Gun obsession in video games

[WolfEdge]

First of all, OP, you need to conquer that fear of guns. They only kill things when they're asked to kill things.

Regardless of whether or not it's currently being called on to perform the task of killing the whole essence of a gun is focused on its ability to snuff out life. That is the length and breadth of its purpose. You can talk about how cool it is to fire them on a range or out on the farm but that doesn't change their nature. This is a tool we humans have made to kill each other with.

I fail to see why the OP's trepidation at holding such an item is unwarranted. To me it seems very wise to be afraid when touching a gun for a first time. After all, a gun is the culmination of the very worst aspects of human nature and it can be jarring to be confronted with that fact in such a physical way.

I think you're confusing fear with respect. Fear causes irrationality, instability, and panic. You should NEVER fear a weapon, you should respect it. Respect and understand it's power, the responsibility of shouldering that power, and the absoluteness inherent in wielding it. A gun is a tool, a powerful and potentially grave one, but a tool nonetheless.

To fear a gun is to fear your own two hands, in that both are capable of great evil. But you can't let that fear rule you, or you'll never find out what else they're capable of.

 

[Heathrow]

Calling firearms 'the culmination of the very worst aspects of human nature' is objectively wrong.

Your opinion, though blustering and indignant, is not objective.

I suspect that you are closer to understanding than you think you are, after all you have made note of the dichotomy between any item which can be used to kill and tools designed for killing.

Can you not take one further step and see why the force that motivates our race to create tools used for the express purpose of annihilating life might be justifiably frightening? Or do you draw comfort from a world where such a tool is common and mundane?

That is the only bridge to cross, if you find death in anyway abhorrent you should be able to stand where I do.

The fact is that the fear the OP felt by simply holding an unloaded gun was irrational. There is absolutely no logical reason to fear a hunk of harmless metal.

The fear of a gun is a fear of the reason and purpose behind the weapon. The metal, as you rightly point out, has no inherent meaning.

What I'm getting at here is that the whole structure of violence that many people seem to perceive as a quirk of human society or a globally-reinforced lie is in fact a very real, biologically reinforced truth.

If you wish to have a discussion on the nature and causes of conflict perhaps we should remove to another venue? I'm not sure that line is strictly relevant to this thread. Suffice to say, I do not think you have as much cause to be pessimistic as you might think.

I think you're confusing fear with respect. Fear causes irrationality, instability, and panic. You should NEVER fear a weapon, you should respect it. Respect and understand it's power, the responsibility of shouldering that power, and the absoluteness inherent in wielding it. A gun is a tool, a powerful and potentially grave one, but a tool nonetheless.

Fear is a useful emotion, it raises our wariness of threats and leads us to be cautious. Respect should be reserved for what we hold in high esteem. I do not think guns have yet earned humanity's respect although there may yet be a virtuous use for them some day.

As to a gun being simply a tool. I have pointed out several times in this thread and twice already in this post that it is the fact that is a tool designed simply to destroy life which is the root of the fear. It is my fondest wish that I will not have to explain this again.

Edit:

even if there is no reason for anyone to be each others enemies people will still be cruel and kill each other.

I'm sorry, I missed your beleaguered little comment in all the hullabaloo.

Insofar as there will still be people with various psychopathies which lead them to believe that they need to kill people then, yes, you are correct for the time being. But that is the smallest fractional percentage of our race. The lion's share of use are forced into conflict by the various combinations of our environment and our will to survive. Not just a nameless inner void which pulls us into cruelty and hate.

 

[Volkov]

Video games, and shooters in particular, use tons of guns not because of peoples'/developers' obsession with guns, but because shooting guns is a very easy to implement, well-polished, very popular gameplay element.

Now, why is that a popular gameplay element? Again, not because of peoples' obsession with guns, but rather, I think it's because of the fast pace of an FPS and because of a predisposition to immersion that even an average FPS offers. Maybe other reasons too I suppose.

To summarize: guns are in games because FPSs are popular, FPSs are popular because of their pacing.

In non-FPSs, ranged combat in general is the only type of combat that really allows you to dodge (think Mortal Kombat. You can block, but you really can't include dodge as a core element of gameplay), and to make gameplay slightly more varied than JUST attacking, dodging is included, which restricts you to ranged combat. Without dodging, combat is either all melee, or point-and-shoot style of early 90s (think Mad Dog McCree). Dodging introduces necessary variety into gameplay, and helps immersion.

To summarize: guns are in non-FPS games because dodging can only exist in ranged combat, and dodging is necessary because without it gameplay loses a major component.

 

[DeadEy3]

I love shooters. I don't care much for the guns in the game(whether they are realistic or fictional). I love it because it is a fun, competitive and, sometimes, team genre(e.g. Battlefield series). There are few genres that can do this. I like racing but there is no team work in it. beat em' ups has no team work. RTS are fun but there are not many players playing on one map(unless it is DotA. Love DotA HoN and LoL) and it is not very noob friendly. I think sports games stands on even ground with FPSes.

About the gun obsession.
Shooters usually have load outs(like bf and cod) and that basically becomes gun porn. When players get together they discuss guns, red dot sights, perks etc. thus the obsession.

 

[OCAdam]

I think you're confusing fear with respect. Fear causes irrationality, instability, and panic. You should NEVER fear a weapon, you should respect it. Respect and understand it's power, the responsibility of shouldering that power, and the absoluteness inherent in wielding it. A gun is a tool, a powerful and potentially grave one, but a tool nonetheless.

Fear is a useful emotion, it raises our wariness of threats and leads us to be cautious. Respect should be reserved for what we hold in high esteem. I do not think guns have yet earned humanity's respect although there may yet be a virtuous use for them some day.

Maybe a firearm should be both feared AND respected? Yes, guns have the ability to be used for the killing or destruction of something (ie, animal, car, door), but they generally aren't designed to discharge unless something pulls the trigger. This may give some people an inherent idea to be fearful of what they hold. However, some weaponry have a long history behind them, while all of them generally have a higher level of intricate mechanisms that lend to being respectable.

Take a Mosin Nagant, for example: It has a very long history, dating back to 1891. It's been through both World Wars, plus a few other wars. So yes, it has been proven highly effective at being a tool of war (more crudely: killing). So what you may hold in your hands just might have been used by someone who did indeed use it for war, thus adding something of a fear aspect, knowing what you hold likely has claimed life.

On the other hand, what you hold is also a testament. A testament to both the level of human ingenuity of design and engineering, and a testament to the history of mankind itself. From a pure mechanical standpoint, it is one of the most specific objects we have created, requiring a generally high level of exacting tolerances. About the only thing I can think of that makes a firearm look like untoleranced **** is a Formula 1 machine (seriously, down to 1/4 a micrometer with F1 tech, but I digress).

From a historical viewpoint, many a firearm have been used/are being used for revolutionary warfare. This is nothing new in the history of mankind. Many wars and many rebellions have used/are using deadly machines to accomplish their objectives, wide and varied as they were/are. Simply put, firearms were the next step in war tech. However, without war or revolution, we wouldn't be where we are today (this goes for the entire world, from Africa to Australia, from Britain to Japan, nothing excluded).

 

[Baby Tea]

I suspect that you are closer to understanding than you think you are, after all you have made note of the dichotomy between any item which can be used to kill and tools designed for killing.

Can you not take one further step and see why the force that motivates our race to create tools used for the express purpose of annihilating life might be justifiably frightening? Or do you draw comfort from a world where such a tool is common and mundane?

That is the only bridge to cross, if you find death in anyway abhorrent you should be able to stand where I do.

Quickly: I find it interesting that you claim my opinion isn't objective, yet you type "That is the only bridge to cross".
Seems a bit hypocritical.

"Death" isn't abhorrent.
Death is a natural part of life, regardless of what philosophy, religion, or worldview you subscribe to.

"Killing" can be abhorrent, but it's naive to assume that all killing is.

If I watch a bear kill a deer for food, one can hardly call that abhorrent, unless you are sheltered enough to not understand whats at work there. That's the beauty and wonder of nature at work, and yet: It's killing. It's death. The bear is struggling to survive, and is doing so by it's means. As the deer is also struggling to survive.

Both the deer and the bear have a right to life, so who lives?
If the deer is 'allowed' to live, then the bear dies.
If the bear is 'allowed' to live, then the deer dies.
In both cases, death and killing are present. Neither are abhorrent (Again: barring some naive, sheltered worldview).

Humans having tools for the purpose of killing isn't abhorrent, either. I don't "take comfort" in such tools existing, but I understand their purpose and use. Like a bear's claws, or a shark's teeth, humans have made tools for killing so that they may live. Be it a bow, a snare, a spear, or a firearm.

Now: The abhorrent part comes when man sets upon each other in violence. Believe it or not, I'm actually a bit of a pacifist. I don't like fighting, I don't like war, I abhor (To steal a word from you) murder. Man killing fellow man out of revenge, a lust for power, a self-centered idea of justice, ANY idea of justice (I'm against the death penalty)...all those things are, as you say, abhorrent.

The difference here isn't the tools used, but the intent behind them.
Again: Firearms aren't to blame for the evil, ignorance, or neglectful use of the wielder.

 

[Pyode]

The fear of a gun is a fear of the reason and purpose behind the weapon. The metal, as you rightly point out, has no inherent meaning.

First of all, you're projecting. You are assuming that the reason the OP fears guns is exactly the same as yours when you have no reason to believe that. As a matter of fact, the OP specifically says why he feared the gun...

The clip was empty but the knowledge that I held something in my hand that could end a life really terrified me more than I thought it would.

This fits perfectly with my reply because what he had in his hand couldn't "end a life." At least not in the way that he feared.

Also, you completely ignored the rest of my post so I will ask you more directly. Do you feel the same way about swords, bows, crossbows, combat knives, spears, etc.? If not, you are a hypocrite with a bias against guns.

What I'm getting at here is that the whole structure of violence that many people seem to perceive as a quirk of human society or a globally-reinforced lie is in fact a very real, biologically reinforced truth.

If you wish to have a discussion on the nature and causes of conflict perhaps we should remove to another venue? I'm not sure that line is strictly relevant to this thread. Suffice to say, I do not think you have as much cause to be pessimistic as you might think.

Considering the entire basis for your argument is that death is "abhorrent" and he is giving his opinion why it isn't, I think his point is perfectly valid and you should respond to it.

I think you're confusing fear with respect. Fear causes irrationality, instability, and panic. You should NEVER fear a weapon, you should respect it. Respect and understand it's power, the responsibility of shouldering that power, and the absoluteness inherent in wielding it. A gun is a tool, a powerful and potentially grave one, but a tool nonetheless.

Fear is a useful emotion, it raises our wariness of threats and leads us to be cautious. Respect should be reserved for what we hold in high esteem. I do not think guns have yet earned humanity's respect although there may yet be a virtuous use for them some day.

As to a gun being simply a tool. I have pointed out several times in this thread and twice already in this post that it is the fact that is a tool designed simply to destroy life which is the root of the fear. It is my fondest wish that I will not have to explain this again.

You are using respect incorrectly in the context of what he was saying. Respect (as used here) has nothing to do with liking or agreeing with something. It means understanding what it is and treating it properly based on that understanding. In this case, respect for the weapon is much more useful than fear.

As for your point regarding it being a tool designed solely for killing, this may be true for the first guns, but that is no longer it's sole function. We have trick shooting and marksmanship competitions, we have people who collect rare and exotic guns purely for display and we have tranquilizer guns used to put animals to sleep (in some cases used to save the lives of injured wild animals).

You obviously have a very narrow minded view of what guns are and what they are for.

Edit:

even if there is no reason for anyone to be each others enemies people will still be cruel and kill each other.

I'm sorry, I missed your beleaguered little comment in all the hullabaloo.

I don't think "beleaguered" means what you think it means. I fail to see how his comment has been harassed or "beset with difficulties."

Insofar as there will still be people with various psychopathies which lead them to believe that they need to kill people then, yes, you are correct for the time being. But that is the smallest fractional percentage of our race. The lion's share of use are forced into conflict by the various combinations of our environment and our will to survive. Not just a nameless inner void which pulls us into cruelty and hate.

So you agree that killing is more complicated than a simple mindless evil act. That is a step in the right direction I suppose.

As for the couple of points that I skipped, I felt the others had already sufficiently addressed them.

 

[BabySinclair]

Far to many people to quote in my agreement with the sentiment that a tool is just a tool. It is the intent of the person using it that gives it meaning. Guns made hunting easier, so did the bow and crossbow. The crossbow was banned by the pope because it did its job too well when it wasn't used for hunting. My laptop is a tool for doing work or searching the web, except when I want it as a big heavy object to bash someone's head in (example only).

Shooting people in video games is something you can't do in RL legally (excluding the military.) If someone annoys you in real life, go home an picture it's them you're fragging in CoD.

 

[Shakaar9267]

Guns are not the only weapons (or even the first) that were made from the ground up to kill humans,

Swords were the first.

Is that including, or not including clubs, spears and bows?

Not Including,
You can hunt wildlife with clubs/spears/bows; you can only hunt humans with a sword.

Guns are not the only weapons (or even the first) that were made from the ground up to kill humans,

Swords were the first.

Actually, the sword is the only weapon that has no viable purpose save killing people. If you want to hunt, for example, you would be far better served bringing a spear or a bow. A sword asks you to get far too close to deliver a strike, and with many animals, such proximity can be fantastically dangerous. Trust me when I say you do not want to be anywhere near a wild pig that you've managed to piss off by stabbing it.

That was the basic point I was trying to make. You are of course right on the money with that. I just don't see why you said "Actually" when you just expanded what I said into more detail.

Guns are not the only weapons (or even the first) that were made from the ground up to kill humans,

Swords were the first.

I think that honor goes to a rock tied to a stick

True, true.
So I will revise my statement to say the first 'manufactured' weapon that was built with the sole purpose of killing humans was the sword.