If violent games were ever banned

Well that would be infringing on free speech in a huge, unreasonable way, so I would not be ok with that. I would be infuriated to live in a country that allows the Westboro Baptist Church to spew hatred but doesn't allow violence to be depicted in fictional video games.

@oraknabo said:

Similarly with guns, I don't see much problems with pistols and hunting rifles, but I don't see anything wrong with keeping people from having automatic or semi-automatic weapons. Maybe a provision that you have to serve a certain amount of time in the military could afford you the right, but it's basically unnecessary. The whole point of the 2nd amendment is for a well-armed militia, something we needed before we had a military, it doesn't say anything about owning guns for hunting or entertainment.

Practically every weapon invented and used in the last 150 years is Semi-Automatic. - Literally every pistol, revolver, rifle, shotgun - anything that isn't bolt, pump, or manually operated. That means one shot is fired with each pull of the trigger. Fully-Automatic or Select-Fire means more than one shot is fired each pull of the trigger (ie a Machine Gun).

Just FYI.

@Pepsiman said:

@posh said:

yeah, and i'm saying that's dumb. english law is relatively dynamic, but still dumb. i'm no patriot, i hate my country and the way it operates. the constitution has rendered US law static for over 200 years, seems like a bad idea to me

I don't even know where to begin with this, but you might want to take a few legal history and constitutional law courses before painting such a broad picture of how the Constitution works in practice. The amendment system exists precisely because the founding fathers understood that the place of law in people's lives and its significance in the greater socioeconomic fabric of the world would change as the country aged; if they wanted the document preserved exactly as they envisioned it, they could have very easily left that aspect out. Hell, the Articles of Confederation, which we had before the Constitution as our canonical legal document, basically already lacked such a system, since any revisions to it required the unanimous consent of all the states that existed at the time and, what do you know, the only time it happened was to replace the busted thing that turned out to be with the Constitution we have now. We now have states' rights that enable the individual states to create their own laws when they don't inherently conflict with existing federal laws passed by the US Congress. The fight over things like GLBT rights would be even uglier if each state wasn't allowed to take a stand and set their own legal precedent internally. The significance of the Constitution is less that everything be taken literally in practice and more that it sets a philosophical precedence for the country's legal system being able to change and adapt to the needs of society whenever necessary. It's a deliberately flexible document if you actually take the time to read it and study the underlying language. The only people who seriously consider the Constitution to be static and unchanging are ultra-right-wing conservatives who object to American society deviating from their sense of what should be the moral status quo. It is certainly not otherwise the majority opinion amongst American lawyers and judges that the Constitution was supposed to remain a static document whose interpretation has to remain in line with 18th century standards; the way the Supreme Court has ruled on various cases throughout the centuries, but especially the last few decades, is highly indicative of that reality.

I'm a dyed-in-the-wool socialist who's emigrating away from the States for various personal reasons, so I'm not saying all of this as somebody who's particularly satisfied with a lot of the American legal system, far from it. But I didn't grow up surrounded by legal text books, attending law school classes with my mother, and reading essays on the nature of politics and American law by the men behind its creation to ever take seriously the notion that America's legal problems are all because the Constitution somehow prevents this society from being legally unchanging. It otherwise boggles the mind how the Thirteenth Amendment and Civil Rights Act of 1964 could have ever possibly passed, among countless other laws. If you still have philosophical objections to how the American legal system operates after knowing all that, then great, that's your prerogative and lord knows we have a terrible Congressional status quo, but I suggest you at least better research the things you're calling out before being so absolutist it. It just makes your argument more solid and you're frankly lucky that none of the law school users on here have dropped by that know the specifics of the history and mechanics behind the Constitution even more deeply than I do. They don't take kindly to arguments presented against the existing Constitutional system that are based on factually wonky pretenses.

And for the record, nobody here is claiming the Founding Fathers were perfect and I suspect the system was set up the way it actually is because they recognized society would see parts of their views as flawed and anachronistic as time went on. They didn't want a country that they were risking dying to create to be beholden to their worldviews and ideals if it was a matter of survival. Since you specifically brought it up, I'd also suggest you better read up on slavery history in the US, as there were huge circumstantial reasons within the historical record as to why slavery wasn't immediately outlawed in the Constitution as it already had been back in Britain. It was a source of social tension even back then, but I think I've said enough and then some. I almost never come out and post on political or legal threads, but you managed to word your ideas in just the right way to get me to speak up as one of the few users on here with a personal and formal history of legal education in the US. So good on you for that, I guess.

This is the best post I've seen on here in a while.

@Stonyman65: I really don't want to turn this into an argument about guns, but I guess what I mean is I don't see any need for anything with a clip.

Dude, imagine how much more time we would have to play the new SimCity.

if you want an example of how bad things can become, look at britain

@Stonyman65 said:

@oraknabo said:

Similarly with guns, I don't see much problems with pistols and hunting rifles, but I don't see anything wrong with keeping people from having automatic or semi-automatic weapons. Maybe a provision that you have to serve a certain amount of time in the military could afford you the right, but it's basically unnecessary. The whole point of the 2nd amendment is for a well-armed militia, something we needed before we had a military, it doesn't say anything about owning guns for hunting or entertainment.

Practically every weapon invented and used in the last 150 years is Semi-Automatic. - Literally every pistol, revolver, rifle, shotgun - anything that isn't bolt, pump, or manually operated. That means one shot is fired with each pull of the trigger. Fully-Automatic or Select-Fire means more than one shot is fired each pull of the trigger (ie a Machine Gun).

Just FYI.

Revolvers can't be semi-automatic because they don't use the power of the last round to load a new one. Repeating revolvers are double-action, meaning the trigger pull is what lines up the next round.

I would more or less stop playing games, considering how many of my favorite games are violent.

@MikkaQ said:

@Stonyman65 said:

@oraknabo said:

Similarly with guns, I don't see much problems with pistols and hunting rifles, but I don't see anything wrong with keeping people from having automatic or semi-automatic weapons. Maybe a provision that you have to serve a certain amount of time in the military could afford you the right, but it's basically unnecessary. The whole point of the 2nd amendment is for a well-armed militia, something we needed before we had a military, it doesn't say anything about owning guns for hunting or entertainment.

Practically every weapon invented and used in the last 150 years is Semi-Automatic. - Literally every pistol, revolver, rifle, shotgun - anything that isn't bolt, pump, or manually operated. That means one shot is fired with each pull of the trigger. Fully-Automatic or Select-Fire means more than one shot is fired each pull of the trigger (ie a Machine Gun).

Just FYI.

Revolvers can't be semi-automatic because they don't use the power of the last round to load a new one. Repeating revolvers are double-action, meaning the trigger pull is what lines up the next round.

Technically true, but you see what I was getting at right? one pull of the trigger = one shot.

A lot of non-gun people who see the word "automatic" under any circumstances immediately think it's some crazy machine gun without knowing how it actually works.

@oraknabo said:

@Stonyman65: I really don't want to turn this into an argument about guns, but I guess what I mean is I don't see any need for anything with a clip.

Magazine. And once again, pretty much anything made within the last 100 years or so has one. That's just how technology has advanced these days. It doesn't make something any more deadly. Just more Continent.

But anyways... moving on.

@Stonyman65: Just because things are contemporary doesn't mean people have to have them. Nuclear power sources have been around for a while now, but we don't allow people to power their homes with them.

@oraknabo said:

@Stonyman65: Just because things are contemporary doesn't mean people have to have them. Nuclear power sources have been around for a while now, but we don't allow people to power their homes with them.

You can't compare the two. That's just stupid.

It's not about having to have them, it's about the fact that that is all that is really around these days. If you aren't using a gun with a magazine, you're 100 years behind the curve compared to literally everyone else.

Once again, it doesn't make anything more or less deadly, it's just how it's being designed now. That's really it.

@Stonyman65: I get your point, it is important to clarify, however semi-automatics are still incredibly deadly weapons. If a hunter misses his first shot, popping off another isn't going to do him much good, he's already startled the shit out of his prey. I would argue they have no real purpose being in the public's hands.

@MikkaQ said:

@Stonyman65: I get your point, it is important to clarify, however semi-automatics are still incredibly deadly weapons. If a hunter misses his first shot, popping off another isn't going to do him much good, he's already startled the shit out of his prey. I would argue they have no real purpose being in the public's hands.

As someone who has hunted before and has shot a shitload of guns, that is the dumbest thing I have ever heard. If you miss the first shot, you can shoot again Animals move fast, but not that fast. Being able to make multiple shots doesn't make one gun any more deadly than anything else. It's easy to run a bolt or rack an action to load a new round. Once again, its a matter of convince and the advancement of technology.

Are games that portray death from a strategic perspective considered violent? Even if there's no blood or gore, what if the basic premise is killing [enemy or otherwise]?

What about DEFCON, where casualties nominally run in the millions and yet you'll never see single one? Is this a violent game?

@Stonyman65 said:

@MikkaQ said:

@Stonyman65: I get your point, it is important to clarify, however semi-automatics are still incredibly deadly weapons. If a hunter misses his first shot, popping off another isn't going to do him much good, he's already startled the shit out of his prey. I would argue they have no real purpose being in the public's hands.

As someone who has hunted before and has shot a shitload of guns, that is the dumbest thing I have ever heard. If you miss the first shot, you can shoot again Animals move fast, but not that fast. Being able to make multiple shots doesn't make one gun any more deadly than anything else. It's easy to run a bolt or rack an action to load a new round. Once again, its a matter of convince and the advancement of technology.

That's a poor argument too, if the advancement of technology meant anything we'd fight all our wars with nukes.

@MikkaQ said:

@Stonyman65 said:

@MikkaQ said:

@Stonyman65: I get your point, it is important to clarify, however semi-automatics are still incredibly deadly weapons. If a hunter misses his first shot, popping off another isn't going to do him much good, he's already startled the shit out of his prey. I would argue they have no real purpose being in the public's hands.

As someone who has hunted before and has shot a shitload of guns, that is the dumbest thing I have ever heard. If you miss the first shot, you can shoot again Animals move fast, but not that fast. Being able to make multiple shots doesn't make one gun any more deadly than anything else. It's easy to run a bolt or rack an action to load a new round. Once again, its a matter of convince and the advancement of technology.

That's a poor argument too, if the advancement of technology meant anything we'd fight all our wars with nukes.

And we would kill everyone on the planet instantly as a result. You can't compare a nuclear weapon with small arms. A gun is for killing one thing. A nuke is for killing one million things.

Once again, that's a pretty stupid thing to say. Think about it for a second.

@Stonyman65 said:

@MikkaQ said:

@Stonyman65 said:

@MikkaQ said:

@Stonyman65: I get your point, it is important to clarify, however semi-automatics are still incredibly deadly weapons. If a hunter misses his first shot, popping off another isn't going to do him much good, he's already startled the shit out of his prey. I would argue they have no real purpose being in the public's hands.

As someone who has hunted before and has shot a shitload of guns, that is the dumbest thing I have ever heard. If you miss the first shot, you can shoot again Animals move fast, but not that fast. Being able to make multiple shots doesn't make one gun any more deadly than anything else. It's easy to run a bolt or rack an action to load a new round. Once again, its a matter of convince and the advancement of technology.

That's a poor argument too, if the advancement of technology meant anything we'd fight all our wars with nukes.

And we would kill everyone on the planet instantly as a result. You can't compare a nuclear weapon with small arms. A gun is for killing one thing. A nuke is for killing one million things.

Once again, that's a pretty stupid thing to say. Think about it for a second.

My point is there are ethical considerations to be made when dealing with something that can kill. You don't need the latest technology to achieve everything a civilian needs to do with a gun. Plus gun tech doesn't advance all that quickly. Some special forces still use the 1911, 100 year old pistol design and it works fine for them. Likewise, a civilian doesn't need anything but a well built bolt or pump action rifle or shotgun to go hunting. Hell there are purists who only bow-hunt. You don't need an advanced weapon as a civilian, it's not like buying a computer.

@MikkaQ said:

@Stonyman65 said:

@MikkaQ said:

@Stonyman65 said:

@MikkaQ said:

@Stonyman65: I get your point, it is important to clarify, however semi-automatics are still incredibly deadly weapons. If a hunter misses his first shot, popping off another isn't going to do him much good, he's already startled the shit out of his prey. I would argue they have no real purpose being in the public's hands.

As someone who has hunted before and has shot a shitload of guns, that is the dumbest thing I have ever heard. If you miss the first shot, you can shoot again Animals move fast, but not that fast. Being able to make multiple shots doesn't make one gun any more deadly than anything else. It's easy to run a bolt or rack an action to load a new round. Once again, its a matter of convince and the advancement of technology.

That's a poor argument too, if the advancement of technology meant anything we'd fight all our wars with nukes.

And we would kill everyone on the planet instantly as a result. You can't compare a nuclear weapon with small arms. A gun is for killing one thing. A nuke is for killing one million things.

Once again, that's a pretty stupid thing to say. Think about it for a second.

My point is there are ethical considerations to be made when dealing with something that can kill. You don't need the latest technology to achieve everything a civilian needs to do with a gun. Plus gun tech doesn't advance all that quickly. Some special forces still use the 1911, 100 year old pistol design and it works fine for them. Likewise, a civilian doesn't need anything but a well built bolt or pump action rifle or shotgun to go hunting. Hell there are purists who only bow-hunt. You don't need an advanced weapon as a civilian, it's not like buying a computer.

What exactly do you mean by "advanced" here? I'm just talking about regular guns - like the 1911 for example.

If violence were banned in video games then developers would have to find ways to design around it. Hopefully it never comes to this, but it wouldn't be the end of the world. That was last month.

I think we've already started seeing examples of games that have focused less on blood and gore. Instead, they choose to have a less violent approach. Yes, they may be mostly indie and handheld titles, but as time goes on I hope we see more variety in triple A games as well. Don't get me wrong, I love me some violence in my video games. I especially love watching Vinny indulge his psychopathic tendencies. That is a magic exclusive to this medium.

The reason why we can laugh and have fun with these types of games is because we know the difference. The distinction being that video games and real life are two very different things. Over on Revision 3, Adam Sessler, on his show Sessler's Something, had an interesting perspective on why we enjoy these types of games.

@Stonyman65: I mean compared to the stuff that people have been hunting with for hundreds of years. Hunting is so steeped in tradition anyway, and barely has value in modern nations, so why bring anything needlessly complex into the mix, when it bears the risk of arming the insane. People have to learn to compromise or America will stay the gun murder capital of the world.

@MikkaQ said:

@Stonyman65: I mean compared to the stuff that people have been hunting with for hundreds of years. Hunting is so steeped in tradition anyway, and barely has value in modern nations, so why bring anything needlessly complex into the mix, when it bears the risk of arming the insane. People have to learn to compromise or America will stay the gun murder capital of the world.

We aren't even close to "gun murder capital of the world".

You should do some research before you start making comments like that.

"The insane" can be armed with anything. Your argument holds no water.

@Stonyman65: We have the highest gun murders per capita of any first world nation. That's nothing to be proud of.

Plus a homicidal man with a knife is going to do less harm than a man with a glock. I don't see how that argument holds no water.

@MikkaQ said:

@Stonyman65: We have the highest gun murders per capita of any first world nation. That's nothing to be proud of.

Plus a homicidal man with a knife is going to do less harm than a man with a glock. I don't see how that argument holds no water.

Not necessarily.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Osaka_school_massacre

@Stonyman65 said:

@MikkaQ said:

@Stonyman65: We have the highest gun murders per capita of any first world nation. That's nothing to be proud of.

Plus a homicidal man with a knife is going to do less harm than a man with a glock. I don't see how that argument holds no water.

Not necessarily.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Osaka_school_massacre

That's not the norm, most of these massacres are done with guns, and if you forgot so quickly Sandy Hook had over 20 deaths, not 8. Point being, we need to disarm as a nation. We don't even have militias anymore, what's the point?

The supreme court ruled that it is an individual right.

It's not going to happen.

And even if it did, the people wouldn't stand for it.

@Stonyman65 said:

The supreme court ruled that it is an individual right.

It's not going to happen.

And even if it did, the people wouldn't stand for it.

I would argue that people throughout all of history have proven time and time again that they don't deserve any individual rights.

But anyway I'm done with this discussion, there's no convincing the gun fans. Personally I think they're cool in moves and games, but other than objects of fantasy they have no place outside of military contexts.

@MikkaQ said:

@Stonyman65 said:

The supreme court ruled that it is an individual right.

It's not going to happen.

And even if it did, the people wouldn't stand for it.

I would argue that people throughout all of history have proven time and time again that they don't deserve any individual rights.

But anyway I'm done with this discussion, there's no convincing the gun fans. Personally I think they're cool in moves and games, but other than objects of fantasy they have no place outside of military contexts.

Okay. Lets agree to disagree than!

@Stonyman65 said:

@MikkaQ said:

@Stonyman65 said:

The supreme court ruled that it is an individual right.

It's not going to happen.

And even if it did, the people wouldn't stand for it.

I would argue that people throughout all of history have proven time and time again that they don't deserve any individual rights.

But anyway I'm done with this discussion, there's no convincing the gun fans. Personally I think they're cool in moves and games, but other than objects of fantasy they have no place outside of military contexts.

Okay. Lets agree to disagree than!

Sure, glad to have kept this discussion fairly civil throughout, that's rare. *hand shake*

@MikkaQ said:

@Stonyman65 said:

@MikkaQ said:

@Stonyman65 said:

The supreme court ruled that it is an individual right.

It's not going to happen.

And even if it did, the people wouldn't stand for it.

I would argue that people throughout all of history have proven time and time again that they don't deserve any individual rights.

But anyway I'm done with this discussion, there's no convincing the gun fans. Personally I think they're cool in moves and games, but other than objects of fantasy they have no place outside of military contexts.

Okay. Lets agree to disagree than!

Sure, glad to have kept this discussion fairly civil throughout, that's rare. *hand shake*

*hand shake*

...motherfucker....

lmfao

Probably all the hidden rage in man will all come out of our minds. Probably just like in the crossed comic books

If they were banned then I'd move to another country. If it was worldwide then I'd become an underground freedom fighter.

Because at that point society is fucked.

I'd shrug, sigh, then go back to watching anime.

That's...probably fine. Or not. Who can say? If it actually happened though, I'd be shocked.

The games would be so boring. A lot of people release their aggressions through violent games.

If that happened then like 80% of all games would vanish. 
And we would soon have a bunch of non-violent game (can't even hit people with socks anymore, or a pillow)  
 
But I would survive. 

I would go on a killing spree to show them how wrong they were to ban violent videogames.

I wouldn't be effected much by it, I barely buy any violent games anyway. I have absolutely no interest in FPS games which I guess is the majority of "violent" games.

@AmatureIdiot said:

I'm guessing here in the UK I'll have to buy a good PC and download a lot more weird Russian games, if the supply from america is cut off.

you should do that anyway!

As a long time horror fan, I would be really bummed and angry if it did ever happen.

The idea of some higher form of "authority" deciding for me what is ok and what's not is repugnant.

I would probably stop gaming the most fun games to me are the violent ones I have no interest in any other kind very similar to my movie taste. I love actions films if they banned those and all that where left where romantic comedies I would lose my shit.

It might be hard for me at first, if violent games get banned, but I know for sure I can move on. I always prefer playing story-driven games, so I can probably find other games that have a great story, and not much violence in them.