Politician Asks Game Makers to End Real-Life Gun Licensing
- Thread starter Andy Chalk
- Start date
Recommended Videos
Sorry did you say no more licensed guns in our games? We thought you meant LOTS more licensed guns! - that should be the reply of the industry. I'm sick of these morons, they live in a country where people are killed every day because they wont restrict guns due to an old and outdated 200 year 'law' that America treats like its some religious text. Fix your backwards country then come for violant media if it doesn't improve.
Can the Frank Zappa Gun instead just shoot his magnificent mustache with the gun sounds replaced with lyrics? I would pay good money for that in many, many games.NameIsRobertPaulson said:
OT: I support this for the sole purpose of having developers put more interesting guns in games. I'm still waiting for my gun that just traps people in bubbles and makes them float away. I'm also in favor of ending the indirect financing of the arms industry.
I actually hope this will work.
If they cant use real life weapons they might start making something new, original and *gasp* fun.
If they cant use real life weapons they might start making something new, original and *gasp* fun.
Personally, I actually support this, but for a different reason than getting "Real" guns out of gaming.
Just think of how much more creative game guns could be if they didn't have to copy word for word the details of, say, an AK-47?
And it might help lower development costs with no more licensing fees.
Granted, Retarded Politician is Retarded, but this might have some pros to it.
Just think of how much more creative game guns could be if they didn't have to copy word for word the details of, say, an AK-47?
And it might help lower development costs with no more licensing fees.
Granted, Retarded Politician is Retarded, but this might have some pros to it.
Whoa...Mind Blown.Lunar Templar said:
While there is no idea of knowing the exact figure, I'd feel better knowing that all the COD Clones aren't paying Gun Manufactures.
This bill is the product of a dumb man wanting to take a stand without actually getting off his ass, but there is some upsides to this is you think about it.
Not a chance. This was just the politicians doing some nice PR. EA had to do this, in order to look good. All of them are giving money to the arms industry, so they can have the guns. If game companies stop paying, the industry will do it for free or even pay for such broad marketing.Longstreet said:
I approve of that request. Even if cutting the connection between in-game guns and actual ones, the video game industry really needs to stop feeding money into the gun industry.
It's not much, but it's an easy move that shouldn't encounter too much resistance.
It's not much, but it's an easy move that shouldn't encounter too much resistance.
So... what if the reverse occurs? Gun manufacturers notice a type of gun used in video games and ask to use and manufacture THAT gun? Then sell the gun with "same as used in CoD/Battlefield!" or whatever?
It's a hypothetical but how would the government react? Do they hate it because video games are influencing real life or do they like it because more guns are being sold by proud American companies?
It's a hypothetical but how would the government react? Do they hate it because video games are influencing real life or do they like it because more guns are being sold by proud American companies?
To be honest it should be allowed and encouraged to use actual and accurate gun names in games, mostly for the reason to properly inform the public about the types of guns used around the world; to require licensing to use that name in a fictional setting should be unnecessary in that case, but promoting those guns in that fictional setting should be discouraged. Otherwise, imagine the situation between an emergency operator and someone who is seeing a shooting take place:
Operator:"Is he armed?"
Person:"Yes! I know the type of gun he/she is using!"
Operator:"What is the gun?"
Person:"It's a AF-48!"
Operator:"Umm...what? There are no known gun models with that name."
Person:"Well, that's what they're called in CoD!"
Operator:"..."
Operator:"Is he armed?"
Person:"Yes! I know the type of gun he/she is using!"
Operator:"What is the gun?"
Person:"It's a AF-48!"
Operator:"Umm...what? There are no known gun models with that name."
Person:"Well, that's what they're called in CoD!"
Operator:"..."
Yeah, fuck those 200 year old laws. Freedom of Speech, petitioning the government? Who needs that? Right to not incriminate yourself? So long. Freedom of Religion? Idiotic. Not being required to house soldiers on your property? You should be glad to do such a service! Requiring a warrant to search someone's house? Gets in the way of "security" and that's important. Right to a trial? Please, we already know who is guilty. The media tells us that stuff, duh. Jury trials for large monetary claims? Last year. Protection from cruel and unusual punishment? Burn it. Placing all other powers with the states or people themselves? What sort of nonsense is this?RicoADF said:
Anarchy! Anarchy! Anarchy!
A little hypocritical coming from a member of the American government. Isn't America kind of massively known for producing and exporting weapons all around the world? Those in glass houses shouldn't be throwing those kinds of stones. The American government has given far, far more support for weapons manufacturing and supplying than the games industry could ever hope to even make a miniscule dent in.
All that being said, I agree with dropping weapon licenses. Mainly because it seems pointless when one could either create original weapons or just design slightly obscure facsimiles of real world guns, like has been done for ages.
All that being said, I agree with dropping weapon licenses. Mainly because it seems pointless when one could either create original weapons or just design slightly obscure facsimiles of real world guns, like has been done for ages.
I know that, but thanks mate.nuttshell said:
Can we still get some more Experimental-MIRV's though instead of another MTAR or variant on that.
Those laws are still valid, the right to bear arms without restriction is not. In a modern civilized country there is no need to have access to assault rifles and other military grade equipment. Pistols and rifles for shooting ranges/collections fine, it's fun, but who needs a M4A1 :-/Saltyk said:
EDIT: To clarify, a fully operational assault rifle. Deactivated ones for collectors to put on shelves etc I have no issues with.
I like his name. It makes me think of an anthropomorphic shark wearing a suit.
While I don't agree with his reasoning, I never really cared if guns in games were 100% accurate depictions of real world guns.
With that said, he's still wrong, and has no business asking this from video game makers. How about not licensing real guns to people who have no good reason to have a gun in the first place? The Sandy Hook shooter got his guns from his mom, who trained her son with her legally owned guns.
Also, I'm tired of this US-centric approach. Why not look at other countries where gun crimes aren't that frequent and video games are at least as popular, and then find out what's wrong with you?
While I don't agree with his reasoning, I never really cared if guns in games were 100% accurate depictions of real world guns.
With that said, he's still wrong, and has no business asking this from video game makers. How about not licensing real guns to people who have no good reason to have a gun in the first place? The Sandy Hook shooter got his guns from his mom, who trained her son with her legally owned guns.
Also, I'm tired of this US-centric approach. Why not look at other countries where gun crimes aren't that frequent and video games are at least as popular, and then find out what's wrong with you?
The problem is culture. In the US they have a very "be the best, focus on yourself", it revolves around doing whats good for you and makes you look good over whats right. This is in part why Microsoft and other massive US companies are so blind to the consumers rights and find EU etc laws so perplexing. Due to this culture people over there are a lot more aggressive than other western nations, which mixed with guns gives a deadly result. Add to that the massive poverty problem due to ridiculously low pay requirements and it's not getting any better.Doom972 said:
And yes I have been to the US and yes this is based on experience, both in person and online.
Which is why you can't buy or legally own a fully automatic weapon without a license. Also, BATFA regulates all gun purchases and selling a gun illegally is grounds to lose one's license to sell guns. Most guns that are sold are semi-automatic. It's not particularly hard to modify such guns into fully automatic, though. Still not something that is legal to own.RicoADF said:
And you'd be hard pressed to find anyone with military grade equipment. Anywhere.
If someone does have such equipment, they likely got it on the black market or stole it from the military. Where do you think groups like the ZETAs got their arms? Some random gun store?