Politician Asks Game Makers to End Real-Life Gun Licensing

[Quantum Glass]

Wait, are gun manufacturers paid royalties for the portrayal of games in video games?

Is that what he's trying to fight? If so, I honestly don't mind.

 

[Not G. Ivingname]

I think the logic here is not "guns in games are bad" but "guns licenses are fueling the real life gun industry, allowing them to stay in business."

It is sort of a round about way of finical gun control. Well, I am assuming their is SOME logic here. >_>

Now, for the debate on if guns should be legally sold, I will only refer to this very well study preformed by Harvard on the subject: http://www.law.harvard.edu/students/orgs/jlpp/Vol30_No2_KatesMauseronline.pdf

 

[Something Amyss]

It's still retarded. He's basically admitting that guns are bad. But he doesn't want to do anything about real guns. Instead he thinks video games should take the heat.

Bullshit.

Sharkey has been involved in gun control legislation within the State of Connecticut since well before the Sandy Hook shooting.

It's one thing to not know better, and another thing entirely to indict someone without bothering to do even cursory research. Fine, you don't want to spend 12 seconds googling? Don't go accusing him of hypocrisy because he doesn't want to do something he not only clearly does, but already has.

While at the same time we're putting armed guards in schools because Second Amendment.

Maybe you should try something about the actual guns. Might help a bit more than trying to get rid of some licensing deals.

But it still kinda feels like he's going after games and not the gun manufacturers.

You guys are aware of what's been happening in CT since Sandy Hook, right? Huge, sweeping gun control reforms in a state that was already one of the strictest in the country? New gun laws in effect with more likely coming down the pipe?

Connecticut took the Sandy Hook shooting really seriously. Nobody is shirking gun control here. I'm pretty sure nobody from CT proposed armed guards in schools as an alternative to gun control. My friends/family from the area are barking mad because the evil fascist commie nazis are taking away their freedom (which is funny because they still LEGALLY own guns, but whatever), and people are actually acting as though all they're doing is targeting games?

Come on, folks. We as a community are better than dog-whistle cries of persecution, aren't we?

OT:He went a bit too far in the "Think of the children" way but I do like the idea of less real guns as it gets the arms industry less money.

In this case, in his state, it really was the children. And the impact across the country is that children are treated to a more hostile school environment.

The NRA does want armed guards in school. We have increased police presence and laws are being passed allowing civilians to carry weapons into schools, playgrounds, etc. Maybe it doesn't entirely jive with the message of licensed guns in games, but then it's not exactly out of the blue or meritless, either. He's not exactly Mrs. Lovejoy here.

 

[Something Amyss]

Asks Publishers to stop stunning the real names of various assault rifles.

Allows various assault rifles to be legally sold.

Can you say 'misplaced priority's?'

No, but I can say "Research before you speak."

CT has had some fairly significant firearm reforms, and Sharkey's been a part of them.

Care to tell me about misplaced priorities now?

Wait, are gun manufacturers paid royalties for the portrayal of games in video games?

Is that what he's trying to fight? If so, I honestly don't mind.

Ayup.

 

[Not G. Ivingname]

The Second Amendment says that it is legal to own guns. That's cause enough in my book. Even if someone doesn't like or even fears them.

But, I agree. It's not really about guns. It's just easy to blame a thing. I've never once seen a gun levitate and start acting on it's own. Which would be pretty damn amazing.

Also, propelling what murder rate? There's not been an actual increase in violence in the US in going on two decades. Sure, one year had a small increase from the year before, but it was an anomaly. And it barely raised at all before dropping every year after. The idea that people are using AR-15s or "Assault Weapons" to commit murders is a joke. The number of people killed by such weapons each year is a statistical blip. One that could be chalked up to an error.

Unless there has been some spillover from Mexico's Drug Cartels, that I am unaware of. Admittedly, that is a problem, regardless of any spillover. I'm hoping the Mexican authorities can bring them under control.

Here is a image of the US murder rate since 1900. It has been falling since the mid nineties, through several major changes in gun laws (the creation and repeal of the Assault Weapon ban, the heavy increase in amount of shall issue states, etc.) Of all the top ten guns traced to of been used in crime, only ONE of them was a long gun, the rest being pistols and it was actually a type of shotgun ( http://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/GUIC.PDF )

Now, the Mexican drug wars spilling over into the US is a really big problem. I have extreme doubts that the Mexican authorities can do much about it: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mexican_Drug_War

 

[Ed130 The Vanguard]

Asks Publishers to stop stunning the real names of various assault rifles.

Allows various assault rifles to be legally sold.

Can you say 'misplaced priority's?'

No, but I can say "Research before you speak."

CT has had some fairly significant firearm reforms, and Sharkey's been a part of them.

You mean there are US politicians that are actually competent?

If so do you have any to spare?

 

[keserak]

Thats roughly the same as giving a person a sweater so they dont get cold... in the desert...

Deserts are perilously cold at night. What are you talking about?

 

[Jamous]

Frankly I can appreciate this, even if that connection to Adam Lanza seems a little desperate. We don't -need- to have real life gun licensing. We do just fine without it often enough. Besides, perhaps it might force us to get a little more creative.

 

[Nurb]

How about a big apology to game makers for your constant finger pointing first?

 

[EightGaugeHippo]

Changing the name or likeness of a gun in a game doesn't help anything in the real world.

Much like changing anything, within any non existent virtual world doesn't change anything, anywhere in the actual real universe.

This just seems like another shallow attempt to shit on everyone's day and get in the way of a creative medium.
Good job government.

 

[Strazdas]

Being one step lower than pants on retarded is still pretty retarded folks.
ALtrough personally i find myself agreeing with EA that you should not need license to put same name on a gun than exists in real life. but we live in a crazy world where you do, because profits.

 

[Piorn]

So we have to fall back on the old A.K.A 47?
Personally, I play a lot of shooters, and I don't know the real names of the guns, why should I?
I know how to use a pistol from my time in the federal army, but I don't even remember it's proper name.

If anyone buys a weapon simply because it's his favourite weapon in CoD, I'd say get your priorities straight.
It just perpetuates the arms race between common criminals and households in the US.

 

[Lono Shrugged]

I think he has a pretty valid point. I mean if you put aside logic and good reason for a second. Which as we all know the single person may have but the public lacks.

First off, we got on great for years and years without having sponsored guns in games. Any game where you pick up a "9mm" or ".45" and can tell full well from the gun model what it is suits me. if it's a .45 and looks like a 1911 then it's a 1911. It's a video game, it's a gun in a video game. The gun is a tool, the brand doesn't matter, only what it does in gameplay.

I read a thread in a gun forum a while back (I like guns for their aesthetics and engineering, I have no interest in owning one) where gun shop owners talked about an alarming amount of people buying guns based on what they used in games like C.O.D. Now I have no solid evidence to back that up. But lets face it, it makes sense. People were trying to buy ACR's because it "handled well" Think about that for a second. You use a product in a video game and find it so effective you want to buy one in real life so in some way you can mimic the feeling you have in the game. Think about the ramifications of that not just with guns, but with any product. Kinda screwed up. If the med packs were pfizer, people would flip their shit.

Video games do not cause violence. But people with mental health problems latch onto it as an escape more so than books, music, or movies because it is so immersive and they have agency in the game they lack in their lives. A person who is likely to shoot up a school is going to play "No Russian" a hundred times because it matches their fantasy. Nothing whatsoever to do with the game. It happens, it will happen again. Using real life guns just makes the fantasy more immersive. Colt m16 a2 (inc. all rights reserved) in the game perfectly matches the one they have. and the reflex sight matches the one in the catalogue it bridges the gap between whats on screen and whats in their heads. And there is a little bit of a point there. But not worth banning anything over. It's the product placement and aspirational marketing that bothers me more.

 

[Metalrocks]

if i would be a CEO of any of the companies, i would send them a letter like this one:

hahahahaha
oh, wait you are serious. let me laugh even harder.
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

seriously though, this wont make any difference. either being an obsessive COD gamer or not, it wont make a difference. admitting that there is no connection but still requesting this crap, is just beyond my comprehension. how about they change their policy about real guns.

 

[Vie]

That's right kids: Publishers have to pay to licenses to be allowed to depict real world guns in games. That money goes to the arms industry. Which means that every time you buy a game that depicts real world guns in it: Some of your money is spent on making real weapons. You help the arms industry! (And some of you, whilst doing that unwittingly, will be on the Internet demanding gun control. lol cosmic irony!)

And this is why I'm actually in favour of this.

At heart I'm strongly in favour of the traditional aproach of my Goverbment towards firearms: "Unless you have a genuine need for, and skill to operate safely, you can't get a licence to own one."

That said I do live in one of the UK's main drugs ports and have had a couple of armed seiges on my street, so I know the system over here is hardly faultless.

 

[Vale]

It's more of a question of "do you want to support the gun market, videogame creator dudes?"
There's a reason - beyond costs- that Valve for instance doesn't actually use the real names of the guns featured in their games.
STALKER doesn't, either, but that really is more about them having been broke as shit.
Buncha other games avoid such licensing for similar reasons. All GTA games for instance. And don't tell me Rockstar ain't willing to spend.

 

[Techno Squidgy]

So guns in games are bad. Guns in real life is fine. Yeah, this makes zero sense. Firing a gun in a game is different to firing a real gun. Also how many people are playing Cod looking at the gun to ensure it looks exactly like the gun its modeled on? Kids can use a stick as a gun and play cowboys and indians. I some how think some people lose the plot when it comes to guns in games because i dont think anyone has been killed by a gaming gun.

I must say, I quite like it when guns are accurate.
Mostly because I will never get to lay my hands on a real M60 and pretend to be Rambo.
Nor will I own a 'Nam era M16A1 with the cool as fuck triangular handguard and all of the jam.
or the... this could go on for a while, I'll stop here.


Though, I am really bored of using the same guns again and again and again. I'd really like to get back to space and sci-fi settings for a while. GIMME A RAILGUN DAMN IT.

 

[DSK-]

It's slightly better than what most of the idiots are trying to do, but it'll still solve jack shit.

Thats roughly the same as giving a person a sweater so they dont get cold... in the desert...

Also, I when I read bushmaster, I thought this:

I make no apology.

When I read Bushmaster I thought of this:

Spoiler

Our videogames need more guns that shoot Paul Hogan at people.

Get Volition on this pronto! Incoming Crocodile Dundee gun!

OT: So....let me get this straight; EA will not be licensing the right to use the likeness of real-world guns in games, a form of digital media. So what guns will it be using instead in all of it's new games? They'll probably make new ones up, but they will probably have a likeness to real-world guns anyway.

Despite the fact that this will do sweet FA, what's the point if they will have fucking guns that still fire fucking bullets in their games? (Lock Stock reference weeeeeee~)

At the very least they won't be using valuable money on licensing and can use it to (hopefully) make better games.

 

[Something Amyss]

You mean there are US politicians that are actually competent?

If so do you have any to spare?

Well, there's the rub. They seem to only exist in small pockets of the American ecosystem. When transplanted into the wild, they tend to be consumed by larger animals.

I mean, on the state level more can get done and these politicians tend to be bolder. But we're still talking a blue state that already had gun control. Sharkey would probably be eaten alive if he tried this in Texas. Or even Ohio.

And the problem there is also that for every blue state making gun reform laws, you have a red state making a "stand your ground" law[footnote]which in Texas and Florida has been found to be reasonable even if you provoke the attack.[/footnote] or pushing guns on playgrounds.

 

[Fangface74]

Ha, politicians think saving virtual lives translates to real world votes!