Violent Video Games Removed From Rest Areas

It is wildly depressing that people think you can ban yourself into safety.
 
I agree it's going too far to ban violent games everywhere but you have to agree it's common sense censorship to take these out of public areas where children play.
 
mattchapman said:
I agree it's going too far to ban violent games everywhere but you have to agree it's common sense censorship to take these out of public areas where children play.
Click to expand...

I can agree with that. I wouldn't let my kids buy some gore infested game. They just recently got to play CoD (age 13). Going to the arcade can be for kids and adults, though. I like those dark and gory games at times. But, my kids can't play. So, as a parent, I have to limit what games my kids can and cannot play, even at an arcade that has those games - it's my job to make sure they don't play them.

I'd expect Chuck E Cheese to not have to gory and violent games. But, other arcades would be ok, as long as they weren't mainly targeted towards kids. That's just good business practice. Cater to your target audience.
 
When did the USA turn into such a pussy?!
Did the collapse of the Soviet Union really do this to us?

Well, yes, yes it did.
The 80's were awesome, then 90's were blech, the 00's were a little better, now the 10's are like the late 60's, only with hipsters instead of hippies.
 
Ur_Mom said:
They are great... Until you can't see your toes. And laying on your stomach... Propped up a bit.
Click to expand...

All I can say to you is this:

4e0af7b7-dc8d-4092-abbc-8f1967ab21e3.jpg
 
They need to ban war.

No more defense spending, rocket launchers, guns, and shit.

After all, COD is based on all the bullshit the US government does.
 
WhyYouLoveMe said:
"Just outside the rest rooms was a young man pointing a life-sized machine gun at one of the plaza’s video game machines, firing rapidly and with a loud rat-tat-tat-tat-tat-tat sound. The image of the tragic shootings at Sandy Hook Elementary School immediately came to mind, and we were struck by the possibility that someone from the Newtown community, driving east for the Christmas holiday, might stumble across this scene."

This may be one of the dumbest quotes I've ever read.
Click to expand...

No doubt.

Look, we all agree tragic deaths are bad and unfortunate. However, this "for the children" shit is asinine. Let's fritter away fun, intellect, unalienable rights, etc. "for the children". Whenever we get that line of horseshit, we know it's a knee-jerk reaction that fucks everybody.
 
Just like the Patriot Act (first signed into law on October 26th, 2001) and the creation of Homeland Security. In fact, these happened so fast after 9/11 you might even say they seemed prepared in advance of the event.
 
DeathPrincess said:
Isn't the whole idea of a democracy that the most popular government does what's most popular? :p
Click to expand...

1) We're a constitutional republic (or were suppose to be)

2) In practice, it appears in a democracy, government does whatever gets them rewarded by better press. What most people actually want doesn't matter. People who let the media think for them control enough of the vote to decide elections. That's why we have a mediocracy.
 
Just outside the rest rooms was a young man pointing a life-sized machine gun at
Click to expand...

No, there wasn't. There was apparently a young man using a pointing device attached to an arcade machine.

But the author of the article would like you to really believe that someone had a "machine gun" pointed at a video game, because that's how far the violence has gone so we have to ban all the guns, bullets, and hands that can use guns and bullets.
 
When I was a kid I used sticks as rifles and my hands as pistols and played war, pointing them at animals and people and cars... All sticks and children's hands need to be removed to prevent violent crime... wait... GENIUS!
 
Ur_Mom said:
34D, part time. It's rough...


AHHHH! I can't feel my toes! AH! I DON'T HAVE ANY TOES!
Click to expand...

How does someone have those "part time" anyhow? I didn't think they were removable.

Erk...the topic though...that article was written by a stupid-head. Either way, gun control or not, I don't really care as long as people just stop talking about it to one another and go do something if it bothers them so much.
 
SkribbelKat said:
How does someone have those "part time" anyhow? I didn't think they were removable.
Click to expand...

Think Ru Paul.... But straight. White. Short. :cool:

Erk...the topic though...that article was written by a stupid-head. Either way, gun control or not, I don't really care as long as people just stop talking about it to one another and go do something if it bothers them so much.
Click to expand...

If I catch my kids playing a game that I've already said no to, they don't get ANY games. If I think a game is too violent, they don't play it. Yes, I do watch and monitor what they do. Yes, they've been pissed off that they can't play them. But, I'm a parent now, and I need to do the job. As a parent, I'm not pissed off that kids have access to these things. I'm pissed off that some parents don't care and think it's up to everyone else to limit the access. Sorry, parents need to be parents and do the job. Don't leave it up to everyone else to do it for you. Besides, my idea of "too violent" might be too much for others. Some people are pissed that rock can beat scissors because it shows too much conflict..... :rolleyes:
 
Oh good, those two games were the most expensive arcade game to play anyway, and they were s#!te.

Although I still think it's a god given right to blow money on a crappy shooter, and walk away feeling like you got ripped off, still doesn't inspire me to lose my mind and go on a shooting spree though.
 
Ur_Mom said:
Think Ru Paul.... But straight. White. Short. :cool:
Click to expand...

I really have to stop running web searches on stuff I read here.

If I catch my kids playing a game that I've already said no to, they don't get ANY games. If I think a game is too violent, they don't play it. Yes, I do watch and monitor what they do. Yes, they've been pissed off that they can't play them. But, I'm a parent now, and I need to do the job. As a parent, I'm not pissed off that kids have access to these things. I'm pissed off that some parents don't care and think it's up to everyone else to limit the access. Sorry, parents need to be parents and do the job. Don't leave it up to everyone else to do it for you. Besides, my idea of "too violent" might be too much for others. Some people are pissed that rock can beat scissors because it shows too much conflict..... :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

Responsible parenting? I thought that kind of thing was basically obsolete now that we have Facebook and moderated internet forums. Anyhow, parents should be the ones to make choices about what their munchkins are exposed to even if what works for some people doesn't work for others. As long as its reasonable/legal/ethical/so forth I think that people ought to mind their own business and let someone else handle their kids how they see fit. Whatever though, I'm just one Skribbel and can't control the world until my kitty is motivated enough to take over, then leave me in charge while he naps.
 
Its seems like this small town was just being sensitive to a neighbouring town that's inbetween larger cities that had a recent school shooting of kindergarten children by 'moving' a gun-related game from a frequently publically visited place by visiting motorist from said city (IE restrooms). Seems possible that during a trip from point A to B people would stop to use a restroom if its a long trip; albiet the average citizen from the city probably wouldn't care.

I could see the family having some post traumatic stress from having their child shot and murdered during a regular school day and I guess alleviating the suffering of a family who had their child taken from them in a tragedic way doesn't seem that bad if it just means a local teenager has to walk a bit further to reach his arcade game. Walking a few extra doesn't kill teenagers -- psychos with guns do....
 
Tekara said:
Commit a crime with your bare hands, it's your fault.
Commit a crime with a knife, it's your fault.
Commit a crime with a car, it's your fault.
Commit a crime with explosives, it's your fault.
Commit a crime with a gun, it's the gun's fault?

I just don't understand at all. . .
Click to expand...

Answer: Unarmed people can't fight back against which of those above? Explosives(realistically, its very hard to fight C4 tapped to the bottom of your car and/or a grenade thrown under your feet) and guns.

In the case of the recent school shooting of those kindergarten children, let's pretend the same mentally-ill son of the teacher tried to KILL AND MURDER -- with a car. The car might have made it through 1 or possibly two walls and killed a few kids before ultimately running into a set of lockers and resulting in severe damage. Far less than 40.

In the case of say, a knife. The mentally ill person maybe stabs his mom, the kids run out of the class screaming and a few go the various neighbouring classrooms, the school office to get the principle/vice principle/secretary/whatever. 5-6 adults quickly show up and now you have 5-6 adults vs 1 man with a knife. The man with the knife is tackled to the ground and the knife wrestled from his hand. Ambulance comes and maybe the mother is saved as knife wounds are not always fatal and less often fatal than multiple shots from semi-automatic weapons.

In the case of fists, well. Pretty much the same scenario as above but no need to wrestle the life out of the persons hands, very likely 0 deaths and the mother very likely survives although probably spends some time in the hospital.

With a semi-automatic magazine and multiple weapons? 40+ children and teachers killed. Why do people blame guns? Without the gun, the scenario would have been different and less lives lost. Knives serve legitimate non-lethal purposes in our society such as preparing food, eating utensils, cutting instruments for inanimate objects (though scissors or box cutters are more common/useful in some cases). Cars serve legitimate non-lethal purposes in our society such as being transportation devices for people, emergencies(ambulences) and goods(see Fedex trucks).

Guns primary and main purpose is as a lethal killing tool -- although ideally to kill 'animals' and not 'people'. Cetain types of guns are more suitable for sport hunting imo like long-range rifles or rifles in general. Single or few-bullet kills yield more useable meat/animal products. Shotguns with bullets designed to shatter into many peices upon entry making the meat almost uneatable and animal products unable to obtain? Uzis? Gatlin Guns? AK47s and a few other types of weapons seem mostly suited to specifically killing people and were designed with that purpose primarily. I'm in favour of a ban on assault weapons and allowing/keeping sport hunting rifles, bows, small knifes for cutting tools available to the public. People blame guns because of the limited use to society outside of killing unlike knifes, cars and fists :p
 
Before someone also mentions explosives as being a 'lethal killing tool'...the sale of explosives is limited, has regulations and requires a lisence in some case. Explosives are also necessary for demolition and were used to build highways, railways and are used to help preventively set off land-slides/road-slides before they happen in a controlled manner -- ie have a legitimate non-lethal uses. I also believe that if a small explosion can be used to accomplish a job, a small explosive will be used. IE. Nobody attempts to demolish a building with an atomic bomb or by 'exploding' with one very large central charge as supposed to imploding with a series of many 'small' charges.
 
WBurchnall said:
With a semi-automatic magazine and multiple weapons? 40+ children and teachers killed.
Click to expand...

First of all, there's no such thing as a semi-automatic magazine. Please learn what you're talking about before you try to talk about it.

Secondly, yes...multiple weapons, which included handguns. Notice that nobody is talking about a handgun ban despite the fact that semi-automatic rifles accounted for under 5% of all gun murders last year, while handguns caused over 75% of them. Why? Two simple reasons.

The chumps are blaming semi-automatic weapons because they don't understand them. Like you, they don't know the difference between a magazine and a firearm, much less a magazine and a clip, or whether they can be semi-automatic. Hint: semi-automatic rifles operate no differently than semi-automatic weapons. One trigger pull, one bullet, as opposed to fully-automatic, which are practically illegal already. Additionally, magazine size is largely irrelevant. Very high-capacity magazines like were used in the Aurora theater shooting, and the Hollywood bank heist in the 90s, tend to jam because they're usually not well made. In addition, it's more difficult to load and use those large-capacity magazines, especially in a crazy shooting scenario. Also, anyone who spends a half hour practicing can reload a magazine fast enough that limits on magazine size are irrelevant.

The people in charge are blaming semi-automatic weapons because those weapons are a direct threat to their power. Make no mistake that 20 civilians armed with handguns would likely ward off a group of cops sent to confiscate someone's weapons. However...20 civilians armed with semi-automatic weapons would effect the same against military members...like the ones who raided homes, tied people up, and took their weapons after the Katrina disaster. Politicians don't give a shit about violence. They hired armed security guards to protect their asses at all times. The kind of violence they fear is something they can't buy their way away from.

Lastly, yes...a car would, maybe, if you're lucky, kill less than 20 people. Unless driven into a playground, front of the school either when they first arrive or when they're leaving, driven through the front of a school straight into a classroom, etc. That's just in a school zone. Drive fast into any large crowd of people and you're looking at huge body counts. Less than ten years ago, guess what an elderly person with a car did? Kill 10 people and injure another 63. That puts most massacres by gun to shame, but I don't remember the same screaming mob demanding government legislation to outlaw cars that go over 25MPH.
 
WBurchnall said:
Guns primary and main purpose is as a lethal killing tool -- although ideally to kill 'animals' and not 'people'. Cetain types of guns are more suitable for sport hunting imo like long-range rifles or rifles in general. Single or few-bullet kills yield more useable meat/animal products. Shotguns with bullets designed to shatter into many peices upon entry making the meat almost uneatable and animal products unable to obtain? Uzis? Gatlin Guns? AK47s and a few other types of weapons seem mostly suited to specifically killing people and were designed with that purpose primarily. I'm in favour of a ban on assault weapons and allowing/keeping sport hunting rifles, bows, small knifes for cutting tools available to the public. People blame guns because of the limited use to society outside of killing unlike knifes, cars and fists :p
Click to expand...

Good grief, I missed some of this stuff. First of all, shotguns do not fire "bullets that shatter into many pieces upon entry". The closest round to that description would be hollow-point or frangible ammo, and both are only used in pistol or rifle rounds. Shotguns tend to have either slugs, which are simply large bullets, or shot, which is a collection of bb-sized metal balls that are designed to spread and cover a larger area(and ideally bring something/someone down faster than other alternatives).

Oh...and shotguns are one of the most commonly used hunting weapons, especially for hunting various birds. There's a type of ammo called "bird shot", where the pellets are extremely small, and intended to do as little damage as possible to the meat. I have a strong feeling that you've either never been hunting in your life, or you went hunting with someone who didn't know anything about it.

Also, semi-automatic rifles are just as good for hunting as any other weapon, and some would argue better. The most common semi-automatic rifle, the AR-15, shoots a 5.56mm round, which is little different from the .22 round used in Daisy rifles by kids and teenagers for much of this last century. If you pull the trigger of an AR-15 once, it shoots the same amount of rounds as those .22 rifles do, and any hunter worth a damn would be going for a kill shot with the first shot. By contrast, the rounds used in most hunting rifles, like .308 and 30-06 are a much bigger round, capable of "ruining meat" in a far more profound way than those uber-killer semi-auto rifles can. Even so...when we're in a time that hunting is a hobby, rather than a necessity(due to a plentiful food supply), then you can see hunting as something which should have a limit on tools. However, if things get really bad, some people will be hunting merely to feed themselves...perhaps even you. At that moment, you'll be wanting an "assault weapon" very badly. ;)

One question: can you even define "assault weapon"? Note: it is distinctly different from the meaning of "assault rifle". Do you know the latter's definition, either?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top