insanejedi

@Bourbon_Warrior said:

Explain to me what I am making up? Heres a poll taking last year with NRA members that details what I said about wanting regulations

Among the survey's key findings:

• 87 percent of NRA members agree that support for 2 Amendment rights goes hand-in-hand with keeping guns out of the hands of criminals.
• There is very strong support for criminal background checks:

• 74 percent support requiring criminal background checks of anyone purchasing a gun.
• 79 percent support requiring gun retailers to perform background checks on all employees – a measure recently endorsed by the National Shooting Sports Foundation, the trade association for the firearms industry.

• NRA members strongly support allowing states to set basic eligibility requirements for people who want to carry concealed, loaded guns in public places. By contrast, the NRA leadership's top federal legislative priority – national reciprocity for concealed carry permits – would effectively eliminate these requirements by forcing every state to allow non-residents to carry concealed guns even if they would not qualify for a local permit.

NRA members support many common state eligibility rules for concealed carrying:

75 percent of NRA members believe concealed carry permits should only be granted to applicants who have not committed any violent misdemeanors, including assault.

74 percent of NRA members believe permits should only be granted to applicants who have completed gun safety training.

68 percent of NRA members believe permits should only be granted to applicants who do not have prior arrests for domestic violence.

63 percent of NRA members believe permits should only be granted to applicants 21 years of age or older.

So if the NRA are only there for the 2nd amendment, wouldn't that mean criminals are allowed firearms?

And what I said about Gun Companys heavily investing in NRA

But membership fees don't pay the NRA's bills alone. In recent years, the group has become more aggressive about seeking donations, both from individuals and corporations, and that in turn has led it to become more deeply entwined with the gun industry. In 2010, it received $71 million in contributions, up from $46.3 million in 2004. Some of that money came from small-time donors, who've received a barrage of fundraising appeals warning of President Obama's imminent plot to gut the Second Amendment and confiscate Americans' firearms. But around 2005, the group began systematically reaching out to its richest members for bigger checks through its "Ring of Freedom" program, which also sought to corral corporate donors. Between then and 2011, the Violence Policy Center estimates that the firearms industry donated as much as $38.9 million to the NRA's coffers. The givers include 22 different gun makers, including famous names like Smith & Wesson, Beretta USA, SIGARMS, and Sturm, Ruger & Co. that also manufacture so-called assault weapons.

Some of that funding has given the NRA a direct stake in gun and ammo sales. As Bloomberg noted in its January article, Sturm, Ruger & Co. launched a campaign to sell one million guns, and promised to donate $1 of each purchase to the group. Since 1992, MidWay USA, which retails gun supplies including ammo and controversial high-capacity magazines, has allowed its customers to round up each of their online and mail orders to the nearest dollar, and automatically donate the extra to the NRA. Together with other companies that have joined the effort, MidWay has helped collect more than $9 million for NRA. MidWay's owner, Larry Pottfield, also happens to be the the group's largest individual donor.

These connections have fueled the theory among some gun-control advocates that the NRA is just another corporate front. That might theoretically explain why the group has opposed politically popular measures such as requiring background checks at gun shows and banning sales to people on the terrorist watch list, proposals that even its own members have been found to support. For gun makers, the fewer rules, the better.

"They translate the industry's needs into less crass, less economically interested language -- into defending the home, into defending the country," Tom Diaz, the Violence Policy Center's senior policy analyst, told me in an interview. One example, he said, was concealed carry laws, which the NRA promotes as self-defense measures. As Diaz explained, letting private citizens carry their handguns in public also just happened to allow firearms manufacturers to make and market new, smaller weapons with higher calibers.

http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2012/12/whom-does-the-nra-really-speak-for/266373/

So please explain to me the part I am making up?

I really want you to think about what you just posted in relation to your premise here.

Exactly dude, but it was taking over by the Gun Companies, to push their own agenda in Washington. The majority of NRA wants tougher regulations on guns, because they just want to go hunting, they don't want a 50 round semi-auto assault weapon to go hunt deer with, but the people that sadly control the NRA now just want to sell and make as much money as possible...

I'm going to admit right now you are REALLY good at misleading people and misrepresenting people, and I'm probably the only one right now that is hemorrhaging by your gigantic red herring evidence.

What you just did was say...

NRA wants tougher regulations on guns

And provided evidence by the polling data.

Among the survey's key findings:

• 87 percent of NRA members agree that support for 2 Amendment rights goes hand-in-hand with keeping guns out of the hands of criminals.
• There is very strong support for criminal background checks:

• 74 percent support requiring criminal background checks of anyone purchasing a gun.
• 79 percent support requiring gun retailers to perform background checks on all employees – a measure recently endorsed by the National Shooting Sports Foundation, the trade association for the firearms industry.

• NRA members strongly support allowing states to set basic eligibility requirements for people who want to carry concealed, loaded guns in public places. By contrast, the NRA leadership's top federal legislative priority – national reciprocity for concealed carry permits – would effectively eliminate these requirements by forcing every state to allow non-residents to carry concealed guns even if they would not qualify for a local permit.

NRA members support many common state eligibility rules for concealed carrying:

75 percent of NRA members believe concealed carry permits should only be granted to applicants who have not committed any violent misdemeanors, including assault.

74 percent of NRA members believe permits should only be granted to applicants who have completed gun safety training.

68 percent of NRA members believe permits should only be granted to applicants who do not have prior arrests for domestic violence.

63 percent of NRA members believe permits should only be granted to applicants 21 years of age or older.

So if the NRA are only there for the 2nd amendment, wouldn't that mean criminals are allowed firearms?

Which all just shows that NRA members support CERTAIN CURRENTLY EXISTING US LAW. To the uninformed who don't care about firearms and I don't really blame them, they don't know that all these things listed are currently existing law.

But with this evidence you insinuate that.

NRA wants tougher regulations on guns

Misrepresentation? I think so. Because through this evidence you presuppose that with your following statement.

they don't want a 50 round semi-auto assault weapon to go hunt deer with

Meaning that most in the NRA through your statements are okay or in support of things like the Assault Weapons Ban which limits 10 round magazines. No where in your evidence support this evidence. I can tell you right now that that the vast majority of NRA members do not support the ban of sale of standard capacity magazines (ones that were designed for the firearm), ban on semi-automatic weapons, or premits to purchasing firearms as evidenced here.

So if the NRA are only there for the 2nd amendment, wouldn't that mean criminals are allowed firearms?

What a strawman arguement. You realize that convicted felons are stripped of their constitutional rights which include the right to vote?

How would you feel if I polled the ECA and found that most likely most gamers are fine with ESRB ratings, and that most retailers ID people they feel are underage for M-rated games, and went to washington to show that gamers support tougher regulations on games with such broad of a statement?

That might theoretically explain why the group has opposed politically popular measures such as requiring background checks at gun shows and banning sales to people on the terrorist watch list, proposals that even its own members have been found to support

What a bullshit poll. It asked such a broad question and from that pulled out that most NRA supports are in favor of background checks at gun shows.

Seventy-four percent of the current and former NRA members and 87 percent of the other gun owners supported criminal background checks of anyone purchasing a gun,

I know most of you are not into firearms and will look at that and say "Oh hey, the NRA members support background checks for ANYONE purchasing a gun." Background checks are made to every single gun purchase by a licensed Federal Firearms Dealer in all 50 states TODAY. What they want to pull from this is the requirement for a background check at guns shows.

"But what's the problem with that you gun toating crazy nut?"

The problem with that is at gun shows these are regarded as private-private transactions. Or simply put selling a gun you bought at a regular store to another person, like your friend, brother or cousin. At a gun show if you are running a BUSINESS, you have to apply for a Federal Firearms License which allows you to buy and sell firearms at the market requiring a background check for the individual for the purpose of BUSINESS. (i.e making a profit) But if you are not running a business and not making profit regularly or selling guns regularly at a gun show, and selling your guns at a gun show because it makes sense and you have a mortgage payment to make, then you do not require an FFL or to give a background check because it is regarded how it is like selling your gun to a friend. Anything else is a felony,

Does it seem not as simple as you make it out to be? Yes it isn't as simple. But I guess that's why it's so easy to fool people rather then telling the honest to god damn truth about these things. Because people especially here do not actively go through the process of buying, selling, and understanding firearms law, and I don't care if they don't, but I care when they start spouting off bullshit like this and misrepresenting the industry and the business intentionally or unintentionally because they don't understand the nature of it.

Don't understand the law? Don't understand the nature of the business? Then shut the fuck up because you sound like Jack Thompson and Leeland Yee go on about video games. You really do...

We're done here because I'm not arguing with someone who's not following the premises of the argument, and intentionally putting red herrings, strawman arguements, and misrepresenting people.

@Bourbon_Warrior said:

Exactly dude, but it was taking over by the Gun Companies, to push their own agenda in Washington. The majority of NRA wants tougher regulations on guns, because they just want to go hunting, they don't want a 50 round semi-auto assault weapon to go hunt deer with, but the people that sadly control the NRA now just want to sell and make as much money as possible...

You are making up stuff again. I told you last time not to talk about shit you have no idea what you are talking about.

The NRA is made up of 4.3 million members paying $35 minimally each a year with many members PAYING MORE. Also, are you a member of the NRA? Are you with people who are actually NRA members? Because I am both, and what you said is completely fallacious. If the majority of the NRA members wanted tougher regulations on guns, THEY WOULDN'T BE PAYING THEIR OWN MONEY TO JOIN THE NRA EVERY YEAR. Because it is against the NRA mission statement.

Established in 1990, The NRA Foundation, Inc. (“NRA Foundation”) is a 501(c)(3) tax-exempt organization that raises tax-deductible contributions in support of a wide range of firearm-related public interest activities of the National Rifle Association of America and other organizations that defend and foster the Second Amendment rights of all law-abiding Americans. These activities are designed to promote firearms and hunting safety, to enhance marksmanship skills of those participating in the shooting sports, and to educate the general public about firearms in their historic, technological, and artistic context. Funds granted by The NRA Foundation benefit a variety of constituencies throughout the United States including children, youth, women, individuals with physical disabilities, gun collectors, law enforcement officers, hunters, and competitive shooters.

To end on that. they defend the Second Amendment, and the second amendment is not about hunting.

@Bourbon_Warrior said:

You obviously don't know the origins of guns, they were used to demolish the opposing force who had things like swords and shields. You'r whole argument is just so silly I actually think you are trolling. Like you keep bringing up the electric chair like some one could just bring that around with them, hooking people up to it one by one. Guns make cowards unstoppable, every one of these mass shootings are pretty much always nerdy skinny dudes that would of got overpowered if they went into these places with a knife, the gun was the thing that made them powerful without them they are nothing, you want to hunt with your gun? Use a bow and arrow and a knife and stop cheating with a gun.

Out of humor here you are going to criticize my lack of knowledge on guns, when you consider it cheating to hunt with a gun, instead of using a bow and arrow and a knife.

Okay dumbass, for number one do you even have the first fucking clue of how to hunt with a gun? Because not only do you have to take in consideration the range of your target, but the accuracy MOA of your rifle, where the winds blowing, calibrations to your MOA/MIL turret, barometric pressure and altitude differences, velocity of different ammo choices, terminal ballistic effectiveness of your ammo choices, whether you are shooting at a high angle or not, parallax adjustment, breathing control, trigger control, and in some cases the rotation of the earth to make a shot placement on an animal in order to drop it dead right then and there to make a clean kill.

Bows and arrows? Do you even have a god damn idea what happens when you hit an animal with a bow and arrow? When you shoot it with a gun and you do the correct placement it drops fucking dead right then and there. When you hit it with a bow the bow most of the time clogs up the wound port, making the animal unable to blead itself quickly. So now it's running around in agony for 20 god damn minutes suffering before it's last minutes. Does that sound fucking fun to you or the animal? No? So shut the hell up.

I bet you didn't even understand a quarter of what I said, so stop talking about shit that you have no idea what it is.

Now the history of guns.

The first Machinegun ever made was made by Hiram Maxim who was told

"If you want to make a pile of money, invent something that will enable these Europeans to cut each others' throats with greater facility.'"

Nothing about it said to obliterate the other side. Maxim did not make his machine guns so that the Brits could hold all the power. He sold his machine gun to everyone because they would fight each other.

A machine gun or any gun for that matter are NEVER designed as murder weapons. They are tools of WAR. Where Both sides are engaged in armed conflict. And the objective of war is to WIN, and NOT to KILL. Killing doesn't win you a war. We can kill every single person in Iran, Iraq, and Afghanistan with every the NATO arsenal but it won't WIN us a WAR.

@Dezztroy said:

@dvorak said:

@Dezztroy said:

@Bourbon_Warrior said:

I thought the linking to sites where you can buy guns is terrible taste for a game, hey you'r having fun shooting dudes with this rifle so why not buy it in real life

A civilian cannot legally buy/own the majority of the weapons represented in MoH: Warfighter.

That's completely inaccurate, but whatever.

Please show me where a civilian can pick up a milspec M249. Without the need for a license and such, of course. There's a reason manufacturers produce and sell separate products for the civilian market.

There are 8 transferable NFA M249 in existance. And what you said is "A civilian cannot legally buy/own the majority of the weapons"

Not where a civilian requires a license to purchase a majority of weapons in MoH.

But whatever you are still wrong because an NFA Firearm requires no such license.

Also what you also said is that a civilian cannot buy/own the majority of weapons in MoH, not whether or not they can own an M249, but that's still wrong too.

You can buy a transferable M249/FN Minimi for the price of small house here

All you need to do is purchase it and fill out an ATF Form here.

Then they process you through a background check in order to confirm you are not a felon, the firearm is then registared to your name, $200 tax stamp and boom you have your M249.

TLDR: Dezztroy is wrong and shouldn't talk about stuff he has no idea what he is talking about to avoid looking stupid.

@Dan_CiTi said:

Well this is silly, guns aren't made for killing/harming things? It's not a kendo sword or some nunchucks, it's a fucking gun, and you shoot someone in the head or arm or leg with it, primarily a human, and if you live in the dark ages and are some hunter/poacher, an animal.

And people who use cars for anything but pure transportation are extremely silly to me, but then again I forgot too many people in the world are terrible drivers and just like to go joyriding and race down the street every night because they have nothing better to do. Also the last driving game I finished was Burnout 3 or Revenge, so there's also that part why don't give a flying fuck about cars.

A gun is designed for war, it was always designed for war right from it's very invention. Just as much as the sword and nunchuck was designed for war. A gas chamber, and a guillotine, are designed to kill people with most likely consistency to cause death.

A gun is designed to fight people who could conceivably fight back as much as a sword is made for, it was never designed to kill unarmed people who are not willing or cannot fight back, but a Sword and a Gun are terrible executioners tools, tools that have the objective of 100% killing someone/something. That's why executioners use lethal injection, electric chairs, or a nooses because they are designed to kill people.

@Bourbon_Warrior said:

Because cars primary use is to transport, guns are to kill people. What games are you refering to that do this with cars?

Well cars kill more people than guns do every year in the western world so which is morally more comfortable?

And guns are not designed to kill people, guns are designed for CONFLICT a gas chamber or electric chair is designed to kill people, a gun is designed to fight.

And every simulation racing game that has ever existed? Every Need for Speed Game, Forza Horizon? They are all glorification of driving fast and dangerous on roads that would be totally unrealistic in a simulation world. It's not wrong that they do that, it's awesome to drive a Lamborghini really fast away from cops but the manufacturers know they SELL cars through the video games.

Don't believe me? A lot of people want a Nissan GTR because of it's effectiveness in video games.

Statistically speaking again, cars kill more people than guns do every year in the western world, so which is more morally reprehensible? Promoting cars or promoting guns? Are either of those things wrong?

@Bourbon_Warrior said:

@Brodehouse said:

Electronic Arts apparently responsible for... the legal sale of firearms in the United States.

What fuckery is this? "Blatant regard for decency". Do you even know what decency means? Say what you want about comarketing, but it's not like they're promoting the sale of crystal meth. If you don't like guns, try to get guns banned. But trying to make them taboo, EA mentioning them is 'indecent'?

You're not 22, Patrick, you're as old as I am. Are you being serious with this or is this just a Tom McShea-ish play to the kneejerk and the reactionary?

I thought the linking to sites where you can buy guns is terrible taste for a game, hey you'r having fun shooting dudes with this rifle so why not buy it in real life

You already crossed that line as soon as you played games with real life guns in them. Millions of people have been killed by M16s and Ak47s and we don't bat an eyelash when they are in games.

@Dixavd said:

... Where I clearly stated that the second half of your comment, where you said you disagreed with the sentiment that it is immoral for a company to blur the line between fictional weaponry and real life weaponry, was a totally valid arguement but it is the only valid arguement you have. I clearly told you that this topic was brought up before and cared about before the shooting and that it is being brought up now after the shooting not because people suddenly care but because it needs to be discussed and people trying to blame all of this on videogames will bring it up anyway (so it must be tackled and mentioned no matter what anyones individual opinion of it was.

You were telling me not to say the first half of my argument for literally no reason. Maybe I should actually show you the article listed...

The video game industry was drawn into the national debate about gun violence last week when the National Rifle Association accused producers of violent games and movies of helping to incite the type of mass shooting that recently left 20 children and six adults dead at a school in Newtown, Conn.

While studies have found no connection between video games and gun violence, the case of Medal of Honor Warfighter illustrates how the firearms and video game industries have quietly forged a mutually beneficial marketing relationship.

Huh. I don't know. It seems like this article is mentioning the link between Medal of Honor, it's product placement and the shooting.

I clearly told you that this topic was brought up before and cared about before the shooting and that it is being brought up now after the shooting not because people suddenly care

This seems contradictory to your feelings.

I know this topic has been brought up before, and it's brought up again using the shootings as a political piece to make this sponsorship look nastier. There are two different but not mutually exclusively arguments being made to EA's partnership. And I tackle both of them because BOTH of those arguments are being made.

@Dixavd said:

@insanejedi: This has nothing to do with a shooting. All of these arguments were brought up when the advertising was first brought up. You can criticise anyone from making those arguments about them crossing a line but saying that people only care because of a shooting is absurd - it was talked about for great length when it was first mentioned and people cared then. The recent events have meerly made people out more scrutiny in it and now people are saying "hey guys, remember this - we never resolved before; it is worth discussing again". It isn't that people didn't care before; it is just these are things that people who want toblame video games will latch on to so we have to bring it up again due to recent events.

Don't insult the people bringing up this topic by implying that they only care because of what is in the news. If you have a problem with what they are saying then just say the second half of your comment actually criticising their arguement.

And don't take this as me simply criticising you due to me not liking your opinion - I personally don't know what to think as being in the UK where guns are illegal (well at least to the point where there aren't stores that people can go to and impulse-buy a gun from), it is hard for me to figure out what my opinion would be if that wasn't the case.

Above apparently did not read...

"OH BUT SANDY HOOK SHOOTING. IT'S SO DISRESPECTFUL!"

And a week before that it wasn't? What's so wrong with it right now that it was okay a month ago? It's such a childish notion to censor stuff because of recent events, but it's okay after a several months or a year after it has happened.

If you are also one of those people who think that crossing the threshold between real life guns and video games, then I suppose we shouldn't have name brand guns in video games as well because THAT'S crossing the line between real life and video games.

And someone apparently did not open the link which was an article that attacked EA for promoting an M rated game with real life firearm and edged tool advertising in light of the shooting.

There is no further opinion which Patrick gave other than EA was being indecent and linked to this article. There are two most likely things That Patrick believes in by bringing up that article.

A: That EA shouldn't be crossing the line between real life and games

B: That EA shouldn't be crossing this line in light of the recent shootings

Both of which I conclude are childish notions and morally inconsistent, when we have games with real life weapons, and we have games that fictionalize important historical events where many people tragically die.

• Electronic Arts continues to demonstrate its blatant disregard for decency.

Of what... Cross-Promoting real firearms and edged tools in their games from SOG And McMillan? I'm not totally sure how that's indecent.

"OH BUT SANDY HOOK SHOOTING. IT'S SO DISRESPECTFUL!"

And a week before that it wasn't? What's so wrong with it right now that it was okay a month ago? It's such a childish notion to censor stuff because of recent events, but it's okay after a several months or a year after it has happened.

Is it always indecent? I suppose we shouldn't have games like Assassin's Creed which fictionalize very brutal and immoral campaigns of the Crusades, or demonize the Catholic Church because it's insensitive.

If you are also one of those people who think that crossing the threshold between real life guns and video games, then I suppose we shouldn't have name brand guns in video games as well because THAT'S crossing the line between real life and video games. No HK MP5s, no AK-47s. You want to believe kids don't get into guns because of video games? Go talk to any gun store in your city, I GUARANTEE you some people have walked in and wanted a "Deagle" or "Glock 18" or Kriss Vector Because they loved in Counter-Strike or Call of Duty.

I'm not saying it's wrong for kids to be into guns because of video games. But it's a really childish notion to have this moral inconstancy against Video game companies and firearm companies like Mcmillian (Who only do Bolt action guns by the way) cross promoting when the entire real life firearm list in a video game is basically one big ad.