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.
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.
