dark41 said: The same is said about France - and probably about all other already "Easterned" countries (where Eastern populations have quasi-wholly replaced prior population, silently taking their lives, goods, languages, religions, names). However when you live here you see a lot of murders, which are generally downplayed on all sides; for instance a 13-year white girl is strangled in toilets by another "friend" girl same age, but this one is of another color, so the 1st is said to have died from asthma; and we learn of it only because in this case the parents had the courage to fight and shake the medias despite the bad publicity this get them... There have been severall 6-8 killings in the recent years here, each one makes much less buzz, even here, than a killing of 2 in the US.

Versailles, Thu 19 Apr 2007 23:01:00 +0200

Nirmal Kejriwal said: I guess owning and holding guns would have made http://www.wilmingtonstar.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070...5/-1/State the ones facing Cho Seung-Hui feel their security higher (even if not enough to "ensure" security), and would have lessened the number of victims seriously lower than the actual http://www.rushprnews.com/press/archives/123425 31.

Versailles, Thu 19 Apr 2007 23:01:55 +0200

My heart goes out not only to the victims and their families...but the shooters family...imagine how responsible they feel right now

As far as regulating games...come on. They are regulated enough with the ESRB rating. Never once on the news did i hear about violent movies, TV shows, or books be brought up. Yet I heard this kid must have trained using GTA...thats BS. Everyones answer is REGULATION REGULATION REGULATION. Yet that hasnt stopped a thing whether it be drugs or prostitution.

We have a constitutional right to bear arms in this country. Plain and simple...its in the print. Our forefathers put it there for a reason because they knew what an unarmed and weak public could be subject to. Gov was created as a means of control and an armed public is the only means in which to keep that Gov in line and prevent them from taking over every aspect of our daily lives

aaron sanders said:

I repeat, guns for everyone, make it compulsory to own a gun, that should solve all the problems, and make every one very safe.

Also .. does anyone remember there was someone else on that continent before guns took it away from them.. no guns .. possibly no forefathers.. oh blah ... I go with gunsgames are not responsible .. guns are, and I like that example of the keys in a car.

This is the end on this topic from me.

Nirmal Kejriwal said:

Nirmal,
Over a period of a few short years, when the British empire ceeded control of India to the Indians and permitted the formation of the Indian Nation, there came a conflict that caused the formation of the Pakistani state in two segments on the northern borders. The Pakistani state then fought a 9 month war that led to the deaths of approximately 3 million people, which led to India, Pakistan and Bangledesh as separate states.

To others,
The attempted Genocide between the Hutus and the Tutsis, or visa versa, machetes or clubs were used more often than firearms as they could not afford the bullets.

I was raised on Roadrunner and Buggs Bunny cartoons, and though the characters were andromorphised, I never took this as a rational approach to dealing with my "enemies" growing up.
I went on to serve in the US Military where my primary function was to permit for the launch of nuclear weapons against the "enemy". Thank whatever you hold holy that that never had to happen.
Since then I've maintained a arsenal of several weapons and thousands of rounds of ammunition.
In one day of shooting "steel matches" I can expend over 400 rounds.
To this day, I've not killed a single human "enemy", and hope that I never do.

In a situation that someone goes off the deep end, such as the Virginia Tech environment, I believe that if the University didn't have a "no guns allowed" policy, that there may have been an armed response to someone that refused to stay within that standard, so someone may have shot back...this has been proven as a detriment to this type of behaviour.

Gerritt

Some one should have noticed this guys strange behavior and done something about it. Video games have nothing to do with this topic. It is lame when "specialists" on the tele blame violence on video games. The games did not corrupt the guy he was messed up long before he played GTA, but someone should have noticed ahead of time and prevented this.

$5,000 dollar bullets are an outstandingly bad idea, particularly for people who want to protect themselves.



That probably had more to do with the ineptitude of the shooter rather than the skill and preparation of kids with guns. The only weapons that should be allowed, uncontrolled, on campus, are those attached to an individual with a concealed weapons license. College students armed with guns would be a poor solution to the problem. In any environment involving bullets, and most notably, their being fired at other human beings, the stakes are very high. People's emotions are up. Things are tense. The absolute last thing that I'd want to happen is have the law enforcement teams take down an innocent student who happens to be using his weapon in defense.

That would inevitably happen, and it would do nothing more than give credence to the arguments of the idiots who currently blame guns and video games for these situations. That said, the people who sell guns to these people ought to be strictly punished when something like this happens -- better gun control is definitely necessary. A lot of these shadier (and illegal) deals are what give these terrorists their weapons, and if gunshop owners were at risk of prison time, maybe they'd be more so inclined to check ID's and go through the process of selling a gun to earn an honest buck rather than skimping on the process which may inevitably lead to lives lost.



What the f**k are you talking about? People want guns to protect themselves, or for sport. One of the two. Very few people walk into a gun shop and decide that they're going to purchase this Glock in order to kill Fred at work the next day.



With all due respect, Australia doesn't have a tremendous amount of organized crime occurring immediately south of it. America does.

In fact, it's because America and it's somewhat affluent population living up North that these large, organized crime syndicates do what they do. Drugs aren't sold in South America. They're sold in America. Drug syndicates come under fire from numerous organizations, not limited to the US Military, the government militaries of the nations the war is waged in, local militias, and even rival drug syndicates. Suffice to say, the need for weapons is huge down there. Drug syndicates are large, ruthless, and relatively affluent organizations with little or no conviction with transgressing the law. Through the combined efforts of multiple drug syndicates and militias in conjunction with the local government's inability to enforce international trade laws, it's not surprising to see that a massive economic industry involving weapons has formed down there.

And much like the drugs these guns are supposed to protect, the guns have reached our borders. Australia doesn't have as much of a problem thanks to the fact that... well... Australia doesn't border anybody. 80% of all criminals who committed crimes with weapons acquired them illegally -- so banning guns would really have quite an effect on those already willing to sidestep laws to procure one?



You, as a Marine, should appreciate the very real difference between a 17" screen and reality -- regardless of whether or not it's in gaming or not. You can't feel the recoil of an M16 when you click a mouse, nor will you see the blood come out of your victim and leak out on the street. You can't go and touch that puddle slowly expanding on the street. You didn't end a human life in a game -- and anyone who plays games knows that -- even if they aren't versed in the technical.

Playing a game requires individual action. Inserting a cartridge, putting a CD-ROM into the tray, or running an .exe file are the first such examples of cognitive action behind a gaming session. You have to do these things before you can involve yourself in a 3D interactive environment, and you do these things because that 3D interactive environment is entertaining. Realistic? Perhaps -- but it is fake -- and everyone knows this because video games are an escape from reality. And in order to escape from reality, you need to do things like... put in the cartridge... or insert the CD-ROM... or run the .exe.

These actions, required to start a game session, indicate that anyone playing a game must have known what to do to start a game session. They had the knowledge of putting a CD-ROM in the tray, or running an .exe, they had the knowledge necessary of starting up the game. They know it's fake, it's fake because it's reality they have to use in order to escape in. They don't virtually put virtual CD-ROMs into CD-ROM trays, they put real CD-ROMs into real CD-ROM trays so as to play in an unreal environment. However realistic the graphics, AI, and physics are in a game -- it's fake, and everyone can make that distinction.

Realistic or not, screens are not yet high enough resolution to emulate lifelike graphics, and even the most graphically impressive games carry the look of "computer graphics" about them. The interface, be it on consoles or on PC's, isn't remotely close to the real thing. It isn't realistic in the least, it's a scapegoat. It's an easy target for the media, ignorant parents, and politicians with their careers in mind to attack. That's all.



I find it horrifying that anyone could call the right to self-defense "silly."

In today's society, it is also our right to protect ourselves. Banning guns is like DRM -- you condemn the innocent. Imagine a country where criminals, eager and willing to procure weapons illegally, could use those weapons against a defenseless law-abiding populace? Unthinkable. I'm the happy owner of a .22 Ruger rifle, and when I'm of age to do so, I intend to purchase a higher caliber pistol for my own defense.



Because criminals do not go through legal procedures to procure firearms. They go through illegal procedures. More gun control laws aren't going to stop anyone who has already established themselves as above the law. Enforced gun control laws will only ensure that those who purchase guns are, in fact, legally permitted to do so. It will do little to prevent criminals from perusing the illegal channels for a firearm. 80% of criminals in prison for crimes involving firearms procured their weapons in manners that are not monitored by law -- e.g, through a friend, family, or through illegal means.

More gun control is "welcome" in that, there are gunshop owners who are lax in their business, and are more readily willing to make a quick buck than they are willing to enforce the law. Those gunshop owners should face harsh consequences if a weapon (or multiple weapons) used in a violent crime can be traced back to their shop. Beyond that, it is our right to bear arms, for if our government ever became self-destructive or through that oppressive, it is our right as citizens of this land to alter or abolish that government. It is the right of revolution.

A_Pickle,
Though I am an advocate of the second ammendment, and the right to bear arms, there was an instance not that long ago in my local area.
At a football game, someone pulled a firearm and threatened a student.
Having seen this, an undercover University Security Officer discharged his weapon in the air as a warning shot, and evidently a struggle ensued. Local Municiple police, not having been informed about the undercover operation saw someone discharge a weapon in a crowded situation and fired upon the University Security officer...killing him.
This situation was caused by a lack of communication between law-enforcement agencies.
If the university cop hadn't interviened there may have been multiple student deaths caused by a student under the influence with an illegal firearm.

In the USA, a country with approximately 250 Million people, there are close to half a Billion firearms, outside the military. To outlaw something that is in high demand and readily available is an excersize in futility. In such an environment, there are risk associated with accidents, as well as anti-social behaviour. Even in Australia, where gun ownership is not as high, I seem to recall that a man, not a student, walked onto a campus and killed several children, leading to a knee-jerk legal response.
We can argue who should have what firearms till we're blue in the face, but it is not the existance of firearms that cause this type of behavior, nor is it the cartoons, video, literature, or games that lead to the anti-social behavior.

To restrict the rights of those that own firearms and act in a socially acceptable manner (the millions), so as to preclude the few instances wherein disturbed individuals act in a sociopathic manner would require the ban of all automobiles due to the few vehicular homicides caused by drunken drivers, or even better the ban of alcohol...and we saw how well that worked before here....didn't we.

What happened at VT was a sad thing, perpetrated by a sad individual. This is not an endemic indication of the presence of firearms, but a systemic indication of mental imbalance as a correlary to population density in a reletively non-restrictive society.

Gerrit

A_Pickle,
How many times do you think the average person will have to defend themselves in a life time? At 50 yrs of age, I've only run into the need to defend myself with a gun while in the military, never on the streets or in my home.

"With all due respect, Australia doesn't have a tremendous amount of organized crime occurring immediately south of it. America does."
At one point Australia did have a tremendous amount of organized crime, and probably much worse than the USA has ever has to deal with, including a corrupt police department. Not so much anymore. Australia took the initiative to clamp down on organized crime, much like the USA did in the 1920's. The USA just needs to focus more on the USA and less on the rest of the world and their problems could be solved quickly.

"You, as a Marine, should appreciate the very real difference between a 17" screen and reality -- regardless of whether or not it's in gaming or not."
Of course I understand the difference, and I don't think I suggested otherwise. Because I know the difference 1st hand, there is no satisfaction from playing a shoot-em-up game for me. And I've seen too many instances of real blood splattering from gun shots to be entertained by a game simulation of the same.

"I find it horrifying that anyone could call the right to self-defense "silly.""
You read something into my post which wasn't there. I never said self defense should be outlawed, nor guns altogether. I just don't see the need for automatic weapons, assault rifles, nor easily concealed hand guns on the street. If you can't defend yourself with a pump or bolt action rifle, no gun is likely to save you. In most scenarios, only a rifle is accurate enough past point blank range to hit a target by the average shooter. As far as I'm aware, only 1 state in the US allows you to carry a loaded gun of any kind in your vehicle or on your person outside of your property without a license. Texas gun laws suck big time.

"Because criminals do not go through legal procedures to procure firearms."
That arguement doesn't wash as gun crimes are considerably lower in every country that implements strict gun control laws. When I was young I believed that if you outlaw guns only outlaws will have guns. Now that I'm older and have lived in a country that has changed their stance on guns, I have seen that this just isn't so. Sure, criminals still get guns in these countries, but because they're so hard for them to get, the overall gun crime rate is almost non-existent. Please check the statistics about USA gun control crime vs these countries before posting such rubbish. There are no facts to support your arguement.

Gerritt,
"Even in Australia, where gun ownership is not as high, I seem to recall that a man, not a student, walked onto a campus and killed several children, leading to a knee-jerk legal response."
This is exactly my point. The knee jerk reaction has had a tremendous impact upon gun related crime in Australia. There hasn't been a school shooting since. Guns are still available in Australia, but a license is required with a full backround check. I'm in favor of such precautions in every country around the world. Occasionally we still hear about an armed robbery or shooting, but the % is way down. Truth is that your odds are much better of getting shot in the USA than in Australia.

All,
I just got an IM from my 17 yo daughter in smalltownsville WI. They had their first school shooting practice today. She claims her reality was shattered in that she's not safe anymore at 17. And this is what USA gun laws have done to society. The media has played a big part in this as well. Cho was basically a psycho who idolized and copy catted the Littleton CO shooters, according to his own easy to find on TV videos. There was a guy in my high school in the early '70s who brought a shot gun to school and held a study hall captive for a few hours. The incident was covered up as much as possible and never reported on TV. There were no copy cats. Now, the media goes nuts by sensationalizing these events, and the copy catters who want to be famous get their wishes.

If one is to believe the media, I should no longer be listening to Collective Soul either, as that may be part of the reason that Cho flipped. BS.

My reasons for wanting video games monitored by the government is that they desensitize children. I don't believe for an instant that the lack of shoot-em-up games is going to stop crazy people from doing what they do. However, making it harder for these crazies to get guns would have a big impact.

I took a GED and quit school at 16 and joined the Marine Corps on a delayed entry program. I became a civilian at 20 years old and started work in a factory. At 23, I became a shift supervisor. At 25 I became a production manager and have been in upper management ever since, until I started my own company 6 years ago. Why did a high school dropout advance so quickly? Because while everyone else was saying "it can't be done because...", I was finding ways to get things done. Anyone who believes guns can't be controlled better in the USA has no imagination, and is probably lacking in motivation. It would take an effort that most people aren't willing to give, but it can be done. And thus, these people are part of the problem, not the solution. Here's to hoping that the next generation understands the importance of thinking outside the box and applying themselves rather than making excuses on why they can't.

dark41 said:
Maybe you shouldn't jump to conclusions, and assume I'm a heartless bastard just trying to get an article read by others. My heart goes out to all those who lost their lives, their loved one, friends, and families. I wrote that article a long time ago. It was posted only recently in light of the recent shooting, and edited to fit.

Trust me, I know what happened was terrible. To call me "desensitized" is just a false accusation.

And, I should note that I'm an adult in the United States. Even if laws go through, I won't be directly affected. I can still go out and purchase all the violent video games I want. They aren't "my precious video games." I'm just standing up for my opinion, as is my right according to the Constitution of this nation.

I've never thought of using an air rifle on you, or any member of this forum; Heck, not anyone ever. The airsoft pistols are for playing games with my friends. The intent is never to harm anyone. It's a friendly game. If someone is harmed, we stop all of the game. We have rules, both for safety, and for fairness of the game.

To be honest, I would be terrified if I were dropped into the Middle East with an assault rifle. The very idea scares the crap out of me.

Michel Merlin,
I can't speak for France or any "Easterned" countries as I haven't lived in them.

Australia is considered a "Westernized" country. The local media here works very hard to sensationalize every little crime that happens. There just isn't that much for them to work with. AU has to rely on mostly USA crime to support their 24/7 CIA (Crime Investigations Australia).

For the record, I'm an American and will always be an American. God bless America. I was quite skeptical about Australia as that's my nature. Fortunately, Australia has proven to be very much like the USA, albiet a little behind the times in many regards. The USA is fortunate to have Australia as an ally, and visa versa.

Bobby,
I didn't jump to any conclusions. I stated my perception of your article. Perceptions cannot be wrong. There is no question about the relevance of your article at this particular time. However, the fact that you didn't start the article with any mention of what a tragedy this was before jumping into the topic of how it effects video games, leads people to believe that you're not very sensitive to the issue of the murders. Like it or not, that's the impression your article gives. Its a simple fix. Edit it again and add a sentance.

"I've never thought of using an air rifle on you, or any member of this forum; Heck, not anyone ever...."
And this is where you and I always run into problems. My comment was followed by a smiley face, to imply that it was a joke, although I'd think it was obvious enough even without the smiley face. Are we a little defensive by nature?

We agree about being dropped into any war with an assault rifle. I was scared to death when presented with being dropped in a jungle with an M1. I'm now scared that my children may have to face the same situation in the near future. I'd much rather do it again myself than have them go.

The difference is that I'm also afraid of going to cities in the USA anymore as well. Now my daughter is afraid to go to school or anywhere in public. My 14 yo counter strike playing son still doesn't have a clue. I remember when getting lost in East LA was scary in the '70s. Gangs were just starting then. I find it hard to imagine how scared I would be now. At any rate, video games didn't create this situation, but I believe they add to his desensitization.

Our forefathers were very intelligent. I have no doubt that even they didn't foresee the future as it is today. I'm sure that they never thought about the USA growing to 300 million people.

You do realize you have control over what games your son plays? I'm not trying to infer that he's immature, he seems to have been raised by an intelligent man (even if our views do differ, and we end up in a scuffle from time to time. ) What I'm getting at is that CounterStrike is an M-rated game (17+). I understand completely if you think your son is mature enough, I won't deny you. He's your kid, not mine.

Not only that, but you think he's being desensitized. You always have the option to take away his CounterStrike privileges.

Having said that, dark41, the following is not directed at you, it is a general statement.

This is where a strong problem lies. I've said it before, and I'll say it again. Parents aren't monitoring their childrens' intake of content. They don't care what they watch on TV, they don't care what movies they watch, and they don't care what video games they're playing. Then, parents go and complain about it. They don't have a right to complain, because they didn't care in the first place. Now, they may be able to fall back on the government, taking away the idea that the parents are responsible. The parents should be responsible. They shouldn't have the option to fall back on the government in a situation like this. They need to (wo)man up, and take responsibility.

Heres my opinion without reading anyone elses.

The crime in America is the worst anywhere. Gun control is lazy as s**t. We had the most murders in 2006 than Canda. When was the last time you heard Canada going to war?

I dont agree with half the bull s**t that America does. Like the bit about going after video games because they say it creates violence in our youth. Bull s**t. Its the constant being bullied at school that are leading to these school shootings such as Columbine and Virgina Tech. I think guns need to be banned all across the United States and that they should only be issued to the military for obvious reasons. And another thing, why is there such easy access on how to make bombs? WTF is up with that?

Most people who obtain guns for the purposes of homocide or genocide do so illegally, as A_Pickle illustrated. So, banning them wouldn't really do much for school shootings, amongst other mass murders.

Since the CS player lives with his mother in the USA I don't have much control over what games he plays nor anything else he does. I do give him my opinions in hopes that it'll influence his decisions, but I can't make rules for him at his mother's house. He's not allowed to play them here though.

My children in AU have never shown any interest in these games.

Bobby Phillipps said:
Look at the kids of Columbine. They walked into K-mart and bought all of their weapons when they were 17.

Mark Allen said:
Wrong, sir.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Columbine_High_School_massacre#Firearms

Gun control can be stated as picking the proper target and sighting it properly given the present environmental conditions.
Mark, in certain environments mayhap your viewpoints are valid.
In my environment, they are not.
I'm about as "whitebread" as you can get, but I've not let that keep me out of certain situations. I've been mugged, and I've walked down the streets of Harlem without having been.
At the time that I was mugged in Atlanta, I had a weapon, but it wasn't worth while to attempt to pull my weapon to protect the 10-20$ in my pocket. "I'll give you what I have, I won't turn around, just take it and go...we'll call it even."

At another time during the early 80's, I went to the Apollo Theater in NYC. When it closed, I lost my way..after visiting a few bars in the area...I didn't have a weapon, but walked up to a group from a different socio-economic class, and asked for directions...they gave them to me.

Just because you have a weapon, doesn't mean you have to use it. Just because you don't have a weapon doesn't meen you have to be a victim.

My run ins with COPS or law enforcement have followed some of the same situations.

I own and carry firearms, legally and on my own standards. I won't shoot someone over $20, but if they threaten my family, they're toast...double tap to the torso...

I'm legal, registered, and trained, what more do you want for "gun Control"?

Oh, BTW, the USA is nowhere near being the most violent country in the world! There are several other countries with fewer guns per capita wherein thousands, or hundreds of thousands of people are dying each year.

I'm not going to be appologetic about my countries present gun laws, just think what the G. W. Bush administration would have been capable of accomplishing if there were no armed Americans!

Gerritt

A_Pickle said:



If you want protection, go buy a kevlar. I'm sure it's so much cheaper than a 5,000$ bullet.

Enjoy:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eFcVwDw4YLE