Good job! Mr. Governor Chris Christie! you've discovered our ESRB Rating systems! Hurray for you~ trophy (good parent) won~! REALLY~ give it a freaking rest! go visit the victims' homes, pay ($$$) some respect, and say "sorry" for once, take some responsibilities instead of point fingers...
New Jersey Governor: I Don't Allow Call of Duty in My Home
- Thread starter MikeWehner
- Start date
getoffmycloud and Lunar Templar...
Did either of you read the article properly ?
He wont let the game in at all, despite having at least 2 kids of that age that would be the correct age to play the game he disallows it completely (it is his choice but it doesnt infer he is being responsible, means he is knee jerk reacting - violent game is violent... bad, evil).
Additionally it doesnt even confirm whether he allows ANY game in his house, the way he mentions only CoD (Fox news mentions that game a lot) despite the fact it isnt the most violent game out there would imply his knowledge of gaming to be limited to Fox newsreels.
To list gaming as part of the problem is to associate gaming on the same level as guns and poor mental illness awareness... its like rattling off a list of offenders, just because games were last it doesnt imply less implication.
To even add gaming to the list of 'problems' is basically saying he believes violence in gaming is partially to blame for the incident, and he also says parents should talk about violence in games... he is not saying parents should look at the advisories and warnings, or keep an eye on what their kids are buying.
As an example : If I was to be asked about an horrific incident that just occurred and I was to say it was the fault of free sex, easy access to drugs and alcohol... and rock and roll music, and then inform you I dont let that music into my home... doesnt that imply strongly that the music is equally to blame for the issue ? Despite it being last on the list factors ?
People are giving him great kudos for his parenting judgement but nothing he says in the article says he actually took the time to check a game before making the decision to allow it in or not, he simply doesnt let CoD into his home... additionally including gaming into a discussion about the killings implies gaming is a cause of the incident by association... just because its last on the list doesnt make it less damning than the usual gaming is evil fanatic ravings.
Did either of you read the article properly ?
He wont let the game in at all, despite having at least 2 kids of that age that would be the correct age to play the game he disallows it completely (it is his choice but it doesnt infer he is being responsible, means he is knee jerk reacting - violent game is violent... bad, evil).
Additionally it doesnt even confirm whether he allows ANY game in his house, the way he mentions only CoD (Fox news mentions that game a lot) despite the fact it isnt the most violent game out there would imply his knowledge of gaming to be limited to Fox newsreels.
To list gaming as part of the problem is to associate gaming on the same level as guns and poor mental illness awareness... its like rattling off a list of offenders, just because games were last it doesnt imply less implication.
To even add gaming to the list of 'problems' is basically saying he believes violence in gaming is partially to blame for the incident, and he also says parents should talk about violence in games... he is not saying parents should look at the advisories and warnings, or keep an eye on what their kids are buying.
As an example : If I was to be asked about an horrific incident that just occurred and I was to say it was the fault of free sex, easy access to drugs and alcohol... and rock and roll music, and then inform you I dont let that music into my home... doesnt that imply strongly that the music is equally to blame for the issue ? Despite it being last on the list factors ?
People are giving him great kudos for his parenting judgement but nothing he says in the article says he actually took the time to check a game before making the decision to allow it in or not, he simply doesnt let CoD into his home... additionally including gaming into a discussion about the killings implies gaming is a cause of the incident by association... just because its last on the list doesnt make it less damning than the usual gaming is evil fanatic ravings.
Of course, the bulk of the guns "on the street" come from the second-hand market, which currently has loopholes up the wazoo. Why feed legal guns into the system? I mean, you wouldn't give them a gun, would you? If not, then there's clearly some limit on what you believe is practical.Myrmecodon said:
So the black market exists, and always will exist. So what? Why are we making it easier? Why flood the secondary market with so many easy ways for someone to get a gun and bypass the law? Why facilitate criminals? I'll ask you the same as above: would you give a gun to a criminal or a crazy person? I mean, they'll totally get one anyway, so why make it harder?UltraXan said:
Do we give up on drunk driving laws because people will drive drunk anyway? If someone really wants to drive drunk, they'll find a way to get behind the wheel. Hell, why have murder laws? Murderers will obviously find a way to murder.
Please. Explain to me why the answer to the black market is to just throw up our hands and say "oh well," and why it is pretty much the only place this logic seems to apply.
Yes, theoretically criminals could still get guns. Theoretically, they can still get explosives, too. Wonder why gun crime is so much higher. Theoretically, they can still get knives. Wonder why gun crime is so much higher. Theoretically, they could just use their bare hands. Oh gee, I wonder why gun crime is so much higher. Ease of access+ease of use.
'I don't allow Call of Duty in my home... We're a Battlefield household!'
I don't really see anything all that wrong here; games have age ratings, Call of Duty isn't rated for kids, it's down to the parents to read it.
I don't really see anything all that wrong here; games have age ratings, Call of Duty isn't rated for kids, it's down to the parents to read it.
Well no, evidently not. But even then, your point, however sarcastic, is completely irrelevant.Zachary Amaranth said:
I don't know if you realize this, but laws only work if the perpetrator in question is caught doing something they're not supposed to. Nothing is done to stop it if it's under the table where no one can see it (in other words, no one else knows what's going on). Now I'm not saying that we shouldn't try taking a peek, what I AM saying is that it's practically impossible to (without mind reading magic, fuck load of luck, and breaking people's rights), and we won't know what's under there until it comes up and bites us on the nose, OR someone makes a dumb move or information leaks.
That's not what I am saying. At all. No matter how hard you crack down on it, you won't kill it. But that's not to say that you shouldn't try. You need to limit as many sources of the problem as possible. In doing so, you limit the number of shootings, but you *don't eliminate them*. Hell, there will still be a considerable number of them. At that point, the only way to get the ones that fall through the net is *response*. Once they happen, prevention doesn't matter anymore. Shit hits the fan, and you need to get the umbrellas out ASAP.
Guns are the weapon of choice, much more practical than everything else.
Here's the thing. Guns will always be available. Just like DRM, no matter how you code it or how impossible it is to crack, there will always be someone who breaks it. Where there are people who are willing to buy, there are those who are willing to sell. It doesn't have to be a legit transaction, or even a black market one. Someone could steal a gun from someone's home, maybe get lucky enough to find ammo for it in the same house (and considering the US, it's probably guaranteed to find it there), and go on a killing spree within the next half hour. This type of shit can come out of nowhere, with no warning. I'm sure you're familiar with the statement "If there's a will, there's a way." It applies very strongly here. I'm not saying that you shouldn't limit the number of ways. What I'm saying is that you should focus on protecting yourself from the problem FIRST, before trying to attack it.