like an explanation of how. You state something but not how it effects people.

Also I was referring too all gun crimes not just mass shootings because I said criminals and those in mass shootings. I also do not like how like the media you once again avoided the real problem and just went straight back to gun laws.

Everyone is falling into the trap which is are you for gun control or not. You can only pick one side or the other and if you try and debate a real problem people will just go back into their camps of for or against. Instead of focusing on the more serious issue of how to treat and stop people with mental issues from committing these disasters and stopping the media from encouraging others to repeat said horrible actions.

 

[O maestre]

Like others have pointed out, the perception is partially to blame on ea's marketing, at least its continued perception, from dead space to the dantes inferno fiasco. consistently showing that they have lost touch or never had a relation with their demographic and were oblivious to the surrounding world.

now ea is not the only company to do this, but they certainly are the biggest turd on the platter.

 

[O maestre]

They are blaming entertainment because the real culprits got our representatives and media in their pocket. I am of course speaking of the legal prescription drugs and the mental health institution. You shouldn't be worried about taking guns away from people who want to protect themselves because criminals and those involved in mass shootings are usually mentally unbalanced and they don't have registered guns. They will get the guns illegally regardless of what rights you take away from people.

snip

[quote/] snip

snip.

snip

snip

Everyone is falling into the trap which is are you for gun control or not. You can only pick one side or the other and if you try and debate a real problem people will just go back into their camps of for or against. Instead of focusing on the more serious issue of how to treat and stop people with mental issues from committing these disasters and stopping the media from encouraging others to repeat said horrible actions.[/quote]

sorry for butting in, and participating in the thread high jacking but...

Well why are you ignoring gun control as a solution? if somebody goes insane in my country the worst they can do is try to stab someone.

and why shouldn't gun ownership be something that requires some responsibility, like being licensed andtrained at the very least. why shouldn't ar-15s or m-16s sales be heavily restricted? is getting a gun legally not easier for a criminal than getting one illegally?

the media is probably encouraging fear and paranoia , which may lead, and i reiterate may lead to these freaks losing their grip on reality, but that is a cultural problem that cannot be solved through legislation. you cannot monitor and take action on all the kids with mental problems or developing mental problems, unless you infuse the public school system with far greater resources and a judicial control board like the fcc or the fda. even with this gross invasion of the students lives you might not even be able to detect who will snap.

its near impossible to predict who is going to go on a murder spree, even with a serious compromise to privacy. i honestly cannot understand why you wont even conceive the possibility that guns can be a problem. especially when there are about 700 million people, most of which are civilians doing just fine without weapons, of any kind.

 

[Something Amyss]

Perception is more important than facts in America. It's also especially more important in politics.

Not to forget America's legal system. When someone is getting convicted with almost substantial evidence, then it is also about 'perception' or, so a spineless lawyer would say.

True. It's very common to actually do a "trial in the court of public opinion" to influence the outcome of a case.

Spoiler: The absence of evidence is NOT the evedence of absence

Sorry, I had to. Just kidding though. I guess its good that these studies exist and that they seem to want to stand up the the finger pointing media.

I know you're kidding, but the absence of evidence does invalidate affirmative claims (at least, in the short run). It should be on the accusers to actually provide positive evidence. If you're making a claim with no proof or foundation, it's a bad faith argument. If there is some causal link between gaming and violence, then yes, make the argument. Otherwise....

Lets face it, the second amendment needs to be amended.

It really doesn't. Now, hear me out here, because I'm not actually against you.

What we really need to do is pay attention to the whole thing:

"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."

People just focus on that last part and ignore the rest of the sentence. The thing is, this doesn't work the way people like to think it does. For one thing, the Constitution places militias under the authority of the President. People often talk about the right to revolt, but regardless of the intent of the drafters of the second amendment, such an act wouldn't be legal anyway.

And really, revolt as a codified legal right is pretty silly.

Perhaps we could amend the second amendment, but I really don't think we need to. Taken as a whole, it's a lot different than taking the last part out of context.

 

[Something Amyss]

Everyone is falling into the trap which is are you for gun control or not. You can only pick one side or the other and if you try and debate a real problem people will just go back into their camps of for or against. Instead of focusing on the more serious issue of how to treat and stop people with mental issues from committing these disasters and stopping the media from encouraging others to repeat said horrible actions.

Blaming the media is really no different than blaming games. The claims that the media makes murder sexy are on par with the claims that video games makes murder sexy. I find it weird that you are accusing people of shifting the topic "like the media" does, but you yourself are buck passing just as has been done with the video game issue....In a thread on video games and their relationship to violence, no less.

Gun control is a real problem. Don't be so dismissive of it. Also, it really is a binary issue. If you are for gun control, any gun control, you are pro-gun control. If you are not, you are in the anti-gun control camp. Simple as.

Now, mental illness. Mental illness is a serious problem in this country and one that needs to be treated regardless of ties to gun control. We need a mental health system in this country and a better attitude towards actually accessing mental health services. However, trying to tie mental illness to murder and claiming it as the "real" issue at hand is also scapegoating. There is no strong link between mental illness and violence, serial violence, etc.

We can take all the steps we want in dealing with mental illness (as well we should), but at the end of the day we're going to have to come back to guns and gun control. For example, access of guns by people who are mentally ill and/or a potential threat to themselves and others. While it deals with the mentally ill, it still circles back to gun control.

You want to talk mental health? Let's talk mental health. But keep in mind, it's a distraction shoe, just like video games.

 

[Evil Smurf]

pfft... the gun lobby is just trying to pass the buck onto other different forms of media so that gun rights and more importantly gun sales aren't affected.

You want to tackle the Violent video games perception Ricciteillo?

Start at the source of it which is the apologists at the NRA.

The gun companies and lobbies have paid the politicians to say what they want them to say, which is that guns are perfect and never kill anyone. Remove the money from politics and only then can you have a proper debate.

#sigh

 

[O maestre]

It really doesn't. Now, hear me out here, because I'm not actually against you.

What we really need to do is pay attention to the whole thing:

"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."

People just focus on that last part and ignore the rest of the sentence. The thing is, this doesn't work the way people like to think it does. For one thing, the Constitution places militias under the authority of the President. People often talk about the right to revolt, but regardless of the intent of the drafters of the second amendment, such an act wouldn't be legal anyway.

And really, revolt as a codified legal right is pretty silly.

Perhaps we could amend the second amendment, but I really don't think we need to. Taken as a whole, it's a lot different than taking the last part out of context.

i could not agree more, if you are going to have a gun culture it has to be regulated in some manner. a peoples militia in the same vein as the swiss conscription based militia is a great way to guarantee not only training but overall education on firearms handling. a national militia is a lot better than what is currently in place.

in regards to your revolt statement i again couldn't agree more. the whole concept is silly.
a revolt against the state would be the same as declaring a need for a new constitution, not reform or amendments but a completely new state. besides if revolt was an inbuilt function it would be impossible against the us army.

 

[Vegosiux]

I'll just reason it as the enemy of my enemy is my friend.

Tsk, maxim 29: The enemy of my enemy is my enemy's enemy. No more, no less.

Sorry, just had to.

That said, yep, he pretty much hit the nail on the head with this one. Which makes sense, cause he's not a stupid guy...and as much as I dislike EA's antics, it's stupid to dismiss what he said just because I don't like him, either.

 

[Strazdas]

EA chief says something smart.
Please excuse me while i search for flying pigs.

 

[Vausch]

Ricotello said something I agree with...

*looks at his track record*

Oh. Give it a year people. If history holds he'll be selling us out by next March.

 

[Ken Sapp]

snip

snip

I'm sorry but I don't think you look at crime statistics outside the US. I live in the UK and have no problem "defending" my home, nor do we have over 8000 gun crimes reported every year. Even Russia has a better gun record...

If I had my way, firearms would only be obtainable with a licence and armed forces training as a minimum requirement. The second amendment can be amended for the modern age, no matter what some 70 year old politician says. Remember the french during the first world war? They charged cavalry, men on horseback, into machine gun fire because their Generals were too attached to the old way of fighting. Modern military tactics were developed and rules of engagement changed. So why can't the second amendment?

Not owning a gun doesn't make you any less manly, or any less able to defend your homes from any invaders. Why is it unreasonable that the right to bear arms could be changed to war time only? Or that firearms over a certain caliber be outlawed? If you really need a gun that badly, why do you need an M16 over a 9mm? These things no one is willing to address, so nut cases are free to rampage when they please and destroy the livelihoods of the individual, people like you or me.

Until someone is brave enough to stand up to the gun cabinet in government, these problems are going to continue until one day a potential Einstein or Hubble is killed and America is the only loser when that happens.

Crime statistics are useless unless the same standards for classification are used in all areas. I don't know how the British gather their statistics, but over on this side of the pond gun suicides are often included in gun violence statistics.

Licensing is a reasonable measure to take, since it allows ownership to regulated without trying institute measures which are impossible to enforce.... wait a minute, we already do this in many states.

Armed forces training? Are you saying that everyone who owns a gun must undergo the same firearms training as is given to the armed forces? That may be workable. Or that only veterans should be allowed to own guns? This would be completely unreasonable as not even 1% of the US population ever serves in the military and far more than that own firearms.

What does a 70 year old politician have to do with anything?

I agree with you, owning a gun has nothing to do with manliness. Why should I, as a civilian, need to be armed in wartime excluding the event of an actual incursion onto US soil. And why should "military-style" rifles be restricted when the vast majority of gun crimes, including the mass shootings which have everyone up in arms to restrict gun ownership, are committed with handguns? The media and politicians focus on the "high-powered" or military assault style" weapons while ignoring that small fact.

Which calibers would you outlaw? If you go by gun violence statistics you would immediately outlaw 9mm, .38, .32 and other common handgun calibers. If you go by media outcry you would outlaw pretty much every hunting rifle in America since the common hunting calibers are also used by "military assault style" rifles.

Those who carry out mass killings will not be stopped by a lack of availability of firearms. In the case of criminals, they will continue to acquire firearms in the same ways they always have since they already don't go to gun stores and purchase them legally. In the case of nut-jobs whose access to firearms may actually be restricted, they will just use different tools such as bombs, knives, and whatever else they can get their hands on. Lack of gun ownership doesn't stop people who are intent on committing harm to others, but it does hinder the peoples ability to defend themselves.

Do I advocate that every person needs to own a firearm? No, but I do think that responsible adults should have the option. And as far as standing up to the gun lobby... We have no lack of people standing up to the gun lobby and would not be having this conversation if there were no one doing so.

 

[Auron]

Those who carry out mass killings will not be stopped by a lack of availability of firearms. In the case of criminals, they will continue to acquire firearms in the same ways they always have since they already don't go to gun stores and purchase them legally. In the case of nut-jobs whose access to firearms may actually be restricted, they will just use different tools such as bombs, knives, and whatever else they can get their hands on. Lack of gun ownership doesn't stop people who are intent on committing harm to others, but it does hinder the peoples ability to defend themselves.

This is exactly what happened in Brazil after the outlawing of civilian guns. In fact we had our first killing spree in a school since then, people are fooling themselves if heavy handed restrictions on guns are going to stop crazy people.

 

[maninahat]

That guy looks incredibly smug and sleazy in the main page news picture. The cynic in me says his input will totally help.

 

[Little Gray]

I respect that you have a different opinion but I would like an explanation of how. You state something but not how it effects people.

The easier it is to get a gun legally and the more they are pushed on people means that more people will go out and buy guns. This leads to more guns being produced which makes it far easier for some to fall off the back of the truck or for back alley deals. Its the same with any product really the more of it that is out there the easier it is to get illegally.

Also I was referring too all gun crimes not just mass shootings because I said criminals and those in mass shootings. I also do not like how like the media you once again avoided the real problem and just went straight back to gun laws.

Everyone is falling into the trap which is are you for gun control or not. You can only pick one side or the other and if you try and debate a real problem people will just go back into their camps of for or against. Instead of focusing on the more serious issue of how to treat and stop people with mental issues from committing these disasters and stopping the media from encouraging others to repeat said horrible actions.

The problem is how to you know who the crazies are that will go on these shooting sprees? Its extremely difficult to find out who needs treatment and to get them that treatment. What do you do if they refuse to admit there is a problem and dont want "treatment?" Its because of these difficulties that they are trying to reduce the access to unnecessary weapons.

The problem is that there is no way to really fix the real problem. The secondary issue which is with gun control is that its rarely ever the nutjob who goes on a killing spree that actually owns the guns. Its normally a parent or brother or uncle who owns them. They have gone with the idea that since you cant keep those guns out of the hands of nutjobs they will try and keep them out of everybodys. They are picking assault weapons and large magazines because nobody actually needs them. They are not necessary and not used.

 

[Zeraki]

This feeling... it's like I'm agreeing with a mortal enemy.

-hears loud squealing outside and looks out his window-

Is that a flock of... pigs?


Huh... Swine Flew.

*snrk*

Spoiler

 

[Setrus]

Its just a quick gimmick to get the goodwill of the gamers, by saying something we all know.

In the half hearted hope that we will buy 5 million dead space 3's

"Oh they defended gamers, they're allright-ill buy this game"

plus, if everyone believes games lead t violence, attempts will be made to stop buying games, which will hurt their business

-Its just EA being EA as allways lol

Quoted for truth, he's just saying what we want to hear to get some good press, it's quite transparent, really. With the 'warfighter' statement he was speaking to their shareholders, here, he's speaking to the consumers.

SNIP

Not going to drag this off-topic any further but:

Fact 1: Less than 1% of all home invasions over the last 10 years involved a weapon larger than a pistol.

Fact 2: The United States has more gun-related crime than any other non-third world country on the planet.

Fact 3: Criminals operate on convenience. Make weapons harder to obtain, they'll use less efficient weapons like homemade bombs or knives.

Since I don't live in the US, my opinion might be both skewed and irrelevant...but while yes, guns were used in these mass shootings, I don't think we can solely place the blame on them, or the media, doing so would be no better than placing the blame on games, an attempt to point at ONE thing that's to blame, ignoring the whole.
Problems like these are complex, and sadly need complex solutions.
That said, being a proponent of meeting people halfway, I don't see why the second amendment can't be honoured without that meaning there can't be some restrictions. Why not as Zachary says, ensure the WHOLE amendment is honoured. You want an assault rifle and other heavier weapons? You need to store said weapons in a barrack and be trained as a government-regulated militia.
You just want to go hunting or maybe have a gun in your home? Your training is less regulated and weapons must be stored in a locked locker with the only key on your person at all times, hunting rifles and pistols are the only thing you're allowed.
Boom, amendment honoured, weapons under stricter control, kids having less access to said weapons.

As for the whole "criminals will be the only ones with weapons"...murder isn't really profitable, why would a "professional" criminal kill you when his/her goal is money? The penalty for murder is higher and you'll be hunted more intensely, most criminals will NOT want to shoot you, however, if their victim also has a gun...well that changes things. :-/