[Jan 11, 2013, 09:29 am ET] - Share - Viewing Comments
The Atlantic - How the Video-Game Industry Already Lost Out in the Gun-Control Debate.
As it happens, that's just what happened to games (and popular media more generally) in the NRA's good guy with a gun response to the Newtown shooting. Guns aren't a factor in gun violence for the NRAŚrather, games, media, and law enforcement failures must take the blame. Once the terms of the debate are set like this (and set they very much were thanks to the over-the-top bravado in this press conference) then it's very hard to extract oneself from the debate without shifting the frame, without changing the terms of the debate.
I certainly believe that the White House would like nothing more than to see an end to mass gun murders in America's elementary schools. But the fact remains that gun violence takes place every day, all across this country, at a rate of dozens of deaths a day, and as the leading cause of death among African-American youth. But when the vice president establishes a task force on gun control and violence that includes the media industries that the NRA has once again chosen as their patsies after a particularly heinous and public example of gun violence, all it can do is shift attention away from guns.
IGN - Let's Talk About Violent Video Games.
Distinctions between games for adults and those for kids are fairly clear these days, thanks to the Entertainment Software Ratings Board (ESRB). Formed in 1994, the ESRB rates all video games as a guide for parents similar to the way movies are rated by the Motion Picture Association of America (MPAA). Games are rated ranging from E for Everyone and T for Teen to M for Mature, 17+.
There is a fundamental misunderstanding that games are only for children. This needs to change for the 'violence in games' dialogue to advance.
Enter the details of the comment
you'd like to post in the boxes below and click the button at
the bottom of the form.
||Re: Op Ed
||Jan 13, 2013, 20:08
RollinThundr wrote on Jan 13, 2013, 13:38:
Beamer wrote on Jan 13, 2013, 12:38:
RollinThundr wrote on Jan 12, 2013, 19:45:
Beamer wrote on Jan 12, 2013, 18:45:
RollinThundr wrote on Jan 12, 2013, 16:19:
are other ways to treat mental health in a more positive manner, be it therapy, outreach programs, or devising better ways to keep those who are full on mental out of society in the first place. etc, rather than be pill subscription happy and sending these highly troubled people on their way to shooting up a school because they're not getting the proper help or diagnosis. Granted that might piss off the pharmaceutical companies however who have quite the lobbyists themselves however.
There's alot of other avenues to look at actually treating the symptoms rather than going after inanimate objects, in this case guns, or video games a a feel good band aid and something to lay the blame on.
But that isn't a solution. You still need to say who is going to come up with. Who will enforce it? What measures will there be? How will we know when pills are still right? How do you know pills aren't?
What you're doing is saying "the problem is some people are bad. If people decided not to be bad, we'd be ok." Great. Still not a solution.
I didn't say it was an outright solution but you have to start somewhere. And things like that would be a far better start than banning clip sizes or semi automatics because those two things won't affect anything at all.
What's your solution? What have the anti gun people offered up that will actually affect anything?
And really stop twisting my words to suit your stance that guns are the issue. As cliche as it is at this point inanimate objects don't decide for people. People still pull the trigger. As much as you hate it when I bring up personal responsibility it doesn't make it any less true.
You do this all the time Beamer, someone offers suggestions be it on spending cuts, or whatever else and your default answer is "That's not a solution" without ever offering up any realistic solutions of your own
You've identified an issue: you feel we treat too much with pills. But you have YET to identify a solution for this. You dance around, dance around, dance around. Your solution is just "we shouldn't do that."
Fuck, man. You never address:
1) Why we do that
2) Who is responsible for doing that
3) How we can change the thinking of those responsible
4) How we can enforce this
5) How we can monitor the change
Again, should the FDA pass new regulations? Should the legislators pass new laws? Should medical schools change their curriculum (and who will make them?) What is to prevent current doctors from just doing what they do? And who are you, RollinThundr, to question the thinking of millions of doctors? On that note, shouldn't we commission some studies on pills vs other treatment? Who will pay for these studies? Who will do them? Who will review the results? Who will pay for alternative care, which will certainly be more costly and time consuming than pills? Who will do the training for this? Will we have facilities for these people? Will the government be involved?
Again, your solution is one step below "we shouldn't hurt other people, it's bad." Duh. You're offering NOTHING anyone can actually do.
However, saying that we should ban giant clips, so that anyone on a rampage has to reload, giving people time to flee, is something that people can actually do. Saying we should ban gun convention sales and private gun collector sales, where no background check is needed, is something that can easily be done. Saying we should have more of a detailed background check, one that perhaps looks for warning signs of certain medication, is something that can be done.
See how mentioning laws and regulations that are specific and doable, and showing the intended outcome, is different than saying "well, doctors should prescribe less pills."
Also, nice way to turn around what I keep saying to you. I've offered solutions here. The problem is that you don't. You put out pie in the sky stuff that isn't an actual plan. Things no one can actually do. Things not really thought through.
How do you enforce background checks on private gun sales? Last I checked it only takes 1 bullet to kill someone, the majority of gun crimes in the US are committed with handguns, how will banning certain clip sizes affect over all gun crime?
Sure the shit you're proposing is doable that's great, and aside from being a feel good and useless way to go about it it won't affect anything at all.
But hey keep on subscribing happy pills, rather than look at ways to help people with mental problems in other ways. It's working out so well for us!
I said ban private sales. Ban. Jesus, read.
Also, we're not talking about solving all gun crime. We're talking about solving the random shootings. Guess what the Batman shooter had - large clips!