Why does the west cum over guns?

[Spokane]

I can't deny one of my favorite things is bombing and strafing the crap out of stuff in my WW2 flight sim. And the game I am playing now involves figuring out what guns are good for certain things and how powerful they are and how fast they reload compared to other guns. I like that aspect of it.

[St. Elmo's Fire]

I still consider playing shooters an interest in guns. Virtual or not it's still a interest in things that go bang

Can: Open.

Worms: Everywhere!

That was a good point though, my first reaction was, it's a means to an end, i.e., the enemies need to be culled, and a gun is usually an effective way of doing so, but it does go deeper than that. America in general is a big buyer of FPS games, and in general is the biggest gun-lover in the world. Japan is more strict about guns, and more or less hates FPS games. Hmm....

[Sonikku]

Often times I've noticed games with sexual content are looked at with a more forgiving eye in some places like the UK but gun violence games far less so. It's the inverse in the states. If you want to go explode legions of human beings in an orgy of bloody explosions of guts and limbs it's all good in the hood. Two blue women try to do some hanky panky in space though and it's the end of the universe.

Seriously though. Blue women need love too.

[Spokane]

Honestly I would rather blow brains out of heads than watch porn in a video game.

Because I play games to relieve stress sometimes, and when I see a scene I wish I was a part of it makes my stress go up.

[Bluecast]

I play RPGs as since I was a child I loved adventure stories so I read LOTR,Hobbit,Illiad,Tom Sawyer,Huck Finn.Bridge to Terrabithyia,loved films as a kid like Legend,The Hobbit,The Neverending Story,Princess Bride..
So I look as games the same way as any medium. An escape to a fantasy world where people can do what they wish they could but can't. Not always of course but it's the main reason. Maybe why rape sims are not a very popular genre.

[Vyse Hazuky]

I think now it would be a good time to remember some words of the legendary Mel Croucher (one of the most inventive and original ZX Spectrum game directors) in interview to Crash Magazine:

“I find violent games very unpleasant for a number of reasons. Firstly they are pathetically inadequate, because the characters depicted are still awfully basic (...) (Vyse adds: this was 1986, mind!)(...) They are dressing up hackneyed ideas. That’s my first objection. Secondly, they are totally derivative. I think the computers that we have now offer tremendous freedom of expression for any concept. Thirdly I think they are socially destructive. I’ve been saying it for years and people are very bored with me saying it like that but I think it is very dangerous to encourage young people to believe that winning is to do with killing. I think that’s extremely dangerous. We have a new generation coming who will have no qualms whatsoever about pulling the trigger in any circumstance.”

[KiBa]

I don't know about what Mr. Croucher says there. Fear plays a large role violent encounters, and when you play games, you don't fear pain, and gamers know that. For example, some of the best FPS players I know suck at paintball because they end up hiding the whole time because now it hurts to get shot. The mortal danger of war is much more terrifying.

[IwaoHazuki]

I think a lot of the discussion in this thread has been convoluted under attempts of political expression and bias for particular cultures. If we're debating the advantages and disadvantages of firearm ownership in America, little progress will be yielded.

I shoot firearms at least once a week, owning over 20 of them. In fact, I love taking a friend shooting for their first time. All anti-gun proponents that I've met (in person, not online) seem to have never fired a gun in their lives. I think it's a fear ingrained by certain cultures, including one that's evident in this thread. Guns are portrayed as reckless, dangerous tools for "lesser" beings, while swords are legendary instruments created by the few remaining expert forgers and vials of dragon tears.

Some of the best science, technology, and machining techniques are involved in the manufacturing and development of firearms. The assumption that gun owners are just slobs who go "click-bang" is insulting. There are several people I know that are naturally better shooters than I am. There are people I know that train harder than I do, and it shows. I live in an area where I can practice my hobbies freely. There's nothing like setting up training course, and safely moving through it, taking out targets in a calculated, safe manner.


That's me on the left being a gun-toting hillbilly who don't know nothin' 'bout nothin'.

Even shooting paper or steel targets at a firing range is a ton of fun. I can almost guarantee, if anyone here spent a day with me learning about firearms and safety procedures, they'd be quick to change the way they feel about firearm ownership. They also might be quick to notice that shooting firearms require that the operator continually develop and improve in order to stay competitive. I'm not a firearm enthusiast because I was in the military, or because I'm a violent person. My civilian friends can outclass me in many areas. I've carried concealed nearly everyday for the past four years. I've never once felt that I've needed to brandish my weapon, nor have I.

[Bluecast]

You know why this country has the highest amount of shooting related crimes? because we allow people to be personal armies. Sad. Blech can't stand this country

[mue 26]

Hmm, I'm not sure. On the one hand, I perfectly understand the argument that Army/Police are allowed to have guns, so civilians should be allowed as well, as if that ruling force becomes oppressive the guns can be used for revolution. I know people that strongly believe in this argument, that it's just so the playing fields are equal and it would be a government violation of another right to take those guns away. My counter argument to this is that, you need more than just guns to fight oppression, what are most important are intelligence and freedom of thought, far more so than freedom of guns. Because unfortunately in a huge country like the USA, in many areas poverty is high and education is poor, and not only that but people are more influenced by media and education system than anything else. Therefore I think having guns is largely irrelevant (I also don't believe in violent revolution) and just leads to them being misused.

Even shooting paper or steel targets at a firing range is a ton of fun. I can almost guarantee, if anyone here spent a day with me learning about firearms and safety procedures, they'd be quick to change the way they feel about firearm ownership. They also might be quick to notice that shooting firearms require that the operator continually develop and improve in order to stay competitive. I'm not a firearm enthusiast because I was in the military, or because I'm a violent person. My civilian friends can outclass me in many areas. I've carried concealed nearly everyday for the past four years. I've never once felt that I've needed to brandish my weapon, nor have I

The issue isn't so much about you, though. I'm sure you are a very responsible gun owner (though it is slightly worrying that you always carry it with you), but when you make firearms so easily available, unnecessary tragedies are bound to happen. If you look at the gun crime rate of America surely this illustates how much harm these weapons are inflicting upon people. And say what you will about the sword, but at least with a sword it's much harder to kill people who are uninvolved. With guns, half the time people who are just in the wrong place at the wrong time get hit with a bullet that wasn't even meant for them. Gun's make killing in general much easier and less direct than a sword does. So is this really worth it, Just so some can enjoy the sporting element of guns?

As for Videogames, I agree with the guy in Vyse's post.

[IwaoHazuki]

Please enlighten me why most if you really love guns and games and film with guns and bangs and booms.
Honestly curious

I thought you were honestly curious. You don't seem to care about why we enjoy firearms, only in assuming there's a correlation between firearms and shooting related crimes, which is true. However, what is not true, is a correlation between firearms and violent crime. Like you mentioned earlier, you don't have a gun, but you have a perfectly good bat that you could use. Why did Washington D.C. have one of the highest violent crime rates after banning handguns?

Where people and politicians stand on the Second Amendment, lets me know what they think of me as a person. Do I want to elect a leader who thinks I'm part of an unruly mob that needs to be contained, controlled, and manipulated into their ideal society? Or do I want to elect leader who views me as a responsible, intellectual individual, capable of using a dangerous tool to defend my life, liberty, or property? Honestly, how do you expect governing bodies to defend your rights as a citizen if they think you're too dumb to defend yourself? Next, you'll be too dumb to enjoy free speech. People never seem to support monopolies, unless it's a government's monopoly on the use of force.

Now, if you'd like to use preferential statistics to blow things out of proportion, I'd be more than happy to engage in that debate. As a concealed handgun license holder, I am five times less likely than non-license holders to commit violent crimes. That means, if everyone carried, there would be five times less violence in this world, right? We don't live in a lawless society. I could use the same arguments for gun control to promote the regulation of any other liberty that we enjoy. Individuals with personal computers are 38 more times likely to download child pornography and 60 times more like to engage in computer hacking! I don't approve of child pornographers, so I think banning personal computers is the only rational solution. Educating yourself is the only way to understand the true dangers of gun ownership. I want you to understand, but I won't debate one-liner arguments, especially if you're not "reading novels."

[Bluecast]

I rather live in a world without them. second amendment is just something from the 1700's to protect us from England. If they have fire arms it must be MUCH MUCH more strict. Hard to get a license must be trained and can only own up to 2-3. People don't need 30-40-100+ guns. Also considering the idiots who don't know how to use a computer and are morons yes we need a license to use those as well and training. I will never ever ever do technical support with flashers again . Also the people owning these guns MUST by law keep them locked up if a minor is taking residence. To many accidental deaths that way and almost killed my father that way. This dumb country is way to loose about it. The computer argument is a very flawed one. Computers were not designed for that guns were made with one purpose. To kill. A pencil can kill to but was not destined for that. I can smash an Xbox on your head and kill ya,but was not made as a weapon. Guns are.

[mue 26]

All valid points Iwao, but I think I already offered valid arguments to them in my previous post.

However, what is not true, is a correlation between firearms and violent crime. Like you mentioned earlier, you don't have a gun, but you have a perfectly good bat that you could use. Why did Washington D.C. have one of the highest violent crime rates after banning handguns?

Of course, Violent crime isn't determined simply by the fact that guns are available. However you have to consider what effect guns have on violent crime. As I pointed out earlier, it makes killing easier and less personal and it massively increases the risk of a 3rd un-involved party being hurt and catching a bullet that wasn't meant for them. In London recently there was a case of some young thugs chasing another teenager who ran into a shop, the pursuers chased their target into the shop and proceeded to fire at him, they missed and ended up hitting a little girl. Knife crime is obviously horrendous and is also plagueing our capital city, however, with knife crime this kind of thing just doesn't happen.

Where people and politicians stand on the Second Amendment, lets me know what they think of me as a person. Do I want to elect a leader who thinks I'm part of an unruly mob that needs to be contained, controlled, and manipulated into their ideal society? Or do I want to elect leader who views me as a responsible, intellectual individual, capable of using a dangerous tool to defend my life, liberty, or property? Honestly, how do you expect governing bodies to defend your rights as a citizen if they think you're too dumb to defend yourself? Next, you'll be too dumb to enjoy free speech. People never seem to support monopolies, unless it's a government's monopoly on the use of force.

A valid point, but not necessarily true. If I were a politician trying to ban guns, it wouldn't because I though you were stupid and irresponsible, but because I recognise the fact that in a country as big as America there are loads of poorly educated people who are willing to shoot other people(this is statistical fact) and once that is fixed then I have no problem buy as many guns as you want. But we are not there yet. Too many people are dying due to gun crime.

I am five times less likely than non-license holders to commit violent crimes. That means, if everyone carried, there would be five times less violence in this world, right?

Maybe less violent crime, but I could grantee that more people would be getting murdered and dying. Maybe without guns more fights take place, but they are non lethal fights. Look at countries like somalia were all factions have guns, they haven't achieved some kind of peace due to possessing guns, more people are just dying.

We don't live in a lawless society.

So why do you never go out without a gun

could use the same arguments for gun control to promote the regulation of any other liberty that we enjoy. Individuals with personal computers are 38 more times likely to download child pornography and 60 times more like to engage in computer hacking!

Computers weren't build to primarily access child porn and to hack though. Guns are specifically designed to kill.

Educating yourself is the only way

I agree, education is key, though.

[IwaoHazuki]

I rather live in a world without them. second amendment is just something from the 1700's to protect us from England. If they have fire arms it must be MUCH MUCH more strict. Hard to get a license must be trained and can only own up to 2-3. People don't need 30-40-100+ guns. Also considering the idiots who don't know how to use a computer and are morons yes we need a license to use those as well and training. I will never ever ever do technical support with flashers again . Also the people owning these guns MUST by law keep them locked up if a minor is taking residence. To many accidental deaths that way and almost killed my father that way. This dumb country is way to loose about it. The computer argument is a very flawed one. Computers were not designed for that guns were made with one purpose. To kill. A pencil can kill to but was not destined for that. I can smash an Xbox on your head and kill ya,but was not made as a weapon. Guns are.

ARPANET, which led to the development of the internet, was designed to enhance communications ... for a more efficient military. Guess what they do? Do civilians need military technologies in their homes? Swords were designed to kill, but I have a feeling you might not give the same argument if that were the topic.

it makes killing easier and less personal and it massively increases the risk of a 3rd un-involved party being hurt and catching a bullet that wasn't meant for them. In London recently there was a case of some young thugs chasing another teenager who ran into a shop

It also makes defending yourself easier. Do I want a gun or a baseball bat if I'm attacked by a group of thugs? It's like assuming war is a less likely scenario if armies were reduced to carrying knitting needles. The show must go on. Violence and murder will occur, regardless of what exists. However, the firearm can equalize a potentially violent conflict with an attacker that possesses much greater strength or numbers.

Too many people are dying due to gun crime.

To many people are dying from numerous causes. What is your solution to end gun crime?

So why do you never go out without a gun

In a lawful society, a majority of the people follow the law. I am a law abiding citizen. I legally carry a gun. Though we do not live in a lawless society, I'm not ignorant of criminals and other dangers. We enforce the law when people are found in violation of the law, reducing the risk of unlawful behavior.

Computers weren't build to primarily access child porn and to hack though. Guns are specifically designed to kill.

See my response to Ryudo above.

[Bluecast]

But not the internet invented in the late 90's.
That's not truly the internet. Sure is had the web but it's like crediting Farnsworth for LCD tv's or Grahm bell for cell phones. The inevtor of the wheel for cars. we are web 2.0 and it was invented for social use. Computers were invented for information and as tools for math.
Plus you avoided the other points. Funny.