You're Not Helping: ESPN Delays 'Apex Legends' Broadcast After 2 Mass Shootings
from the not-helping dept
Of all the battles we wage here, my personal frustration probably peaks on the topic of video games and real world violence. The amount of calories spent even having this discussion should go down as some kind of complete human failure. Study after study, never mind the input from actual law enforcement professionals, has demonstrated that the political talking points on violent games are complete bunk. I used to be fond of saying that the science on this topic was unsettled. At this point, the science is quite clear.
Which means what we really need for that science to take hold with the public and end this stupid debate is to stop signaling that the debate isn’t over. But when ESPN, with all of its popularity, decides to suspend a broadcast for an Apex Legends tournament because of the recent mass shootings, it’s doing the opposite.
This weekend’s planned airing of the EXP Apex Legends Invitational at X Games tournament on ESPN2 has been postponed by the network, “out of respect for the victims and all those impacted in the immediate aftermath of the shootings.”
The broadcast is meant to show highlights from the Apex Legends tournament that was held at X Games in Minneapolis, Minnesota, on August 2. Originally scheduled to air on ESPN2 this weekend, the show has been postponed for two months.
On the one hand, look, sure this sounds fine. And it’s almost certain that somebody somewhere would have raised hell at ESPN about putting on a video game tournament that includes violent gaming shortly after a tragedy. But the job of society is to tell those people that they’re crazy, not bend the knee to them. One single movie announced it was pulling its release following the shootings and this too is absolutely not helping. Plenty other upcoming releases that feature violent imagery are going off as planned. No word of TV networks delaying the release of any episodes over concerns that they contain violence. Not a single book release has been rescheduled, music video delayed, nor comic book axed over any of this. So why is this different?
Because video games. The scapegoating has gone on for so long that it’s become etched into our psyches and only a conscious uncoupling is going to change that.
Filed Under: apex legends, delays, shootings, video games
Companies: espn
Comments on “You're Not Helping: ESPN Delays 'Apex Legends' Broadcast After 2 Mass Shootings”
Do Something
Anyone that doesn’t "Do Something" isn’t doing something.
And as we know it is far more important to "Do Something" than to do the right thing.
Those Same Violent Games And Movies ...
… are available in other countries, yet it is the USA that keeps having the mass shootings. Other countries have mental health problems too, yet it is the USA that keeps having the mass shootings.
What’s different about the USA? The guns.
Re: Those Same Violent Games And Movies ...
There are other countries with fairly widespread ownership of firearms that don’t have mass shootings like the US does. I could pen a War and Peace length post positing the reasons for this; suffice it to say the US is generally a more angry and fearful country, with winners and losers, and we do a significantly worse job at taking care of the "losers" than other Western Countries. 🙁
I do think we need a saner approach to firearms, there are far too many people that fetishize them, but that’s the work of a generation, not something that will happen overnight, and regardless, so long as the anger/fear/resentment persist there will always be individuals that lash out. You’re just as dead if you’re run down as you are if you’re shot.
Re: Re: other countries with fairly widespread ownership of firearms
Except that the US is the only country in the world with more guns than people. No one else even comes close.
Re: Re: Re: other countries with fairly widespread ownership of fire
You missed the point entirely.
I agree with you that we have a culture that fetishizes guns, I agree with you that it should be changed, I say all of this as a gun owner myself, but you’re delusional if you think waving a magic wand and disappearing all the guns would actually solve the underlying problem or even significantly reduce the body count.
Take all guns away tomorrow and the next disaffected loner with a chip on his shoulder will just drive a car through a crowd. The next one will try to top his body count and one after that and the one after that…..
I can talk about all manner of ideas I have about gun control, if you really want to, but at the end of the day soceity failed these young men by allowing them to deteriorate as far as they did. Their friends failed them, their families failed them, we all failed them. Our friends across the pond have citizens that fall through the cracks too, but a lot less of them than we do, per capita.
If I was dictator for a day and had the ability to fix one thing about the United States it wouldn’t be the number of guns in circulation, it would be our social safety net.
Re: Re: Re:2 other countries with fairly widespread ownership of
"Take all guns away tomorrow and the next disaffected loner with a chip on his shoulder will just drive a car through a crowd."
…which evidence from other incidents show will likely lead to less fatalities, while common targets become easier to protect.
I know what you’re saying, but the evidence shows that guns are still far worse than most alternatives even if removing them doesn’t remove 100% of attacks
Re: Re: Re:3 other countries with fairly widespread ownership
Well, "removing" guns isn’t tenable in the United States. The assault weapons ban is a joke, it criminalizes cosmetic features like pistol grips, making your standard issue AR-15 illegal while your standard issue Mini-14 is unaffected, despite them firing the same cartridge and both being semi-automatic firearms. I would argue that the Mini-14 is actually a better firearm anyway, as it has a more reliable action, it’s the one I would want for the zombie apocalypse and is on par with the AR-15 when it comes to killing things very quickly, but it doesn’t look as scary so nobody wants to ban it.
The one thing we could do is ban high capacity magazines, I’m down for that and think it’s long overdue, one doesn’t need >10 rounds at a time for self-defense, target shooting, or hunting, but our political system won’t get there because one side secretly (sometimes openly) wants to eventually ban all firearms and the other side knows this and wins elections they’d otherwise lose because of it.
Expanded background checks and red flag laws are a no brainer too but a background check won’t stop someone who is a criminal "virgin", which nearly all of these killers have been. I love the concept of red flag laws, I think it will stop some intimate partner violence, which is a huge win, but I’m skeptical it moves the needle on mass shootings because the history of mass shooters is a history of young men that have fallen through all the cracks.
Until we address the problem of society failing these angry young men the problem isn’t going anywhere. So yeah, talk about gun control, I suspect you and I will find some common ground there, but ultimately it’s just a bandaid.
Re: Re: Re:4 other countries with fairly widespread owner
You know you can deal with both issues at the same time, right? Dealing with one part of an issue does not mean you have to ignore the rest of it while you do so.
There is definitely a cultural issue at play, as well as a lack of public services. But, claiming that it’s not only impossible to reduce guns back down to a level they were at only a few short decades ago while ignoring the very real impact that gun availability has on your country’s welfare does seem strange. It’s like the healthcare debate – lots of claims that doing something that the rest of the world has already done is either impossible or too risky, never any hard facts to support anything.
"one side secretly (sometimes openly) wants to eventually ban all firearms"
That’s a good trick. You don’t have evidence to back up a claim, so you just pretend they are secretly doing something. That way, you can feel better about not addressing the situation because you’re scared of the thing you just made up.
Re: Re: Re:5 other countries with fairly widespread o
Dude, I lived in New York City. New York’s pistol licensing process is deliberately set up to:
1) Price people out of gun ownership. The license costs $340 every two years. The average pistol costs $500-$600. This is analogous to it costing $15,000 every two years to register your $30,000 car. Do you think that’s appropriate?
2) Make it as difficult as possible; the licensing office is only in one location, serving a city of >8 million people, and is only open Monday through Friday from 9:30AM to 3:30PM. You will need to visit at least three times to go through the process. Can you take three days off work to get a license? Most Americans can’t. We don’t have European levels of paid-time-off from work.
3) Use any and all excuses to deny people a license. NYPD will deny you a pistol license over traffic violations. I’m talking speeding tickets, not DWIs. Do you think a speeding ticket should disqualify someone from gun ownership? If you have an actual arrest (note: I’m talking arrest, not conviction) don’t even bother applying. We have an "innocent until proven guilty" system of jurisprudence here, you’re not supposed to be penalized for arrests that resulted in no charges, acquittal, or dismissal, but you will be by NYPD.
4) Restrict the hell out of the license. You can’t transport your firearm outside of the city limits. Want to go to a shooting range outside of the city? You can’t. Want to take your firearm to your second home? You can’t.
This is just for a license to own. There’s another license, which authorizes one to carry a firearm in public. You won’t be able to get this license unless you’re rich and well connected. Donald Trump has a NYC carry license. Do you think has the appropriate personality to carry a deadly weapon in public? I sure as hell don’t. But he can get this license because he’s rich and well connected.
Google "Sullivan Act". That’s the legal framework for New York’s pistol licenses. It has racist origins; it was passed in the early 20th Century, not to keep guns out of the hands of criminals, but to keep them out of the hands of "undesirables" (read: minorities and immigrants).
Feel free to verify any of this if you think I’m spinning a yarn. I’m not.
There are other American jurisdictions (Massachusetts, California, Illinois, Washington DC) with similar processes in place. I’m not as familiar with them as I am with New York, because I’m from New York and lived there for most of my life, but at the end of the day the objective is to make it exceedingly difficult to legally own a firearm and so discourage people from doing it. That’s why people are skeptical of Democratic claims on the national level that it’s just about safety and "common sense." They don’t buy it when they can look at these jurisdictions — jurisdictions that are essentially one party States, run by Democrats — and see what they’ve done.
You may not see a problem with any of this but it’s not compatible with the American Consitution, culture, and history.
I 100% agree with you that we have a cultural problem with guns. I own two guns. I don’t fetishize them, I don’t have delusions of standing up to the scary Government gone rouge (that’s a separate discussion; tl;dr, the folks who claim this is why we own guns are misreading history), they’re just tools. I own one because it’s a piece of history (M1 Garand) and the other for home-defense and target practice.
I would be cool with a ban on high capacity magazines. I am cool with expanded background checks. I would even be cool with licensing that was set up in a way to actually protect people rather than discourage gun ownership and price poor people out of it. I’ve studied the licensing laws in Canada and Europe, they’re burdensome, by American standards, but not oppressive like New York; the point is to make sure the gun owner is a safe gun owner, not to discourage people from owning guns.
At the end of the day I just don’t trust Democrats on this issue. They treat guns the way Republicans treat abortion. We’ll pass a bill restricting abortion but justify it as patient safety or some such, wink wink. That’s exactly what Democrats do with guns. My home state Senator (Kirsten Gillibrand) voted against a bill to allow people to transport guns in checked baggage on Amtrak. We’ve been able to transport firearms like this on airplanes for decades, without incident, so what’s the compelling incentive to ban it on trains? There is none. She voted against it because it makes gun owners lives more difficult. That’s it. There was no other justification for it.
I say all of this as a lifelong Democrat that has never voted Republican for any office higher than Mayor and City Councilman. If they can’t win me over — despite my willingness to support all the aforementioned measures — how do you think they’re going to win over the actual "gun nuts?"
Re: Re: Re:6 other countries with fairly widespre
"Dude, I lived in New York City."
So?
"New York’s pistol licensing process is deliberately set up to"
…reduce gun ownership in a city that until recently was notorious for being an extraordinarily violent place to live? Yeah, sounds about right. What’s the problem?
"My home state Senator (Kirsten Gillibrand) voted against a bill to allow people to transport guns in checked baggage on Amtrak"
So… why? Did she vote because of a nefarious scheme to stop you accessing toys, because she voted them way that her voters wanted her to do, or because nobody had presented a compelling argument for reducing security on trains? You seem to be making a lot of assumptions.
"We’ve been able to transport firearms like this on airplanes for decades, without incident, so what’s the compelling incentive to ban it on trains?"
I’m not sure of Amtrak’s physical setup, but I’d assume that it’s a lot easier to access the gun on a moving train than on a moving plane?
"how do you think they’re going to win over the actual "gun nuts?""
The actual gun nuts are too far gone, they stockpiled guns because they were afraid that Obama would take them all (which he never even attempted to do, and now you just have more guns in the hands of nuts as a result). But, the responsibility of the government is not to them, it’s to all Americans, and the rights of people not to be shot going about their daily business should trump the rights of gun nuts to have enough to arm a small town without question.
Re: Re: Re:7 other countries with fairly wide
Explain to me how an unloaded firearm in a checked bag that I have no access to reduces the security of a train.
Go on, I’ll wait.
While you deliberate that, keep in mind that Americans have been flying with firearms in checked baggage for decades, without incident. You declare the firearm at the check-in counter, sign a release attesting to the fact that it’s unloaded, they take your bag as they always do, and that’s it.
Your whole attitude here is condescending. "Toys?" This is exactly why common ground can’t be found on this issue. It’s not about safety for you, it’s not about keeping firearms out of the hands of bad actors, it’s about making my life as a gun owner as difficult as possible in the hopes that it discourages people from owning firearms until one day there’s so few gun owners left that you can go for an outright ban without political consequence.
People like you are the reason why Donald Trump is President. Thanks for that.
Re: Re: Re:8 other countries with fairly
"Explain to me how an unloaded firearm in a checked bag that I have no access to reduces the security of a train."
There’s one more weapon that there would be otherwise? I don’t know, I don’t subscribe to gun fetishism so i’ve never felt the need to travel with one.
I’m only guessing as to the reasons for opposing the bill – as are you, unless you’ve actually bothered to ask for context. I’d bet if you actually engaged with her, she’d be able to explain something other than your assumption.
"It’s not about safety for you"
Oh, it is, I just don’t happen to think that having guns everywhere is the safest option . – even if you feel the need to have one locked up somewhere nearby so that you can use public transport, for some reason.
"People like you are the reason why Donald Trump is President"
I bet you don’t have a clue who I am, you’re just addressing the strawman in your head. But, hey, as long as you can blame someone else for your poor voting decisions, it’s OK I suppose.
Re: Re: Re:9 other countries with fai
Pretty sure I said earlier that I’ve never voted for a Republican for any level of office higher than Mayor and City Councilman.
"For some reason?" Maybe I’m going hunting. Maybe I’m going to visit a friend in another city and they want to go target shooting. Why do I have to justify to you why I desire to travel with a firearm? Why do you want to make that process more difficult for me? I am not the problem.
This is the whole point that you refuse to see. Your comments ("gun fetishism?") are laced with contempt for nearly half the American population. Yet you probably legitimately scratch your head and wonder why we can’t find common ground on this issue.
Re: Re: Re:4 other countries with fairly widespread owner
"The one thing we could do is ban high capacity magazines, I’m down for that and think it’s long overdue, one doesn’t need >10 rounds at a time for self-defense, target shooting, or hunting"
With the one exception of tube loading .22s, this is what needs to be done and it needs to be done now
Re: Re: Re:5 other countries with fairly widespread o
The issue is on the handgun side: most 9mm handguns come stock with magazines that qualify as "high capacity" by the definitions that are used by folks thinking in rifle terms. Also, reloading a gun is far easier to manage when you’re on the offensive than when you’re on the defensive…
Re: Re: Re:2 other countries with fairly widespread ownership of
It definitely would significantly reduce the body count, but primarily from suicide, and secondarily from ordinary single homicides. Even if the magic wand completely eliminated mass killings, that wouldn’t affect the body count much.
Re: Re: Re:2 disappearing all the guns would actually solve the underlyin
Why not? Australia managed to “disappear all the guns” after Port Arthur, and that has made for a spectacular reduction in the number of mass killings there. New Zealand is going down the same path now, after the Christchurch shootings. If we manage to follow the Australian example, there is every chance we, too, will succeed.
Re: Re: Re:3 disappearing all the guns would actually solve the under
Christchurch shootings? What Australian gun laws protected you from the Aussie shooter? How will the laws protect better in the future? Why not just make murder illegal, problem solved.
Re: Re: Re:3 disappearing all the guns would actually solve the under
Australia doesn’t have the 2nd Amendment and United States Senate.
Politics is the art of the possible. Even if I agreed with you that we should disappear all the guns (obviously I don’t) it’s not possible. It won’t be possible for many generations and probably not even then.
There are things we can do, if we can stop looking down on each other and actually find some common ground.
Re: Re: Re:4 it's not possible
Aren’t people in the US generally in favour of more restrictions on guns? Isn’t a democracy supposed to be founded on the will of the people?
Either you don’t live in a democracy, or you have some pretty good mind control going on there, in the US.
Re: Re: Re:5 it's not possible
Yes, however we have this crazy system where a single person (in this case the Senate majority leader, Mitch McConnell) can prevent legislation from even being voted on, and there is nothing anyone can do to override his decisions. If it were not for that, who knows what might have happened these past several years.
Re: Re: Re:6 Mitch McConnell can prevent legislation from even being vote
Interesting. I don’t think that’s possible in a UK-style Parliamentary system. Which is what the NZ system is based on–except that we have added proportional representation to the mix. That, together with an independent Electoral Commission to draw up the boundaries, means that everybody’s vote counts the same.
Re: Re: Re: other countries with fairly widespread ownership of fire
And when you add that to the mix of a society where a significant number of people feel left out and a social safety-net barely exists, you get what?
The amount of hand-wringing and blame-shifting going on is astounding.
Re: Re: Re:2 other countries with fairly widespread ownership of
I would encourage anybody who is legitimately interested in this problem to read One of Us by Åsne Seierstad. It tells the story of the Norwegian shooter and some of his victims, in excruciatingly painful detail.
Nobody wakes up one morning and just decides to kill dozens of people. Nobody is born a racist, homophobe, misogynist, etc. It generally takes years for someone to deteriorate to the point that they become a spree killer. Years that their friends, family, and society could have intervened, yet they slipped through the cracks.
Re: Re: Re:3 other countries with fairly widespread ownership
Yep, and it’s probably a good idea to make sure they don’t have easy access to a large arsenal of weaponry in a manner that nobody can address until he actually starts killing people.
It’s a complicated subject, but it cannot be denied that easy access to guns is one of the reasons why there’s so many mass shootings in the US, and so few elsewhere.
Re: Re: Re:4 other countries with fairly widespread owner
Correlation is not causation. What you claimed is totally deniable.
Re: Re: Re:5 other countries with fairly widespread o
"Correlation is not causation. What you claimed is totally deniable."
Not with evidence.
Re: Re: Re:4 other countries with fairly widespread owner
Again, there are European countries with comparatively easy access to firearms that do not suffer from this problem on the same scale as the United States. It is not actually that hard to get a firearms license in most EU jurisdictions or Canada. Outside of the UK, it’s easier to get a firearms license in the EU and Canada than it is in my hometown (New York City).
Firearms licensing reduces impulsive acts, i.e., suicide and so-called crimes of passion. It will not stop a determined spree killer. See Anders Breivik. Someone who plans an attack over the course of many months or even years is not going to be stopped by any amount of gun control. Mr. Breivik built a AFNO bomb. How are you going to stop that? You can’t.
I’m not opposed to licensing, or many other gun control measures, but you will never have this utopia where there are no firearms in the United States. The EU isn’t even there. Nor do I think it’s desirable for us to get there. Firearms are tools, with myriad legitimate purposes, and in the United States the possession of them is protected by the supreme law of the land.
Even if I agreed with you that we’d be better off without them it’s not politically or logistically feasible in the United States. Public policy discussions need to be grounded in reality, otherwise we’re just talking over each other.
Re: Re: Re:5 other countries with fairly widespread o
"Again, there are European countries with comparatively easy access to firearms"
Compared to other EU countries, sure. But nowhere has the same level of access without far greater restrictions than are present in the US.
"but you will never have this utopia where there are no firearms in the United States"
No you won’t. Do you have anything addressing the actual things being attempted by people in real life, or do you only have strawmen to fall back on? Because if you’re not addressing reality, there’s no point in talking here.
Re: Re: Re:6 other countries with fairly widespre
I don’t think you understand how the American legal/political system works. Not sure what country you call home, but in the United States we have two levels of Government, State and Federal. The Feds set the minimum standards for gun ownership, but the States are free to mandate additional requirements, and nearly all have done so.
There are States and Cities in the United States with far more restrictions than is typical in the EU and Canada. These locations still have spree killers. With the exception of the VA Tech shooter, not a single spree killer that comes to mind broke the law to purchase his weapons. They all compiled with the laws of their jurisdiction, even those jurisdictions with restrictions far more onerous than is typical in the Western World.
(Side note: The VA Tech shooter actually bought his weapon through lawful channels, but should have been disqualified; he was not in the appropriate database because of a reporting failure at the State level. He broke the law, by purchasing a weapon as a disqualified person, but the system was the ultimate failure point because it allowed him to do so. This issue was fixed afterwards.)
The whole point here is that we have deeper societal problems than "easy" access to weaponry (newsflash: It’s not as easy as you think it is), so I’m not certain why you insist on beating that dead horse. I get it, you don’t like guns, you think they should be heavily restricted, and your ultimate objective is to significantly reduce the gun ownership rate.
That objective is why we will never find common ground, I want to keep guns out of the hands of bad actors, but I’m not losing sleep over law abiding citizens with them, even those citizens that I frankly think have lost their marbles and all sense of perspective.
I hate extremes and your extreme is just as off-putting to me as the person who is stockpiling guns because he thinks Obama is coming to get them. I own two firearms, as I stated earlier, and I can’t help but think that’s two too many in your mind.
Re: Re: Re:7 other countries with fairly wide
"They all compiled with the laws of their jurisdiction’
Which is perhaps why those laws might need addressing to stop it happening over and over again? Just a thought.
"your extreme"
Which is what? I bet you’re addressing that strawman again rather than anything I’ve actually said.
Re: Re: Re:8 other countries with fairly
What straw man? You’ve outright said that reducing the gun ownership rate is a desirable goal:
I do not agree with and will never support that objective. I don’t think the gun ownership rate is a problem. I think there are a lot of problems but that’s not one of them. Your position is irreconcilable with mine.
If you read everything I wrote about New York City’s gun licensing process and thought, "That’s not strict enough" there’s really no further reason for us to engage in this conversation. The whole process is designed to reduce the gun ownership rate, by making it as difficult and expensive as possible to exercise what is a constitutionally protected right in my country.
As stated above, I do not agree with and will not support that objective.
Re: Re: Re: other countries with fairly widespread ownership of fire
What’s your point? Are you saying 1 gun/person is some kind of tipping point at which violence becomes inevitable?
The film "Bowling for Columbine" looked at non-US areas with similar levels of gun ownership as the US, but much less gun violence. It’s overly simplistic to say the number of guns is a significant cause, without further evidence.
Re: Re: Re:2 other countries with fairly widespread ownership of
I think the ultimate point is that he doesn’t like firearms. Not going to psychoanalyze the reasons why, he’s entitled to that opinion, though I don’t really understand it.
I think the difference is what you’re exposed to vs. what you’re not exposed to. I grew up around firearms, in a culture where hunting season was something the whole community looked forward to all year, so to me they’re just tools. It doesn’t make me uncomfortable to see a firearm on someone’s hip. It barely even registers, unless it’s a particularly cool firearm, then I might ask them about it…. 😉
Re: Those Same Violent Games And Movies ...
There are other factors involved for sure, but yes if people are going to blame videogames, the obvious response is ask why those games are only affecting Americans in that way.
Re: Those Same Violent Games And Movies ...
Australia just had a "mass knifing". When there are no guns the mentally unstable find other weapons that can cause just as much damage. Stop trying to treat the symptom and start looking for the disease.
Re: Re: Those Same Violent Games And Movies ...
"Australia just had a "mass knifing"."
Yes, which resulted in one person dead, whereas the recent shootings in the US are tending toward double figures more often than not. This is one of the regular points that’s ignored – a lack of guns might not prevent every attack (although it might make the difference in some cases), but it sure as hell leaves more people alive afterwards.
Guns are certainly not the only issue, but the difference is clear.
"Stop trying to treat the symptom and start looking for the disease."
As I often say – why do you think it’s not possible to do both? The proliferation of guns causes problems beyond mass shootings.
Re: Re: Those Same Violent Games And Movies ...
Why would you want to stop treating the symptom while looking for a cure for the disease? This is a form of the perfect solution fallacy: if a proposed action doesn’t completely and permanently eradicate the problem, it is not worth taking.
Re: Re: Re: Those Same Violent Games And Movies ...
"Why would you want to stop treating the symptom while looking for a cure for the disease?"
Especially when it’s a symptom of more than one disease.
'We care about (well known) mass shootings.'
Further highlighting how this is a completely cowardly PR stunt and has little to nothing to do with the actual mass shootings, a recent vid by Jim Sterling noted that mass shootings are so gorram common that there’s basically no time that isn’t ‘following a mass shooting’ these days, so if that’s the issue then they might as well cancel the event entirely.
This(and similar actions, looking at you Walmart) has nothing to do with ‘respecing the victims’ and everything to do with a company too cowardly to stand up to the fools and dishonest people taking yet another chance to turn video-games into a punching-bag for cheap PR.
Re: 'We care about (well known) mass shootings.'
I need to correct your statement because the Walmart story was fabricated.
This is a perfect segue to defend ESPN: it’s the public’s stupidity why ESPN is canceling, not due to the mass shooting
So many people bought into that Walmart story it became "mainstream", and once this happens, it impacts business.
ESPN isn’t a coward, nor is any business pulling content.
America is the coward, both for refusing to deal with their weapons crisis and to constantly blame anything and everyone except themselves for the misery the see around them nearly daily now.
Re: Re: 'We care about (well known) mass shootings.'
I need to correct your statement because the Walmart story was fabricated.
Fabricated how, and I suppose along those lines what story is it that you claim was fabricated as it’s possible we’re talking about two different ones?
Jim Sterling’s video was based upon a Vice article, which itself was apparently based upon both a Reddit post and independent confirmation they got directly.
So many people bought into that Walmart story it became "mainstream", and once this happens, it impacts business.
Just because cowing to public pressure based upon faulty fearmongering rather than standing up to it and refusing to play along may be a good business move does not prevent it from being cowardly to do so.
ESPN isn’t a coward, nor is any business pulling content.
… other than ESPN for delaying a previously scheduled event until the heat dies down? Because they absolutely did do that.
Re: Re: 'We care about (well known) mass shootings.'
ESPN is totally a coward. They are part of America, and equally culpable.
Bear in mind that there’s a wide swathe of Americans who know that the trotting out of the VG scapegoat is bunch of bullshit, and openly mock everyone doing it. Are they cowards?
Re: Re: 'We care about (well known) mass shootings.'
It’s not a "weapons crisis" as you claim. It’s a cultural crisis. American culture breeds discontent and angst while doing nothing to curb, treat or corral mental instability. This isn’t purely an American problem but it certainly has an outsized share of that pie.
The guns are just a common weapon of choice for those who finally snap and want to take it out on the world around them. Australia has no guns but just had a "mass knifing" incident in Sydney on Tuesday. Should Australia take away knives as they did guns? Or should they look for ways to identify and help future mass-murderers? Maybe work on those things wrong in their culture that create them?
If there is one such incident per million people per year and the population increases that will necessarily increase the frequency of these incidents. Other factors are likely playing into increasing it even faster, particularly as population density increases. The point is that none of this is "because guns!", a normal person doesn’t look at a gun and think "hey, I should pick that up and murder a bunch of people".
Re: Re: Re:
Yeah, see, I have an issue with the whole “should we take away knives” thing and it’s this: Most anything else that can be used to kill a person can be used to do something else that isn’t lethal or harmful to a person. A knife or a car can be used as a weapon, yes, but their primary purpose isn’t to be a weapon. A gun’s primary purpose is to be a weapon — to wound or kill living things, and only that.
We can (and should) address societal issues independent of gun control efforts. But to assume fixing those issues will prevent gun violence misses the fact that Americans who can’t or won’t be fixed can easily get their hands on a gun because America has more guns than it does citizens and (compared to other countries) relatively lax regulations and restrictions. Address both the societal issues and gun control. Don’t think solving only one of those problems will magically fix the other.
Re: Re: Re:2 Re:
"A gun’s primary purpose is to be a weapon — to wound or kill living things, and only that."
Isn’t that how we keep the peace? Along with other weapons of mass destruction? Government should be leading the way. Let me know when they are comfortable giving up their weapons.
Guns are quite often used to fasten things(eg. wood) to concrete
Sometimes we want to kill to keep things alive. Think livestock or pets or even family. Don’t forget, it is not the job of the police to protect you.
When seconds count, the police are only minutes away.
Re: Re: Re:3 Let me know when [the Government] are comfortable giving up
That’s the other funny thing: the US Government already massively outguns its citizens. The idea that the weaponry that private individuals are allowed to own gives you any kind of chance against them is simply laughable. All you can do with your guns is shoot each other. Then your political leaders can wring their hands and offer their “thoughts and prayers” for the thousandth time. And go back to proclaiming how much they value the Sanctity of Human Life …
Re: Re: Re:4 Let me know when [the Government] are comfortable giving
Doesn’t it say "domestic and foreign?"
It isn’t like anyone (9/11) would attack the states right? Can you guarantee there will be no invasions?
Can you guarantee my safety against domestic criminals? The police do not have a duty to protect us, therefore it is up to ourselves.
Re: Re: Re:4 Steam whistle alert
"That’s the other funny thing: the US Government already massively outguns its citizens"
With your New Zealous laws, won’t you be in the same boat? Or are you dismantling your military too?
I heard Trump is looking for an Island…Do you have much ice?
Re: Re: Re:5 won't you be in the same boat?
We are not the ones with a militarized police force. You are.
Our cops don’t even normally carry guns.
Re: Re: Re:6 won't you be in the same boat?
That explains their twenty+ minute response time to the shootings. They were they waiting for him to run out of ammo
Re: Re: Re:7 won't you be in the same boat?
How many split seconds did it take to kill 63 and injure another 182 people? They should tighten up their bomb laws
Re: Re: Re:7 response time to the shootings
And in Dayton, 9 were killed in 32 seconds. How long did it take the cops to get there?
Do you know how the Christchurch shooter was caught? In the US you probably have visions of SWAT teams conducting massive raids, and probably gunfights to take the shooter down. But it was nothing like that.
All it took was two uniformed cops in a squad car. They had guns and they did draw them, but they managed to nab Shooty McShootface without a single shot being fired. The most violent thing they did was ram his vehicle to bring him to a stop.
That’s how it works in a country where policing is based on lessons from real life, not Hollywood movies.
Re: Re: Re:8 response time to the shootings
Copyright infringement is seen as a worse crime? Or was the incident with Kim Dotcom and the choppers a hoax?
Re: Re: Re:4 Let me know when [the Government] are comfortable giving
That’s a common misconception on both sides of the gun argument.
Pro-gun guy: I own guns in case the Government ever turns tyrannical!
Anti-gun guy: You don’t have a chance, they have jets and nukes.
You’re both misreading the purpose of the 2nd Amendment. Parse of the wording of it and study American history. "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
Until the post-WW2 era, the United States never maintained a standing army of any significance. People frequently condemn the United States for not getting involved in WW2 sooner than we did but kind of gloss over the fact that in 1939 the United States Army was smaller than Portugal’s Army. We had this luxury because we’re surrounded by oceans, with our only two land neighbors being friendly powers with minimal armies of their own. We also had (until the post war era) an inherent distrust of large standing armies. This goes back to the Colonial Era when Great Britain stationed a large standing army in the United States to attempt to force her will upon us. See the 3rd Amendment….
The model that the United States used for defense until the post WW2 era was to maintain a very small professional army and rapidly expand it in times of crisis. This small "Regular Army" — made up of career professionals — would train the militiamen that were rapidly swelling the ranks, then we’d fight whatever war we found ourselves in, and afterwards the bulk of the expanded army would be quickly disbanded and the soldiers would return to civilian life.
The ultimate point of the 2nd Amendment is to ensure that the citizenry is familiar with the use of arms and ready to fight when called upon. There are other reasons, lawful self-defense, hunting, etc., but none of them were regarded as important enough to put in the text of the Amendment.
So, what happens if the Government goes bad? Again, look at history. Study the Revolution. Random American citizens didn’t start taking potshots at Redcoats with their muskets. That’s a myth and would have been just as illegal back then as it is now (today we call such people "unlawful combatants"). Rather, what happened is that the colonial governments broke away from Great Britain, then built an army — under the command of officers appointed by the Continental Congress — to try and defend that decision. Building this army was made easier by the fact that the American population was already familiar with the use of arms, but it was still a Herculean Task that took years to bear fruit.
This is the difference between lawful and unlawful combatants. Lawful ones serve under officers appointed by a higher authority, wear a uniform, and carry their arms openly.
If the Federal Government turned oppressive tomorrow and all other means of redress were exhausted, you would see State Governments begin to break away from it and build their own militaries — again, relying on the fact that many American citizens are already familiar with the use of arms — to try and defend that decision.
Would they succeed? Who the hell knows. I hope and pray that I never live to see such a day. The South tried it once and failed quite spectacularly (thank God) but the model they used is the rough outline that any 2nd American Revolution/Civil War would follow. Random Southern citizens didn’t start taking potshots at Federal troops, they built an army, commanded by officers appointed by a higher authority, and the citizens served in this army. That’s why none of them went to jail at the end of the conflict. The high ranking officers and Government officials of the Confederacy were held for a time and ultimately had to be pardoned before they could return to civilian life, but there was never any thought given to charging the rank and file. They were lawful combatants under the laws of war, then and now.
Side note: I wish my country would go back to its distrust of large standing armies. We do need to maintain a capable Navy and Air Force, the former being something we always had, but if we did away with the large standing army and went back to our roots you’d see an end to interventionism. I don’t think I would go back to the distrust of "entangling alliances", the Western Alliance is something I wholeheartedly support, but we need to end interventionism.
Re: Re: Re:5 Let me know when [the Government] are comfortable gi
Sure, but the Supreme Court has decided that it protects an individual right to own guns, entirely apart from any militia. I think they reasoned backwards from their desired conclusion, but that’s what we’re stuck with.
Re: Re: Re:6 Let me know when [the Government] are comfortabl
It does protect an individual right to own guns. That’s the plain reading of the amendment. That doesn’t mean it can’t be regulated, see compelling state interest and strict scrutiny, but don’t pretend it doesn’t say what it very clearly says, that’s a very dangerous road to go down irrespective of how you feel about guns.
P.S., The “militia” in the United States is defined as all able bodied male citizens between 17 and 45 by Federal Law. It should probably be changed to be gender neutral, IMHO, but that’s what it currently says.
Re: Re: Re:7 Let me know when [the Government] are comfor
It’s interesting how people can disagree on the plain reading of an amendment. I think it clearly says that weapons are for militia members.
Which means that definition could be changed without amending the Constitution.
Re: Re: Re:8 weapons are for militia members.
I don’t know about you, but in most civilized countries, armed militias roaming the countryside are generally seen as a Bad Thing.
Re: Re: Re:9 weapons are for militia members.
Nobody said anything about them roaming the countryside.
Re: Re: Re:10 roaming the countryside.
So they will be confined to barracks, then?
Re: Re: Re:11 roaming the countryside.
Presumably they would be doing the sorts of things the National Guard does now. Which is, most of the time, the exact same things anyone else does. Go to work, sleep, eat, spend time with family, go to movies, etc. You wouldn’t even know they’re militia members, just like you can’t tell someone is in the National Guard by looking.
Re: Re: Re:12 You wouldn't even know they're militia members
But would they be going about armed, or not?
Re: Re: Re:13 You wouldn't even know they're militia members
Only if they were on a mission that required them to be armed.
Re: Re: Re:14 Only if they were on a mission that required
So no automatic “right to bear arms”, then?
Re: Re: Re:15 Only if they were on a mission that required
Honestly Lawrence, I don’t know what you’re getting at, could you just come out and say it? It feels like you’re trying to trap me into saying something and then pounce.
Re: Re: Re:2 Re:
That’s precisely why they’re useful. Human beings have a right of self-defense. Nobody is compelled to surrender to someone that seeks to do them harm. Article 3, UDHR, "Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person."
More often than not, one does not need (and is not legally and morally justified in using) deadly force to effectively exercise this right, but there are times that one does, and every single country on this planet codifies situations in which one is justified in using deadly force to defend themselves. They don’t all permit civilian firearms ownership, but they all do acknowledge that occasionally a citizen will have to use deadly force of some sort to defend themselves against unlawful aggression.
I’m willing to engage in a discussion about gun control, I’m willing to support all manner of regulations and even some restrictions that I believe would be compatible with our legal system and not unduly burdensome to non-criminals, but it’s hard to engage in this type of discussion when the loudest voices in the gun control movement are the ones that ultimately want to see the end of significant civilian firearms ownership.
Understand that I’m not giving a pass to "my" side, I stopped going to the range years ago because I couldn’t deal with that crowd anymore, there are extremists in both camps, but at the end of the day I want to be able to own a firearm for self-defense. That’s really it. If the people I’m engaging with can’t wrap their head around this concept we’re probably not going to find any common ground.
One of the coolest things I ever thought Barack Obama did was during the town hall after Newtown when he acknowledged — without prompting — that some people may desire to own a gun for self-defense and stated that this was fine. Most politicians in favor of gun control give lip service to hunters, "We hunt too", "Nobody wants to stop hunting", etc, and that’s it, they never acknowledge any other reason (be it target shooting, collecting, or yes, self-defense) for gun ownership.
I don’t like hunting, I grew around it and I’ve done it, but I don’t have the patience for it and I don’t enjoy killing things. I don’t think it should be banned, it’s just not for me. To me, when I hear statements like the above, what I really hear is, "We hope to one day be like the UK, where guns are only allowed for hunting and pest control."
Re: Re: Re:3
I am not against gun ownership. I recognize that a gun’s violent purpose can be useful in certain contexts. But gun ownership should be a costly, responsibility-laden privilege instead of a protected civil right precisely because of a gun’s violent purpose. To wit, my beliefs on the matter:
Certain kinds of guns should be restricted specifically to use by the military (e.g., what lay people refer to as “assault rifles”). Gun ownership should have a licensing requirement with renewal periods of no longer than a year and no shorter than six months. To obtain and renew that license, a gun owner should be able to prove they are/can be responsible with the storage and use of that weapon. Anyone who fails to renew their license should be forced to give up their weapon(s) until they pass the renewal. And while guns could be sold for a reasonable price, the ammunition they require should be sold for a higher price¹.
¹ — “You don’t need no gun control, you know what you need? We need some bullet control. […] I think all bullets should cost five thousand dollars! Five thousand dollars per bullet — you know why? ’Cause if a bullet cost five thousand dollars, there’d be no more innocent bystanders! […] Every time somebody get shot, we’d be like, ‘Damn, he must’ve did something! Shit, they put fifty thousand dollars’ worth of bullets in his ass!’ ” — Chris Rock
Re: Re: Re:4 Re:
I’m on my phone now, so I can’t give you a fully fleshed out reply, but the Assault Weapons Ban is a waste of time. It’s pushed by people that don’t know anything about firearms except that a particular type looks scary.
Look up a photo of an AR-15. Now look up the Mini-14. View them side by side. One is banned and one is not. The banned one is banned because of cosmetic features like a pistol grip. That’s the only reason. They fire the same cartridge and both are semi automatic firearms. The Mini-14 is arguably the deadlier of the two, as it has a more reliable action, but few people want to ban it because it looks and feels like an ordinary hunting rifle. Indeed, its most common application is pest control on farms, where you need the semi automatic action and an design that can be severely neglected and still function. Neglect an AR-15 like that and you’ll have an expensive paperweight, but I digress…
A simple magazine size restriction would be just as effective and less politically controversial than a ban on particular firearms. 10 rounds is ample for any conceivable civilian purpose. I would argue the police shouldn’t have larger magazines either, since they ultimately carry firearms for self-defense, not offensive military action, and 10 rounds is sufficient for that purpose.
As for making it a privilege rather than a right, that’s called prior restraint and the American system doesn’t do that except under extremely narrow circumstances and always with the least restrictive means available. What you desire won’t ever happen in the United States, neither the political nor the judicial branches would allow it. As I said elsewhere, politics is the art of the possible, so even I agreed with you it’s a non-starter.
I’ll flush out ideas I have in addition to magazine size restrictions if you’re truly interested in hearing them with an open mind.
Re: Re: Re:5
Passing an amendment to the Constitution is possible, though. Probability is not the same as possibility. So don’t tell me it isn’t possible.
Re: Re: Re:6 Re:
I’m sorry, but I’m going to tell you it’s not possible. Name the 38 States that would ratify a repeal of the 2nd Amendment. I bet you I can name more than 13 that would reject it. My home state (New York) is one of the most anti-gun States in the Union and I doubt we would ratify it, we have a word for word copy of the 2nd Amendment in our own Civil Rights Law, and in spite of New York City there’s a rich firearms culture in this State.
Even if you could do it, it doesn’t change the fact that prior restraint is frowned upon in the American system of jurisprudence. It’s a little bit easier with rights that aren’t constitutionally recognized but what you desire still wouldn’t pass muster under our system even if the 2nd Amendment wasn’t a thing. You’d also have to get rid of the 5th, 9th, and 14th Amendments, plus over 200 years of case law, and I doubt very much that you actually want to do that. You may not value the right to keep and bear arms, but I suspect you’re rather fond of free speech, racial and gender equality, and the right to due process.
Setting that aside and addressing the idea itself:
My issue with this is that it seems deliberately designed to make my life as difficult as possible as a gun owner. There’s no compelling safety argument to be made for a 6 or even 12 month renewal, the real objective is to discourage gun ownership by making the process as burdensome as possible.
Case in point, in my long winded explanation above about New York City’s process, there’s no good reason why they can’t permit people to do most of the license application and renewal online, but rather than offer that they compel you to come to an office that’s inconveniently located, understaffed, and only open for six hours a day on workdays. They further compel you to visit that office no less than three times to complete the process.
Cars kill more people than guns do and driving is actually a privilege as opposed to a right. Ask yourself if a six month driver’s license renewal would be accepted by society. Ask yourself if the Government could even build the infrastructure to handle that many renewals on a day to day basis, particularly if the process required that you demonstrate you’re a safe driver (which is what you want, right?) rather than simply show up to renew the license.
I would support licensing to permit the authorities to keep track of the nation’s weapons inventory and to hold accountable those that engage in unlawful transfers and smuggling. Licensing would be "shall issue" meaning that if you’re not otherwise disqualified (i.e., you’re a convicted felon, an adjudicated mental defective, dishonorably discharged from the military, a convicted domestic abuser, etc.) the authorities HAVE to issue the license. The license would be good for life, subject to revocation only if you later become a disqualified person, with fees kept at cost, or possibly even absorbed by the State since the whole argument here is public safety.
Transfers (aka: sales) of firearms would have to go through the licensing authority, the idea being to enable the tracing of firearms from manufacture to possession, to enable the investigation and prosecution of gun smuggling and illegal transfers. There would be an exemption for loans between family members, provided both are licensed or one is underage and under the immediate supervision of a licensed adult, as well as temporary transfers at gun ranges, hunting grounds, etc.
A requirement to report any lost or stolen guns immediately upon discovery of this fact is reasonable and is something that I would support.
I would support magazine size restrictions, as noted above, any number you pick is somewhat arbitrary but I think 10 is reasonable.
I support the repeal of "Stand Your Ground" laws, there’s nothing wrong with the duty to retreat as defined by New York State law, where you have the duty to retreat if you can do so with "Complete safety as to oneself and others" (if you can actually do this you have no moral right to take someone’s life)
For carrying in public I would support more onerous licensing requirements, specifically the need to demonstrate safe gun handling as well as an understanding of the laws surrounding the use of force, but again, I would make it shall issue, meaning that if someone can meet a clearly defined set of requirements they get the license, the same as a driver’s license. Your driver’s license examiner can’t fail you if you pass the road test because his gut tells him you’re a bad driver, he doesn’t have that kind of discretion, and if a State attempted to give it to him it would be struck down by the courts as arbitrary and capricious.
There’s a lot more I’d probably be cool with, if you asked me and I thought about it, but if my choice is between the whack jobs at the NRA and proposals like yours above, where the ultimate objective is simply to discourage gun ownership, well, sign me up for a membership Mr. LaPierre. At least he means what he says.
Re: Re: Re:7
What you told me is that it’s highly improbable. What you didn’t tell me was that it’s impossible. Probability is not possibility. I could possibly fuck a porn star at precisely 1 a.m. tomorrow; that the odds are highly against me to the point where that event seems impossible does not make it impossible. It becomes impossible when 1 a.m. hits and I’m not in bed with a porn star.
Yes, and? Your status as a gun owner should be difficult to obtain and maintain precisely because a gun is a thing that was built only to kill another living creature with ease. Owning a car should be less of a hassle, but still a hassle of its own, because a car is dangerous yet still serves a purpose that isn’t “murder machine”. That’s my whole point when I say gun ownership should be a responsibility-laden privilege instead of a guaranteed civil right: If you want a gun, you should ensure your ability to be responsible with it. Otherwise you end up getting situations like first graders at an elementary school taking a gun meant for protection out of its unlocked box.
Both the issuing and renewal of the license should be allowed in that instance, sure — after the license holder proves they can be responsible with their weapon. For the issuing, that would involve passing a firearms safety course and the on-site purchase of a firearms case/safe (or proof of such a purchase from a reputable off-site retailer). For the renewal, it would involve passing the safety course again and allowing a proper inspection of the case/safe.
Agreeable all around.
Ditto to all of this.
See what I said above about licensing requirements. Otherwise, agreed.
I want to discourage gun ownership because guns exist only to harm living things. Guns are one of mankind’s worst inventions; if I could permanently prevent their invention, I would do so without hesitation. As few people as possible should own guns, legal or otherwise. But in the absence of an ability to make that happen, I will press for policies that turn gun ownership into a responsibility all gun owners must (and should) take seriously. Given the alternative — that they see it as a right to be taken for granted — I’ll take looking like a villain to you any day.
Re: Re: Re:8 Re:
At the risk of a digression and without knowing much about you, the only thing stopping you from fucking a porn star — or any beautiful woman for that matter — is probably your own self-confidence. Take it from me, a manwhore who doesn’t fit the stereotype of manwhore (I’m not rich, I don’t have fancy toys, I’m not a "Type A" personality, and while I’m reasonably fit by American standards I’m far from an athlete) it’s actually not that hard to have as much sex as you want with as many beautiful people as you want.
All you need to do is be a reasonably decent human being, cast a wide net, and accept the fact that chemistry isn’t always there, meaning that you can accept rejection (or reject someone; it goes both ways) and walk away without hurt feelings/resentment/loss of self-confidence. A baseball player is doing exceptional if he gets a hit 3 out of 10 times. That means 7 out of 10 times he fails. Does he quit? Nope. Nature made us want to fuck for a reason, it’s not as hard as people think it is, in fact, "thinking" is usually the problem, lol. 🙂
With the digression over, yes, if you want to play word games, it’s not technically impossible to repeal the 2nd Amendment, but it might as well be. You want to fuck a porn star? Go meet a few of them. It’s not that hard. You want to repeal the 2nd Amendment? You need to convince a super-majority of 300,000,000 people to go along with you and you need them to be geographically spread out because of the nature of our political system. Can you and your like-minded friends convince 2/3’rds of the population of say Louisiana or South Carolina? You haven’t even convinced me and I like to think I’m a pretty reasonable fellow.
When I say that politics is the art of the possible this is what I mean. It also comes down to priorities. How important is this to you? I don’t know if you’re an American or not, if you are I don’t want to pen a novel about our political system, but suffice it to say the road to national power in our country runs through very gun friendly States. Democrats need to take back Michigan, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, and Iowa. The type of gun control that you desire is a guaranteed loser in every one of those States. It’s actually worse than that, I would argue, because the position you’ve staked out likely flips Virginia, Nevada, and Colorado red. It damn sure puts Texas out of reach and if you’ve been looking at trend lines there’s a very real chance to flip Texas blue, but not on a platform of "Make gun owner’s lives so difficult that many of them abandon the hobby."
When I think about everything that’s wrong with our country and the World — I’ll just pick one issue, climate change, which I would hope you care about more than guns, particularly if you have kids — I just think the stakes are too high to blow an otherwise winnable election on gun control. I’m not advocating we do nothing, there are effective proposed measures that command broad popular support, but what you desire is a political loser.
This is the fundamental cultural breakdown. I do not view a gun as a "murder machine." I do not regard a gun as a thing that was built only to kill another living creature with ease. A gun sends a projectile downrange. What that projectile does is entirely in the hands of the operator. Most guns never kill anything, human or animal. You should go target shooting, it’s fun as hell, and I’d like to think you’re open minded enough to give it a try.
I grew up around guns, in a hunting culture, but I never felt the need to own one for most of my adult life. I got into shooting because it was a challenge, here’s something I’ve never done before, let’s see how good I can become with a little bit of practice. Any idiot with a functional index finger and thumb can pick up a gun and fire it, but to actually learn to do it well takes study and practice. The self-defense rationale came later, not out of any specific trauma that happened to me, just a personal decision I made.
This is another fundamental disagreement that I have with you. I do not want to live in a society where I have to prove that I’m a responsible adult. I want to live in a society that assumes people are responsible adults until they prove otherwise. Is this society as safe as the one you want? Probably not. But I’m 37 years old and have no desire to be treated like a child by my own Government. I’m well past the age of majority, if I fuck up, hold me accountable, but don’t make me prove that I’m not going to fuck up before you let me engage in adult activities.
This opinion of mine extends far beyond guns. I’m not keen on the War on Drugs, I would legalize nearly all of them for full recreational use. I fully support public education campaigns to bring awareness to the dangers of drugs, including alcohol and tobacco, which have combined to kill more people than any illegal drug and infinitely more than marijuana, but at the end of day if a grown adult wants to try a drug even having access to information about the risks, well, that’s his or her choice.
Guns are one of mankind’s worst inventions? I don’t even rank them in the Top 10. Nor do I think you’ve fully thought this through. Guns are simply an equalizer, a weapon that allows a physically weaker person the ability to credibly threaten a physically stronger person. Mankind has been making weapons since the first one of us picked up a rock. Without them, we’d likely be extinct, or at the very least a prey animal.
Look, I get the sentiment, I grew up watching Star Trek: The Next Generation and still dream that one day we’ll outgrow our darker impulses and achieve that sort of utopian society. Ironically enough, that society was portrayed with weaponry, weaponry far more destructive than anything we’ve dreamed up, because no matter how peaceful your society there will always be those that don’t share your values and hope to do you harm.
So what's their plan?
2 months from now, as they’re all set to release it:
Mass shooting happens
"Well, now we’re going to look like massive hypocrites"
I really do appreciate people coming together to push back against false claims that videogames themselves cause violence, but the way that a lot of gaming culture, the way that so many of these gaming communities act, they sure as hell can lead people towards the kind of hate that leads toward violence:
Games themselves don’t cause violence, but communities that pop up around games, or game critics/"consumer advocates" on YouTube and elsewhere can lead people to feeling entitled enough to where they think that spamming slurs and epithets and telling developers of a game to drink bleach and worse is a valid response to a game not being on the store you want it to be on, let alone a valid response to anything in general.
Games themselves don’t cause violence, but games communities can become so toxic and hate-filled that the admins of those communities have to take a step back and lock said communities down for a day, and show that community evidence of how toxic they’re being.
Games themselves don’t cause violence, but the toxicity of gaming culture and gaming communities means that the Entertainment Software Association accidentally doxxing a large amount of people in the gaming press/games media represents a serious and credible threat to their safety.
Games themselves don’t cause violence, but popular figures in gaming communities that have cult-like followings and say and do hateful shit and follow hateful people and endorse hateful people can lead to said cult to being hateful and violent themselves.
Games themselves don’t cause violence, but gaming culture can lead people to SWAT a young eSports player in the hopes of getting them killed.
Seeing people who play games rally together and telling people outside of gaming culture that games in and of themselves don’t cause violence is great, but when a lot of those same people then turn around and start spewing hateful and bigoted and threatening garbage in their games-based communities, then those communities need to do some serious introspection and growing up.
Re:
And that, friends and enemies, is how you put together a good comment with proper citations. ????
There was actally a study...
…that came out about two years ago which conclusively proved that video games have zero to do with violent behavior. I know the study was done somewhere in the Nordic countries, but I haven’t been able to find it online in a while – does anyone know a link where the study can be accessed, because when it comes to stuff like this latest thing, it would be very useful to trot out. ALthough with all due respect, I have to admit I don’t have a problem with ESPN postponing broadcast on the tournament out of respect for a period of time that would include funerals and such, but shouldn’t two weeks be plenty of time for that, not two months? It seems like far too long a period to me…but then again, it might not feel that way to the families of the victims…
Re: There was actally a study...
That’s not a thing.
You can’t "conclusively prove" a negative. You can only fail to conclusively prove a positive.
Presumably you’re referring to one of the many, many studies that have shown no link between video games and violent behavior.
Re: Re:
I wouldn’t go that far. We can conclusively prove that Donald Trump has no soul.
Re: Re: You can't "conclusively prove" a negative
Can you prove that?
Video Games and Sleep Deprivation
My theory is that IF there is a connection between violent video games and real life violence, it would involve sleep deprivation. Many video gamers become somewhat obsessed, shall we say, with the video games they play. As a result many don’t get adequate sleep. Long term sleep deprivation has debilitating effects and might contribute to anti-social behavior. Of course, people who are obsessive in general in the first place, might also be more likely to commit violent acts. It’s hard to say, but it is unlikely that violent content is the issue IMHO.
my halo 5 battle rifle doesn’t kill people.
my halo 5 battle rifle doesn’t kill ppl. but irl guns sure do!
just take away the access to actual irl deadly weapons AKA guns & witness the drop in mass shootings.
i am a young male with absolutely no social life. i didn’t lose my virginity until 25 & I literally haven’t socialized since learning the girl i fell in love with turned out to be already engaged to someone she had hid from me for nearly 5 years. i met the girl on world of warcraft. lol
i have zero friends. no cell phone. haven’t worked since 2015.
These young male losers need to come to terms with themselves. accept reality like i’ve done!! stop blaming society if you’re like me. you’re just a fucking loser. a nobody. a who gives a fuck. don’t bother killing random ppl. stop trying so hard, posers.
cuz if it weren’t for the gun you bought you wouldn’t DO SHIT.
long story short – rid the guns and/or make the penalty of mass murder so painful and severe to the point where it’s not worth committing.
video games have nothing to do with some random depressed loser who wants some attention.
awwwwwkward. lol
Never shot an actual irl gun & got no urge anytime soon to do so.
it’s about the competitive environment of online gaming. the engrossing story lines of sci-fi shooters that i love so dearly. multiplayer games is just a different type of sport. i loved sports and still do. it’s just really fucking fun competing online. I should know..other than ride my bike & shoot hoops, it’s all I do lol.
Stop scape goating the violent video game scene because you can’t find real answers for why our country can’t solve actual irl violence!!!
our country is so PC and sjw cringe indulging but wait, we can’t rid our country of deadly weps? what the fuck? Who the fuck? Why the fuck?
Oh btw, fuck ESPN. FS1 all day , dawg