Fox News Begins Two-Part Series Linking Games to Mass Murder
- Thread starter IanDavis
- Start date
Recommended Videos
I just want to say that Fox New failed with that headline. Don't the know jurnalism 101? Headlines are supposed to be short and to the point like "Be shocked! Some shit!" and not drawn out slobs of boring like "This is a headline for an article we hope you find interesting".
What? Nothing else worth commenting on.
What? Nothing else worth commenting on.
I hear 10's of 100's of millions of people playing video games. Shouldn't we have a shoot out in a school like every other day if these obviously not correct people were correct?
At this point I am convinced that fox news is run by left wing people whose only joy in life is to push the boundaries of right wing stupidity.
I love you all....I really do.KeyMaster45 said:Yes, for he is The Milk Man, his milk is delicious, and his deliveries must be completed.MCerberus said:So you're saying The Milk Man works for Fox News?Zachary Amaranth said:God, I am so SICK of this conspiracy theory bull! There is nothing to fear from fluoride!MCerberus said:Except the fluoride CHEMICAL in the water mind controls you into forgetting about chem trails faking Obama's birth certificate.Taum said:Fox News doing its part to try and blame computer games rather than the real enemy of contrails!
...It's a distraction ploy by the reptile people. It's MILK you have to worry about! MILK keeps you from making the connection between reptiles, chemtrails, and Obama's secret Martian army!
WAKE UP, SHEEPLE!
...Wow. That was...Interesting. Did I write that?
@Topic: Its so adorable to see adult media people be ignorant. :'D
I'm reminded of a quote I learned in a Statistics class: "Correlation does not imply causation." Just because many of these young men played violent games, does not mean the games made them violent. That's like blaming a childhood game of cops and robbers for the actions of John Dillinger. In the same manner that every young boy probably played cops and robbers as a kid in those days, you'd be hard pressed to find a young boy these days that doesn't play violent video games in some capacity. Just because a few of the kids turned out to be nuts, doesn't mean that the video games made them nuts.
TL;DR: Go home Fox News, you're drunk.
TL;DR: Go home Fox News, you're drunk.
What rubbish. Not one murder has ever been linked to gaming. Now sports, thats been linked to murder many times. Recently 3 English football fans were stabbed in a premeditated attack just because they support a rival team. But we never see this type of hysteria to ban sports. Then you have religion, also linked to murders and terrorism....still no plans to ban religion.
Thing is, it used to be music, then EC comics, then movies and now games. Im sure in about 10 years they will blame something else instead of looking at the real cause. An in every game related murder, there was also something else involved like abuse, mental issues etc
Thing is, it used to be music, then EC comics, then movies and now games. Im sure in about 10 years they will blame something else instead of looking at the real cause. An in every game related murder, there was also something else involved like abuse, mental issues etc
Like Yahtzee did in his E3 2009 video, I feel that anything I could say would be repeating myself so I'm just going to express my feelings with s strangled noise from the back of my throat. Aaaaaaaaaaaaaaah.
These mass killer also shared other common traits, like breathing oxygen and drinking water. PEOPLE AT FOX NEWS HURRY! STOP BREATHING OXYGEN AND DRINKING WATER! IT MIGHT MAKE YOU A MASS KILLER!!!
Over 99.9% of all mass murderers have watched news on the TV. The link is pretty obvious. We must remove all news stations from the airways before we pay for their folly with our lives.
Birds fly, fish swim, the sky is blue, fox news makes massive generalizing sweeping statements about subject matter they barely know anything about in order to drum up ratings and drag america back to the 50's. Can we move on?
Of course Fox News is going to put out a special on violent video games. What else are they supposed to do a special on? The lives that have been ruined or even ended by the actions of people who were acting on bad information from political sources?
Wait a second, are people still taking Fox seriously in the news department?
That is pretty funny.
But I do hate they are ruining journalism and news for all of us.
Other then that, lets just ignore them, we are better then what Fox thinks of us!
Although they are going to have a party when they find out what we can do in GTA.
That is pretty funny.
But I do hate they are ruining journalism and news for all of us.
Other then that, lets just ignore them, we are better then what Fox thinks of us!
Although they are going to have a party when they find out what we can do in GTA.
its just another load of bull i grew up playing games like mortal kombat, doom 1-3, and many others and i am no problems. they want to blame somebody i blame the stupid parents not doing their research about the game then buy an Adult rated for their 10 year old and not once look at the box or ask what type of game this is. in my opinion i think each store should have a screen with that plays the trailers or explains the themes and subjects covered in the game rated past T. also the government just wants something to blame so they pick video games as an outlet.
"Important factors like availability of guns... are forgotten"
Ah? Well, let's address that immediately:
Given that the stated intent is to keep mass-murderers from getting guns, how would you change the availability of guns to have the desired effect?
This isn't even about mental health, which the author puts forth as a separate issue. It's about preventing a future mass-murder by preventing access to guns for someone who may not yet have committed any crime. Absent the psychic psychobabble of Minority Report, we're left with reducing the number of available guns.
How?
Guns don't evaporate. Hundreds of millions are already legally owned in the United States. If you want to reduce that number, you have to confiscate them, something gun-control proponents vehemently deny any intention of. In fact, they laugh off the very idea.
So if you're not going to confiscate guns, what good would it do to ban their sale? How well has that worked for drugs? Aren't we routinely informed that banning drugs merely pushes the existing demand into black-market routes? If someone can cross the US/Mexico border --- one of the most porous in the world --- carrying 50 pounds of marijuana, what's to keep them from carrying ten handguns? "Dime bag and a Magnum, please."
I find that the "availability of guns" mentality has a distinctly European flavor. Great Britain, for example, is often held up as a model of gun control Americans should look to.
An island nation with one of the most powerful naval forces in the world, and a total land area which could fit nicely inside the US state of Texas. It's rather a bit easier to patrol the Channel than the Mexican border... in fact, it would be easier even if the Channel were completely filled in to form a land bridge. And even if that were the case, none of Britain's neighbors are particularly known for their violent gun-toting drug cartels.
In practical terms, the only way the US could reduce firearm availability to any significant extent would be to ban most if not all of them, confiscate anything not approved by federal authority, and put a giant wall on the Mexican border, treating anyone approaching the same way the British Navy treats unannounced visitors sailing for its beaches.
Welcome to the Police State everyone says they don't want.
Ah? Well, let's address that immediately:
Given that the stated intent is to keep mass-murderers from getting guns, how would you change the availability of guns to have the desired effect?
This isn't even about mental health, which the author puts forth as a separate issue. It's about preventing a future mass-murder by preventing access to guns for someone who may not yet have committed any crime. Absent the psychic psychobabble of Minority Report, we're left with reducing the number of available guns.
How?
Guns don't evaporate. Hundreds of millions are already legally owned in the United States. If you want to reduce that number, you have to confiscate them, something gun-control proponents vehemently deny any intention of. In fact, they laugh off the very idea.
So if you're not going to confiscate guns, what good would it do to ban their sale? How well has that worked for drugs? Aren't we routinely informed that banning drugs merely pushes the existing demand into black-market routes? If someone can cross the US/Mexico border --- one of the most porous in the world --- carrying 50 pounds of marijuana, what's to keep them from carrying ten handguns? "Dime bag and a Magnum, please."
I find that the "availability of guns" mentality has a distinctly European flavor. Great Britain, for example, is often held up as a model of gun control Americans should look to.
An island nation with one of the most powerful naval forces in the world, and a total land area which could fit nicely inside the US state of Texas. It's rather a bit easier to patrol the Channel than the Mexican border... in fact, it would be easier even if the Channel were completely filled in to form a land bridge. And even if that were the case, none of Britain's neighbors are particularly known for their violent gun-toting drug cartels.
In practical terms, the only way the US could reduce firearm availability to any significant extent would be to ban most if not all of them, confiscate anything not approved by federal authority, and put a giant wall on the Mexican border, treating anyone approaching the same way the British Navy treats unannounced visitors sailing for its beaches.
Welcome to the Police State everyone says they don't want.
Or it was posted to a massive site where gamers gather, say /v/, reddit or Facebook and a whole lot of people from outside of the US voted and their votes counted as a vote to Texas. I'm Australian and I checked Texas' votes before and after I voted and it rose by one vote. Though I'm sure there would be some messing around with the number there would still be plenty of "real" votes for no.lacktheknack said:
Off-topic: You changed your avatar and this one doesn't mess with your head