NRA Likens Videogames to "the Filthiest Form of Pornography"

[sportsguy831]

Guns don't kill people, fictional guns kill people. That is the NRA's statement dumbed down to sentence. Yeah I know most Americans are pretty stupid and agree with them but seriously guys? Nobody's ever been killed by a non-existent gun.

 

[The Elephant of Lies]

I just watched his statment on the news, the BBC, who are (mostly) unbiased were taking the piss out of this guy and shaking their head at the all the stupid coming from him. How can anyone buy this crap? Seriously please tell me that most Americans do not buy this. Most of the Americans I have talked to on The Escapist have been cool, you guys don't buy this right?

I don't think most of us buy this, but I wouldn't put it beyond a lot of people. Considering how stupid people,(at least where I live in America), can be, I wouldn't be surprised if this was something that caught on; at least for a little bit.

 

[Random berk]

Americans, why have you been letting these guys go outside so much lately? I heard them mentioned on Irish news for the first time last week, and they aren't wasting any time trying to embarrass their country even more than WBC. Armed guards in every school, honestly... "The ONLY thing that can stop a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun!" I can't see this going uphill from here.

 

[Lieju]

I personally believe that people have the right to decide what happens in their own back yard, and are the best ones at choosing what they want to do. 99% of the social issues out there are things that should be resolved on an area by area basis, based on what the majority of people in the areas want. Your typical citizen can do a lot more to influance his town council, than Washington DC. What the majority of people want in each area, is what they do, and of course on a local level that can change as the attitudes of the people do. Done properly this means people are likely to wind up entering communities with those who happen to be like minded. It would take a real train wreck of a person to not fit in anywhere, and really that in of itself shows the person as the problem in the unlikely event that it was to happen.

To be honest with you, I could really give a flying leap if some town decides to ban video games locally or whatever. If that's what the people there want, more power to them and their ignorance, that's part of being in a free country. Just don't bother the people in the next town over, which is usually not a problem when it comes to this kind of thing.

To me 90% of the problem is that the Federal Goverment shouldn't be involved in issues like this, setting policies on things like media and what should be acceptable, or not acceptable, or whatever else. That's for the people themselves to decide. We're The United States, not The American Empire, each state is supposed to be pretty autonomous and largely made up of collections of fairly autonomous towns, bouroughs, etc... Pretty much any issue you can think of is better handled at a state or local level, as well as allowing differant groups to do differant things so they don't wind up needing to come to blows over it. 99% of the big issues, are big issues because of attempts to introduce sweeping legislature that will force everyone to follow ad accept it.

But having a federal government also makes it possible for people and products to easily move between the states and different areas, and companies to work on different states as well. If those different areas would have different legistlation, you'd need to restrict people's ability to move, or your laws would be useless.

And how about things that have far-reaching consequences? "It's totally legal in our town to dump toxic waste on this area, after it leaks to your area, it's your problem."

I do agree that a lot of issues should be tackled on a more local level, but not most legal issues.

And people aren't going to move easily another area that suits more to their needs, they have family and friends, and especially children aren't going to just leave their families and move to area that is more friendly to their sexual orientation or whatever.

If you're not happy with how the US is run, why don't you move to a country that more suits to your needs?

 

[Sexual Harassment Panda]

Their citing Mortal Kombat gave me some vivid flashbacks to the 90's.

Everybody should keep guessing what the problem is without having to do any research, that way the blame-tag can't fester on any one thing for too long. I say we blame porn, because... I mean, isn't porn the porniest porn of all the possible porns?

 

[Benny Blanco]

NRA Likens Videogames to "the Filthiest Form of Pornography"

Well, that dude must have lead a pretty sheltered life. Perhaps he doesn't have access to the same porn as the rest of us.

Well, pornography never killed anyone. But someone owning too many guns just got a bunch of people killed. I still blame the guy who did it, not the games he played or the guns that were readily available to him.

Porn kinda has killed a few people, actually. Not just in the obvious "take lots of drugs to get past the shallowness of your existence" way, but in the "occasional outbreak of incurable and fatal STI" way and the "business run by sketchy people with inequitable labour standards" way too...

 

[Biodeamon]

Oh man NRA is really in a hot spot now aren't they? Pulling out all the stops and blaming video games, er, no wait they do that all time. Maybe the NRA should stop to trying make scapegoats and accept responsibility and look into gun laws. oh no wait it's illegal to do research into gun control in america. (not even joking)

 

[theultimateend]

So instead of advocating exposing children to guns and violence in a controlled, rational virtual space, the NRA would rather expose them to real guns and potentially real violence every single day they walk into school?

Seriously, this is a few steps away from advocating children take weapons into the classroom for 'protection'. It's absolute fucking insanity.

Well folks in the NRA seem to think having a gun makes you safer even though I'm not aware of data supporting that.

Last I knew you were more likely to be injured or killed in an altercation if you are armed. I believe it has something to do with the unearned confidence that firearms give people.

Their citing Mortal Kombat gave me some vivid flashbacks to the 90's.

Everybody should keep guessing what the problem is without having to do any research, that way the blame-tag can't fester on any one thing for too long. I say we blame porn, because... I mean, isn't porn the porniest porn of all the possible porns?

I was heavily bullied in school and found fantastic outlets in video games. Goldeneye may have single handedly stopped me in Junior High from stabbing someone in school. I genuinely mean that.

So I dunno, I appreciate games and have found an inverse relationship with them and my own personal levels of violence. The more of them I play the more of a hippie I become. I'm 26 now and honestly if given the oppurtunity I'd always choose to be kind to someone over being mean, I've turned into Bob Ross (not quite but it is a personal goal).

Guns don't kill people, fictional guns kill people. That is the NRA's statement dumbed down to sentence. Yeah I know most Americans are pretty stupid and agree with them but seriously guys? Nobody's ever been killed by a non-existent gun.

I know you are just being hyperbolic but the vast majority of Americans are as intelligent as the vast majority of people in general. Intelligence in populations is a bell curve. We just happen to extrapolate the lower ends of the curve on either side as if they were the majorities depending on our geopolitical points of view or geographical location.

 

[CAPTCHA]

Are games pornographic?

All games are puzzles that the player is asked to solve. Solving those puzzles is rewarded in some form or other. Sometimes that reward can be pornographic in nature. I doubt anyone would argue against the fact that Dead or Alive Volleyball isn't pornographic as progress is driven with the promise of sexual material. But what about shooters like Call of Duty which rewards progress with violent visuals. These aren't created with the direct intent of sexual arousal but they are 'exploitive', both in the nature of the reward and the role the player is placed in. Games are not pornographic per say, but they are ?base?.

The adversarial nature of games is often used to drive the narrative, often resulting in games which are an extended dialogs of violence. This also means that players are often put into the roles of well intentioned, ruthless protagonists, anti-heroes and even villains. Spec Ops: The Line points this out in its underlying commentary, but the trend goes beyond the genera it depicts. There are examples that fall outside the spectrum, but the majority lacks diversity. That's fine to an extent. Escapism is a natural part of being human. So long as it is moderated, it is harmless to indulge in. Shooting a virtual man is no different from shooting a gun at a range. But at the end of the day, when a man decides to murder another man, it is not the tool that he uses, neither the training he was given; rather it is the sum of all his experiences combined. With that in mind it is at least worth considering all the factors that could lead to a tragedy without a bias stance.

The NRA post fails the bias test. It?s defensive and ill-conceived. The same could be said for the eye-rolling, dismissive report here on the Escapist however.

 

[Elf Defiler Korgan]

I am also into filthy pornography, but I much prefer Dark Souls, which is superior.

 

[Elf Defiler Korgan]

I play a lot of video games. I watch quite a bit of porn. I'm not about to go fuckballs insane and try to kill a bunch of people. Why? Because I can separate fantasy from reality, like 99% of the other people who watch porn and play video games.

Yep, going nuts means a decline in entertainment quantity and quality.

 

[geldonyetich]

Guess the NRA is quite happy to throw anyone under the bus if it means they can fend off gun control after what happened in Connecticut.

 

[Warachia]

"Isn't fantasizing about killing people as a way to get your kicks really the filthiest form of pornography?"

Wow, this statement is so wrong on so many levels, NO, it's NOT pornography, not in any way, shape or form, that aside, it's like he assumes the only reason somebody kills a virtual character who doesn't exist is for some sort of sexual release, which is also wrong for several more reasons.

 

[saintdane05]

That's strange. Is there a game based off of Two Girls One Cup? Cuase that would be... I don't know.

 

[gravian]

Sounds like the NRA is just passing the buck to deflect criticism right now. What better way to continue to defend completely excessive weaponry and ease of access then blaming the good old Right-wing bugbear of video games, and how they're corrupting the youth and turning them into psychopathic killers. Going on about violent movies as well just sounds like the scare tactics the Right used back in the 50s about American youth being brainwashed by too much TV.

I mean, I live in the British countryside and my family owns several shotguns and rifles, and I'm proud to support the rural views about the conservation, for instance, against the urban liberals who think they know best, but if the NRA is going to defend its views then it needs to argue its viewpoint rather then trying to act like tragedies like Sandy Hook have got nothing to do with it.

In my mind the main problem is there is an attitude that nothing is wrong with the status quo and any examination of why people are allowed to own automatic rifles and machine guns is unnecessary as: there will always be crazy people doing this kind of thing (yes, but tougher regulations will makes this much less likely to reoccur)/people have a right to self-defense (where in the Constitution?,and why are effectively military weapons needed?)/some other evil effect is OBVIOUSLY why most mass shootings occur i.e. this, deflecting the blame onto something easy to attack.

I mean, factors like: wide availability of powerful weapons, lack of guidelines and restrictions on purchasing, ownership and safe-keeping; a proud history of treating trespassers or burglars as nothing more than vermin to be blown away, over the top paranoia about government restrictions and belief in an inalienable right to bear arms all contribute to an atmosphere of mass killings and a belief that this is a simply natural consequence where nothing needs to be done.

I can say that members of British sporting bodies are uncomfortable associating with elements of the NRA because stuff like this can give THEM a bad reputation when it happens in the news. It leads to media attacks which they are much less able to defend well against considering most people live in urban areas and don't understand fieldsports or country issues.

 

[Therumancer]

As I said, the issue has gone bi-partisan with leaders on both sides playing "kick the dog" with video games, it's the current boogey man for a reason. That said it's the left wing that has been using it for serious attempts at censorship and free speech. Jack Thomson is something of a joke, and he did things the wrong way. Consider the Hillary Clinton set out to do it, and she won, the whole "Hot Coffee" thing and forcing Rockstar to back down was one of the biggest victories against free speech there is. Jack likes to file motions and talk a lot of crap, but he's mostly harmless, not so for the left wing efforts who are far more serious about it.

You know, I had no issue with rejecting the Hildebeast's crap on the topic without running to the arms of the GOP....

Democrats (as pointed out) believe in an all powerful federal goverment that can do whatever it wants to whomever it wants and get up your business any time it wants. States and towns becoming irrelevent, and sweeping nation-wide legislation and policy making being the norm.

Republicans believe in state and local power being the focus of the USA, with a weak federal goverment that exists largely to fight wars and deal with international politics, while the states and towns pretty much tend to their own affairs.

Yes, yes, I know this dichotomy, lord knows the Ron Paulites sung it's praises up and down. I see first hand what happens when states and towns get more power; they put the screws to minorities like me. Good god almighty, they still want to enforce Sunday blue laws for goodness sake...

I personally believe that people have the right to decide what happens in their own back yard, and are the best ones at choosing what they want to do. 99% of the social issues out there are things that should be resolved on an area by area basis, based on what the majority of people in the areas want.

Yea, we tried that with civil rights. Didn't work so well.

What the majority of people want in each area, is what they do, and of course on a local level that can change as the attitudes of the people do. Done properly this means people are likely to wind up entering communities with those who happen to be like minded.

Which does me fuck all if my community decides to start rounding up homosexuals. Somehow, I dont' think they'll accept my plea of "c'mon, just let me move to somewhere where sodomy is legal!"

To be honest with you, I could really give a flying leap if some town decides to ban video games locally or whatever.

Yep, you're one of them. It's not tyranny unless it's the feds doing it.

If that's what the people there want, more power to them and their ignorance, that's part of being in a free country.

Because freedom means the ability to take it away. Whut?

To me 90% of the problem is that the Federal Goverment shouldn't be involved in issues like this, setting policies on things like media and what should be acceptable, or not acceptable, or whatever else. That's for the people themselves to decide. We're The United States, not The American Empire, each state is supposed to be pretty autonomous and largely made up of collections of fairly autonomous towns, bouroughs, etc... Pretty much any issue you can think of is better handled at a state or local level, as well as allowing differant groups to do differant things so they don't wind up needing to come to blows over it. 99% of the big issues, are big issues because of attempts to introduce sweeping legislature that will force everyone to follow ad accept it.

Again, call me biased because that sort of thinkgin lead to laws that would imprison me, but fuck all that when it comes to social issues. No state should be allowed to put the screws to minorities. Tyranny by the majority is still tyranny.

No system is perfect, but I tend to agree more with that way of thinking (there are pros and cons to both ideas), so I wind up going with the Republicans a lot more than the Democrats. To me, these kinds of issues don't belong on a federal stage to begin with.

I can't help but wonder how you'll react if your own town decided to do that. You going to sing the same tune if your local puritans decide to mobilize and ban video games, eh?

To be honest? If my local "puritans" mobilized and decided to ban video games I would just move. That said I don't think there are many places where that would ever be an issue.

Understand that this is a demoracy, not anarchy. Democracy is by definition everyone voting, and whatever gets the most votes is what everyone does. Albiet this is supposed to work on a state by state level, hence the idea of it being "The United States". In the end all of your arguements amount to "OMG, I might not be able to do whatever they heck I want, whenever I want it" that's what rule of law is all about. Order comes at the price of sacrificing individual liberty, the big question is the degree to which you do this.

Handled area by area you wind up with far more people living how they want to, than by sweeping legislation which rapidly becomes a tyranny of the minority, with small groups of people able to force themselves on the rest of society. Whether it's nobility or a special interest group, that's exactly what this country was setting out to get away from.

I think you kind of shoot yourself in the foot when you say that your reason for wanting this kind of thing is simply because your afraid you'll wind up going to jail. Your specific arguements aside, if you really think the overwhelming majority of people are against you to the point where that's inevitable, you might want to engage in some self-analysis. The purpose of society is to benefit the majority, not to enable you.

That said, it also comes down to how the founding fathers chose to interpet the rules they created in the street. You really can't lionize principles that don't mean anything close to what you want to claim they do by the interpetation of the men who created them.