Ryan Lambourn's Slaying Of Sandy Hook Draws Condemnation

[Pirate Of PC Master race]

Sure, the message wouldn't have quite the same effect if he made it about a fictional school shooting, but that's just too damn bad. Cry me a river.

I'd say I would be surprised to see people not being shocked even if was is about fictional school shooting.

Since The Sandy hook, (at least)4 more school shooting happened in US that killed someone.

Well, there is always next one that is about to happen. I guess if people are not willing to prevent some children getting shot, I wouldn't judge their choices.

 

[lacktheknack]

The problem is simple: He made it about a school shooting that happened recently.

The game is very emotionally injurious to those directly affected by the massacre, as it's still fresh in their minds. There's a reason that we generally don't like people who "piggyback" on tragedy to make a statement. It's disrespectful and painful.

Sure, the message wouldn't have quite the same effect if he made it about a fictional school shooting, but that's just too damn bad. Cry me a river.

So school shootings are bad, but a person should ignore a perfectly good way to get a gun control message that might actually stick with some people out there because it might hurt the feelings of those affected by it? I'm sorry, but that strikes me as ridiculous. You're basically saying don't deliver a message that might actually get people talking about how change is needed because feelings. I have no issue with someone ruffling some feathers if it keeps the dialogue that needs to be happening happening. Because apparently a bunch of dead kids doesn't get the job done for more than a week or two.

You mistake the victims' reactions as mere feelings.

It's not.

It's like someone stabbing them with a knife. Repeatedly.

Unless you have sociopathic tendencies, I feel safe in saying that you've never lost someone in a traumatic/violent way if you maintain your mindset. As someone who has (overly extended Alzheimer's that left me unable to laugh at "Oh, I'm getting old and forgetful" jokes for years), I feel completely justified in dismissing your opinions as utterly biased and nonsensical.

"Feelings", indeed. How are we going to make the strides in mental well-being that we need to if we insist on allowing people to mentally assault each other with no basis? >:|

 

[monkeynohito]

This is the same guy who offered to take down V-Tech Rampage for $2000, later claiming the offer was just a joke when the legitimate Paypal account he set up for the process didn't receive any donations. He may be saying sensible things that may align with your own politics, but you really can't take his word at face value.

Either way, exploitation for a good cause is still exploitation and his message is delivered in too distasteful a manner to really deliver. Do video games really need to put you in the role of a mass murderer to make a point? The fact that some of the most violent and cynical games are held up as our medium's greatest works of art should give us pause and force us to ask if there really aren't better ways to create a meaningful experience.

I'm not saying art can't be shocking or distasteful, but those works really have to deliver enough merit to overcome the barrier to entry. It really helps if those aspects are what's being put under the microscope and not just the delivery method.

 

[Hero in a half shell]

The problem is simple: He made it about a school shooting that happened recently.

The game is very emotionally injurious to those directly affected by the massacre, as it's still fresh in their minds. There's a reason that we generally don't like people who "piggyback" on tragedy to make a statement. It's disrespectful and painful.

Sure, the message wouldn't have quite the same effect if he made it about a fictional school shooting, but that's just too damn bad. Cry me a river.

So school shootings are bad, but a person should ignore a perfectly good way to get a gun control message that might actually stick with some people out there because it might hurt the feelings of those affected by it? I'm sorry, but that strikes me as ridiculous. You're basically saying don't deliver a message that might actually get people talking about how change is needed because feelings. I have no issue with someone ruffling some feathers if it keeps the dialogue that needs to be happening happening. Because apparently a bunch of dead kids doesn't get the job done for more than a week or two.

You mistake the victims' reactions as mere feelings.

It's not.

It's like someone stabbing them with a knife. Repeatedly.

Unless you have sociopathic tendencies, I feel safe in saying that you've never lost someone in a traumatic/violent way if you maintain your mindset. As someone who has (overly extended Alzheimer's that left me unable to laugh at "Oh, I'm getting old and forgetful" jokes for years), I feel completely justified in dismissing your opinions as utterly biased and nonsensical.

"Feelings", indeed. How are we going to make the strides in mental well-being that we need to if we insist on allowing people to mentally assault each other with no basis? >:|

My granny had Alzheimers, and watching her slowly fall apart over the years was heartbreaking. I also got a real sour feeling for all those Alzheimer jokes that are actually really common when you start noticing them like that, but as hurt as I was, I never got to the point where I thought Alzheimer jokes shouldn't be made at all. I knew that they were not for me, and just ignored them, but that if I hadn't had that experience I would find it just as funny as everyone else.
Life leaves a bitter taste in our mouths. Everyone has their own triggers. If media had to skirt around every issue that could affect someone then we would be left with very little of anything.

If this game had just been another school shooter simulator then it wouldn't have got this publicity. It wouldn't have worked as a political message because no one would have heard of it, no one would have discussed it. Now it's message is being discussed , at the very least, on our internet forum, with a much more muted, respectful, and understanding tone than previous gun debates. (for now anyway) And if nothing else, that is something.

If the politicians and the parents of Sandy Hook don't want to put any store into the idea that a seemingly offensive, cheap videogame could actually have a message they need to hear, then that's on their heads, and it may be too difficult for the families and friends of Sandy Hook to play, but then they should be asked. "So what can we do about it?"

Arm teachers? The game shows us that may not work.

Pass stricter gun storage laws? It will help, but it won't stop the would-be murderer from still trying to do something stupid.

This is a real issue in America. If they don't want to play the game because it would be too painful I can respect that, but then it needs to be said that if the issues the game brings up aren't addressed, then this exact scenario will play out in real life again. And again. And again.

And which would be the better option?
There is a real problem in America with school shootings. Every time there is a shooting the absolute minimum is done to sate the public until another one happens. It isn't right, and it isn't being discussed. Here's a game that could change that, it probably won't, but at least the author can say he tried.

I said that Alzheimers jokes were too raw for me to get any enjoyment out of, they still are after several years, but if a comedian were to make an alzheimer joke that had the potential to prevent more people getting alzheimers, or understand the early warning signals, or petition the need for better treatment, I would be fully behind him all the way.

 

[Draconalis]

Just having a quick skim on the wiki, I can't speak lawyer but it sounds a little ... founding fathers to me. "The Second Amendment to the United States Constitution protects the right of individual Americans to keep and bear arms, regardless of service in a militia." I mean, when was the last time any American was in a Militia?

"Early English settlers in America viewed the right to arms and/or the right to bear arms and/or state militias as important for one or more of these purposes enabling the people enabling the people to organize a militia system.
participating in law enforcement
deterring tyrannical government
repelling invasion
suppressing insurrection, allegedly including slave revolts
facilitating a natural right of self-defense. "

What are the chances some of them are going to happen? The most likely are "participating in law enforcement" and "facilitating a natural right of self-defense" but "repelling invasion" and "deterring tyrannical government" ... seriously? Although you really should be deterring your tyrannical government at the moment, then again it would be hard to organize what with NSA watching ... listening ...

(Sorry, I got a little ranty/carried away)

You might think me some sort of right wing nut, or someone who wants to keep mah gunz for saying this, but "What are the chances of this happening" sounds good on paper... till they happen.

I'll admit, that they might feel pretty improbable... but it was only 75 years ago that Germany empowered a fascist leader that lead to millions of deaths. Tyrannical governments can, and do happen in this modern age.

And while repelling invasion might seem even less likely than the government getting all dictatorship-like, Who's to say what could happen. We need to protect our borders and keep those immigrants out.

I'm looking at you... Canada. Don't think you're politeness has ME fooled.

But in all seriousness. I purchased my first gun almost immediately after the Sandy Hook shooting. I'm a father now, and I want to be able to protect my daughter should someone threaten her, or anyone else in my family.

It seems for every shooting you hear about, there's a shooting prevented by someone carrying a gun you don't hear about, because that doesn't support the media's agenda.

http://houston.culturemap.com/news/city_life/12-17-12-texas-movie-theater-shooting-creates-chaos-and-fear-but-quick-thinking-security-guard-steps-in/

 

[Not G. Ivingname]

"Early English settlers in America viewed the right to arms and/or the right to bear arms and/or state militias as important for one or more of these purposes enabling the people enabling the people to organize a militia system.
participating in law enforcement
deterring tyrannical government
repelling invasion
suppressing insurrection, allegedly including slave revolts
facilitating a natural right of self-defense. "

The key phrase here is "Early English settlers."

Back in the colonial days, that was an actual threat the people had to worry about. The colonies were not the center of the largest military industrial complex on the Earth, it was a collection of cities and towns, with only a handful of redcoats and ships to defend it. To the west was the Native People and the French, both had all kinds of reasons to hate Britain, and to the South was a colony of Spain. Tobacco was a HUGE business, and there are only a few places in the world it could be grown. Any European power potentially had a very big economic incentive to grab the weaker colonies.

The only way to make up for the fact all reinforcements were a literal ocean away was to make sure the colonists could handle a gun, put up a good fight, and either throw out the invaders or delay them enough for the actual British military to arrive.

After we became an independent state, we could barely afford to maintain an army, so it doubled the need to keep everyone armed and ready.

I will argue everything else (barring suppressing insurrection) still applies today.

 

[Slash2x]

Oh fuck this guy all he wants is attention. All anyone is going to do is say that all gamers are asshole killers when they see this shit. It is not helping anyone it is just getting him press.

 

[Pirate Of PC Master race]

And my reasoning is rather self-explanatory, I would think. I must repeat, he made a video game out of a tragedy to underline his own political beliefs. That's not creative or thought-provoking, it's disgusting. I feel the same way about people who write books, movies, etc about other tragedies and who made big bucks on it. Capitalizing on someone else's tragedy is just all sorts of dirty and wrong, whether for politics or profit.

That's funny. I've never heard about people who make flash game making fat checks by putting ads on them.

It also seems that game's link on this very page doesn't seem to have ads on it. Oh he must be making so much money right now.

Now go get those Jehova's witness, some hobos with signs, and people who plant signs with their preferred choice of political parties. How DARE them to speak of their own opinions for a little profit.

 

[Pirate Of PC Master race]

Read what you quoted again.

Then slap yourself when you realize that my retort to your post is actually contained in the original post I made, which you obviously didn't read very well.

Don't try to be unambiguous, because I think you are just being unclear to feel smug self satisfaction.

Clarification would be nice.

 

[Baresark]

One side: Blah blah blah, gun control, blah.
Other side: Blah blah blah, gun rights, blah.

This guy is a real moron. He is clearly doing this for shock value and attention, he isn't actually saying anything about the issue. Nor is he doing anything that will will add to the debate.

Truth Interlude: In real life, many tragic events have no positive outcome what so ever. It's natural for humans in general to seek meaning in things, but the reality is that there is no meaning or positive outcome to come of that. And using such an event to further an agenda either one way or another is shockingly disingenuous.

I hate to say it, but both sides of the debate say things that are right. And statistics don't prove anything ever, so that really just needs to stop. All you can do is express degrees of right or wrong, it's not a black and white issue like pretty much everyone seems to think it is. Fact: guns take lives. Fact: guns save lives. Fact: Murderers use guns. Fact: people defend themselves from murderers with guns using guns themselves.

Edit: Shocker, the debate is not going to be decided here, so it's probably not worth arguing about. It will be decided in a forum that is so far outside this one that you might as well be talking about gun rights/gun control on Mars.

 

[Pirate Of PC Master race]

I hate to say it, but both sides of the debate say things that are right. And statistics don't prove anything ever, so that really just needs to stop. All you can do is express degrees of right or wrong, it's not a black and white issue like pretty much everyone seems to think it is. Fact: guns take lives. Fact: guns save lives. Fact: Murderers use guns. Fact: people defend themselves from murderers with guns using guns themselves.

My suggestion is to give everyone a handgun and carrying one mandatory. An infant to 112 year old woman(and their dog). Everyone in US would have equal rights to defend themselves. Only then America will be truly achieve fairness.

 

[Pirate Of PC Master race]

I very clearly stated in my original post that his motivations were political, not for profit. I was merely pointing out that I view movies/books/etc which do make a profit off of this stuff to be in the exact same boat from a figurative standpoint, because a lot of people were using for-profit books and movies as an example of why this was somehow "okay".

Next time, read the whole post. Don't just quote a line out of context without reading the rest and only attack that line, it makes you look silly when the person points out that you clearly didn't read the whole thing.

Oh, I've saw that part. Now tell me. What exactly are you doing different than the creator of the game?

You are purely expressing your own political opinion (I assume)with no personal gain.(not for the material gain, anyway)

I was confused because you were not flipping angry at the other people who were posting their own political opinion on this thread. So what? Do you have the problem with the medium of the message? Should games be banned from delivering any message?

Besides that I have no idea what would this game maker gain politically. It's not like he is starting kickstarter for any other games. Nor he is doing so attract people to his other games.(which also features school shooting, generic.) As far as I know he doesn't even live in US.

 

[Baresark]

I hate to say it, but both sides of the debate say things that are right. And statistics don't prove anything ever, so that really just needs to stop. All you can do is express degrees of right or wrong, it's not a black and white issue like pretty much everyone seems to think it is. Fact: guns take lives. Fact: guns save lives. Fact: Murderers use guns. Fact: people defend themselves from murderers with guns using guns themselves.

My suggestion is to give everyone a handgun and carrying one mandatory. An infant to 112 year old woman(and their dog). Everyone in US would have equal rights to defend themselves. Only then America will be truly achieve fairness.

Haha, it actually makes sense. In the cold war that policy was called "MAD: Mutually Assured Destruction". If you can get shot back, you are less likely to shoot someone. That is from a logical standpoint. In this situation, the shooter never had any intention of living. You can't control the actions of the mentally disturbed by taking guns from everyone or giving guns to everyone. If no one was allowed to have guns, then he probably wouldn't have had the ability to do what he did. If teachers could be armed, then the whole tragedy might have been avoided or at least not everyone would have been killed. But... I digress.

 

[Pirate Of PC Master race]

I'm going to have to assume that you didn't, judging from this post, so I'll just go ahead and rehash it for you.

The person in question created a video game which depicts a national tragedy in which innocent children lost their lives to a deranged psychopath. And he did this purely to say "guns are bad, mkay?".

That's revolting.

I'm merely responding to his (completely illogical) argument as it was presented by him. I'm not using Sandy Hook as a platform to state my beliefs regarding gun control. You'd have noticed that I never actually said what side of that debate I'm on in my post, if you had read it. Why? Because Sandy Hook's a tragedy committed by a psychotic individual and it should not be used as a political motivator one way or the other. People who rush to stand on the fresh corpses of others to use them as a political tool in their own agendas make me sick.

And he clearly states that this is exactly why he made the game: to make a political point about gun control. So you can't possibly argue that it's not what he's doing....he said so himself.

So, the problem is that this guy uses the school shooting(which, according to you, a bad example.) to convey the political message? got it.

That's strange. I've not seen the biased political opinion in this game. It is strange how people see two different things in one object(much like when one sees a pot, while another see a symbol of female according to Freud. But I digress).

And as for "Message", you should clearly see beyond the media barrage. Even if it is an article from escapist, there are always hint of far-fetched, quotes pieced together to make sense even if the quote and the game are clearly unrelated.

The quotes are his tweets, and it does not mention anything about the game. The second part of the quote is actually reply to someone. All there is his opinions about the gun control, and in the end he didn't say s#!t about his game. God knows what his message in the game is.

And from my standpoint, game alone is not biased. No message aside from people will bleed if they get shot(or stabbed). It also has link to the gun-control petition AND NRA so I think it is politically correct.

Edit: fixed some grammar issues.

 

[BreakfastMan]

Oh, I've saw that part. Now tell me. What exactly are you doing different than the creator of the game?

Um, did you actually read the article?

I'm going to have to assume that you didn't, judging from this post, so I'll just go ahead and rehash it for you.

The person in question created a video game which depicts a national tragedy in which innocent children lost their lives to a deranged psychopath. And he did this purely to say "guns are bad, mkay?".

That's revolting.

Is it more revolting than depicting a war where thousands upon thousands of innocents where killed to convey the message "war is bad, mkay?" Really don't get where you are coming from here. He made a game with a message, and he put it in a context that best conveys his message. Not really seeing the problem.