Vice President Joe Biden Meets With Gaming Industry

@EpicSteve said:

I welcome any tools that can teach children proper weapon safety. Although that's a skill a father should always teach, I like the idea of those basic life skills being reinforced in a (I'm assuming) simple game. I checked this game out, Patrick. I don't know where you're getting this information that it's free for ages 4 and up. There's no text in the game's description that mentioned ages it's intended for, nor does that actual game say anything upfront about who it's marketed for in terms of age.

I think he is more making the point, NRA says video games are bad, NRA puts out a video game.

@Stonyman65 said:

@Colourful_Hippie said:

@ZGoon said:

@Bizen247 said:

Joe Biden is a joke. He's a character from a Mel Brooks film except in real life. Even sounds like one. Anyone who thinks this guy is a decent politician or has any charisma is somewhere between partisan hack and political tool.

All reps from the NRA and game industry need to do is walk in the room and say, "First and Second Amendments, ever heard of them?"

And then walk out.

I don't want to seem like an ignorant Canadian, but... Why do people in your country continue to blindly cling to a bunch of stuff written down 200 years ago by a bunch of sexist, slave-owning bigots whenever someone challenges your pathetic lack of any gun control, or anything else for that matter?

Cuz it's the only defense they have and never mind the fact that the thing has been amended numerous times and in the case of the cough (18th) cough repealed. They're too busy being paranoid about a big brother takeover and irrationally think that stockpiling will save them. (Generalization sure, but that way of thinking is seriously out there. You're lying to yourself if you think that's not true)

It's like people are incapable of separating the concept of gun control from no guns.

I think the problem is that the most vocal people for gun-control don't just want to strengthen laws, they want to outlaw them completely. People like Diane Fienstien and Michael Bloomberg have said as much. I have don't really have a problem with sensible laws that actually work, the problem is that the laws people like that are trying to pass aren't sensible, and have been proven (remember the 1994 crime bill?) not to work. Stopping criminals from getting guns is a great thing, but stopping law-abiding people isn't going to do a damn thing. We already have some 2,700 gun laws on the books as it is. Let's try enforcing those rather than cooking up new ones to make ourselves feel good.

That's great and all, but haven't the majority of those that have recently lost it with a gun in a public place been, up until that moment, law-abiding citizens?

@Subjugation said:

@zodstein said:

How about we blame the asshole who shot the kids, leaving gamers and legal responsible gun owners the fuck alone...

Because that would make too much sense.

I wish there was a like, upvote, or recommend button...

then again, it would a political popularity race.

I just wanted you to know I appreciated your comments.

@Bourbon_Warrior said:

@EpicSteve said:

I welcome any tools that can teach children proper weapon safety. Although that's a skill a father should always teach, I like the idea of those basic life skills being reinforced in a (I'm assuming) simple game. I checked this game out, Patrick. I don't know where you're getting this information that it's free for ages 4 and up. There's no text in the game's description that mentioned ages it's intended for, nor does that actual game say anything upfront about who it's marketed for in terms of age.

I think he is more making the point, NRA says video games are bad, NRA puts out a video game.

Agreed, that's totally dumb when examined from a distance. But you can have the discussion that the NRA has been against violent videogames, this iOS game that tasks the player with shooting paper targets on a range isn't violent at all. This game being sold to "4 year olds" is a skewed piece of information. The game is rating 4+, for lack of ESRB. This is a common rating with iOS games (Angry Birds has this rating) due to the complete lack of violence, language, and sex.

lotta nazis on giant bomb

@EpicSteve said:

@Bourbon_Warrior said:

@EpicSteve said:

I welcome any tools that can teach children proper weapon safety. Although that's a skill a father should always teach, I like the idea of those basic life skills being reinforced in a (I'm assuming) simple game. I checked this game out, Patrick. I don't know where you're getting this information that it's free for ages 4 and up. There's no text in the game's description that mentioned ages it's intended for, nor does that actual game say anything upfront about who it's marketed for in terms of age.

I think he is more making the point, NRA says video games are bad, NRA puts out a video game.

Agreed, that's totally dumb when examined from a distance. But you can have the discussion that the NRA has been against violent videogames, this iOS game that tasks the player with shooting paper targets on a range isn't violent at all. This game being sold to "4 year olds" is a skewed piece of information. The game is rating 4+, for lack of ESRB. This is a common rating with iOS games (Angry Birds has this rating) due to the complete lack of violence, language, and sex.

Yeah I know, it's a good thing. I wish the NRA was more about this, like how they used to be about regulating gun laws instead of being a lobby to the gun companies, putting hundreds of millions into Obamas pockets.

I'm not at all interested in bringing larger political arguments to GiantBomb. But I would like to applaud the overall level-headedness in many of the comments. I was genuinely surprised.

@l4wd0g said:

@leinad44 said:

@YOU_DIED said:

can we try to keep politics off of Giant Bomb? fucks sakes, the discussions always devolve into massive shitstorms made of generalizations and emotionally charged nonsense

It's Patrick's job to report the news in the industry. When you set up your own videogame website you can ignore all the politics you want or just not click on these stories, both are pretty effective.

... then again here is Patrick on the 2012 elections

https://twitter.com/patrickklepek/status/265676589998673922

I really appreciate that the Giant Bomb staff (for the most part) don't get into politics.

When I read some of the tweets from the staff at Polygon talking about how "being a white straight male is playing life on easy" tells me that they don't have any clue about what happens in the world around them. I'm referencing the anti-Irish campaigns in both the US and abroad. Did you see the Transformers movies? Remember the racist transformer? No, not the two stereotype black transformers (Skids and Mudflap) in Transformers 2 (which was also racist), but the green transformer in 3 who spoke in an Irish accent. Funny how no one called that out for being racist.

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

Patrick should understand that Giant Bomb is a diverse group of viewers who come from many religions, political views, races, gender, nationalities, and sexual orientations. Just because you have an audience doesn't mean you should use it as your political soap box.

http://massavepr.com/social-media-separate-your-personal-opinions-professional-brand/

http://www.prdaily.com/Main/Articles/Brands_and_politics_Does_joining_the_fray_hurt_or_13281.aspx#

Wait, what?

I clearly missed a middle bit. What was the connection making white liberal guilt at a too-cool-for-school gaming website and racist robots-in-disguise evidence that Patrick is an ignorant bigot?

Also, if Giant Bomb is a diverse group of viewers who come from many religions, political views, races, gender, nationalities, and sexual orientations, does that mean that Giant Bomb makes the Assassin's Creed games? If so I think I saw them credited at the beginning of each.

Hopefully the video games industry can make there case.

@fustacluck said:

@Stonyman65 said:

@Colourful_Hippie said:

@ZGoon said:

@Bizen247 said:

Joe Biden is a joke. He's a character from a Mel Brooks film except in real life. Even sounds like one. Anyone who thinks this guy is a decent politician or has any charisma is somewhere between partisan hack and political tool.

All reps from the NRA and game industry need to do is walk in the room and say, "First and Second Amendments, ever heard of them?"

And then walk out.

I don't want to seem like an ignorant Canadian, but... Why do people in your country continue to blindly cling to a bunch of stuff written down 200 years ago by a bunch of sexist, slave-owning bigots whenever someone challenges your pathetic lack of any gun control, or anything else for that matter?

Cuz it's the only defense they have and never mind the fact that the thing has been amended numerous times and in the case of the cough (18th) cough repealed. They're too busy being paranoid about a big brother takeover and irrationally think that stockpiling will save them. (Generalization sure, but that way of thinking is seriously out there. You're lying to yourself if you think that's not true)

It's like people are incapable of separating the concept of gun control from no guns.

I think the problem is that the most vocal people for gun-control don't just want to strengthen laws, they want to outlaw them completely. People like Diane Fienstien and Michael Bloomberg have said as much. I have don't really have a problem with sensible laws that actually work, the problem is that the laws people like that are trying to pass aren't sensible, and have been proven (remember the 1994 crime bill?) not to work. Stopping criminals from getting guns is a great thing, but stopping law-abiding people isn't going to do a damn thing. We already have some 2,700 gun laws on the books as it is. Let's try enforcing those rather than cooking up new ones to make ourselves feel good.

That's great and all, but haven't the majority of those that have recently lost it with a gun in a public place been, up until that moment, law-abiding citizens?

Law abiding citizens who all had numerous mental health problems. And a few convicted felons that stole guns from from burglaries and police officers. Strengthening our mental health system should be our main priority here. There are some people that shouldn't have guns at all for various reasons, but taking guns away from people who don't have mental health issues or haven't broken the law isn't going to solve anything.

And even then, people are going to do what they want to do. Those freaks at Columbine stole pistols and shotguns and used them, and made their own explosives and used them because they wanted to. "Assault Weapons" where already banned then under the 1994 crime bill, and explosives have been banned forever, and they weren't of legal age to own a gun, much less buy one, but that didn't stop them one bit did it?

It's just more useless laws that we can't enforce - we can't even properly enforce the laws we have now.

@fustacluck said:

@Stonyman65 said:

@Colourful_Hippie said:

@ZGoon said:

@Bizen247 said:

Joe Biden is a joke. He's a character from a Mel Brooks film except in real life. Even sounds like one. Anyone who thinks this guy is a decent politician or has any charisma is somewhere between partisan hack and political tool.

All reps from the NRA and game industry need to do is walk in the room and say, "First and Second Amendments, ever heard of them?"

And then walk out.

I don't want to seem like an ignorant Canadian, but... Why do people in your country continue to blindly cling to a bunch of stuff written down 200 years ago by a bunch of sexist, slave-owning bigots whenever someone challenges your pathetic lack of any gun control, or anything else for that matter?

Cuz it's the only defense they have and never mind the fact that the thing has been amended numerous times and in the case of the cough (18th) cough repealed. They're too busy being paranoid about a big brother takeover and irrationally think that stockpiling will save them. (Generalization sure, but that way of thinking is seriously out there. You're lying to yourself if you think that's not true)

It's like people are incapable of separating the concept of gun control from no guns.

I think the problem is that the most vocal people for gun-control don't just want to strengthen laws, they want to outlaw them completely. People like Diane Fienstien and Michael Bloomberg have said as much. I have don't really have a problem with sensible laws that actually work, the problem is that the laws people like that are trying to pass aren't sensible, and have been proven (remember the 1994 crime bill?) not to work. Stopping criminals from getting guns is a great thing, but stopping law-abiding people isn't going to do a damn thing. We already have some 2,700 gun laws on the books as it is. Let's try enforcing those rather than cooking up new ones to make ourselves feel good.

That's great and all, but haven't the majority of those that have recently lost it with a gun in a public place been, up until that moment, law-abiding citizens?

It's called prevention.

@Bourbon_Warrior said:

@YOU_DIED said:

can we try to keep politics off of Giant Bomb? fucks sakes, the discussions always devolve into massive shitstorms made of generalizations and emotionally charged nonsense

No one is making you click on the big boy articles.

10/10 would read passive-aggressive comments made by user again

@Unequivocable said:

That's a pretty good turnout for game companies. The biggest noticeable absence (for western developers) is Ubisoft (aka. the face-stabbing simulator folks).

Well it makes sense, being mainly a French company and all that they wouldn't get involved with US politics. Hell most of their North American studios are in Canada anyway.

@Colourful_Hippie said:

@fustacluck said:

@Stonyman65 said:

@Colourful_Hippie said:

@ZGoon said:

@Bizen247 said:

Joe Biden is a joke. He's a character from a Mel Brooks film except in real life. Even sounds like one. Anyone who thinks this guy is a decent politician or has any charisma is somewhere between partisan hack and political tool.

All reps from the NRA and game industry need to do is walk in the room and say, "First and Second Amendments, ever heard of them?"

And then walk out.

I don't want to seem like an ignorant Canadian, but... Why do people in your country continue to blindly cling to a bunch of stuff written down 200 years ago by a bunch of sexist, slave-owning bigots whenever someone challenges your pathetic lack of any gun control, or anything else for that matter?

Cuz it's the only defense they have and never mind the fact that the thing has been amended numerous times and in the case of the cough (18th) cough repealed. They're too busy being paranoid about a big brother takeover and irrationally think that stockpiling will save them. (Generalization sure, but that way of thinking is seriously out there. You're lying to yourself if you think that's not true)

It's like people are incapable of separating the concept of gun control from no guns.

I think the problem is that the most vocal people for gun-control don't just want to strengthen laws, they want to outlaw them completely. People like Diane Fienstien and Michael Bloomberg have said as much. I have don't really have a problem with sensible laws that actually work, the problem is that the laws people like that are trying to pass aren't sensible, and have been proven (remember the 1994 crime bill?) not to work. Stopping criminals from getting guns is a great thing, but stopping law-abiding people isn't going to do a damn thing. We already have some 2,700 gun laws on the books as it is. Let's try enforcing those rather than cooking up new ones to make ourselves feel good.

That's great and all, but haven't the majority of those that have recently lost it with a gun in a public place been, up until that moment, law-abiding citizens?

It's called prevention.

@ZGoon it has less to do with clinging to our roots and more to do with Americans being pro-personal-responsibility and anti-top-down-approach. Our 'pathetic lack of any gun control' includes filling out several forms as well as a background check before being able to purchase any type of firearm. People under twenty-one can't purchase a handgun, and people under eighteen can't purchase rifles or shotguns. Should I go on?

I have no problem with extending gun control as long as it doesn't prevent mentally stable, law-abiding citizens from being able to purchase and use guns responsibly. It's blatantly obvious that the overwhelming majority of people in America have no interest in committing homicide using any kind of weapon:

Intentional Homicides from the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime for 2010 (http://data.un.org/Data.aspx?d=UNODC&f=tableCode%3A1):

United States

Population: 308,745,538 (http://www.census.gov/2010census/news/releases/operations/cb10-cn93.html)

Intentional homicides: 12,996

Rate (per 100,000): 4.2

Percentage: 0.004%

@Stonyman65 said:

@fustacluck said:

@Stonyman65 said:

@Colourful_Hippie said:

@ZGoon said:

@Bizen247 said:

Joe Biden is a joke. He's a character from a Mel Brooks film except in real life. Even sounds like one. Anyone who thinks this guy is a decent politician or has any charisma is somewhere between partisan hack and political tool.

All reps from the NRA and game industry need to do is walk in the room and say, "First and Second Amendments, ever heard of them?"

And then walk out.

I don't want to seem like an ignorant Canadian, but... Why do people in your country continue to blindly cling to a bunch of stuff written down 200 years ago by a bunch of sexist, slave-owning bigots whenever someone challenges your pathetic lack of any gun control, or anything else for that matter?

Cuz it's the only defense they have and never mind the fact that the thing has been amended numerous times and in the case of the cough (18th) cough repealed. They're too busy being paranoid about a big brother takeover and irrationally think that stockpiling will save them. (Generalization sure, but that way of thinking is seriously out there. You're lying to yourself if you think that's not true)

It's like people are incapable of separating the concept of gun control from no guns.

I think the problem is that the most vocal people for gun-control don't just want to strengthen laws, they want to outlaw them completely. People like Diane Fienstien and Michael Bloomberg have said as much. I have don't really have a problem with sensible laws that actually work, the problem is that the laws people like that are trying to pass aren't sensible, and have been proven (remember the 1994 crime bill?) not to work. Stopping criminals from getting guns is a great thing, but stopping law-abiding people isn't going to do a damn thing. We already have some 2,700 gun laws on the books as it is. Let's try enforcing those rather than cooking up new ones to make ourselves feel good.

That's great and all, but haven't the majority of those that have recently lost it with a gun in a public place been, up until that moment, law-abiding citizens?

Law abiding citizens who all had numerous mental health problems. And a few convicted felons that stole guns from from burglaries and police officers. Strengthening our mental health system should be our main priority here. There are some people that shouldn't have guns at all for various reasons, but taking guns away from people who don't have mental health issues or haven't broken the law isn't going to solve anything.

And even then, people are going to do what they want to do. Those freaks at Columbine stole pistols and shotguns and used them, and made their own explosives and used them because they wanted to. "Assault Weapons" where already banned then under the 1994 crime bill, and explosives have been banned forever, and they weren't of legal age to own a gun, much less buy one, but that didn't stop them one bit did it?

It's just more useless laws that we can't enforce - we can't even properly enforce the laws we have now.

If there were almost no guns in the country (like every other first world country on the planet), where would they steal them from exactly? Sure, mass shootings have happened in countries like Norway, but they average 2 gun homicides per year IN THE ENTIRE COUNTRY. England, a more comparatively diverse country to the U.S. had only 41 gun homicides compared with over 9100. There are 88.8 firearms in the U.S. for every 100 citizens (35-50% of the world's civilian owned guns for 5% of the world population).

Fuck a 230 year old document written during a revolution.

@fustacluck said:

@l4wd0g said:

@leinad44 said:

@YOU_DIED said:

can we try to keep politics off of Giant Bomb? fucks sakes, the discussions always devolve into massive shitstorms made of generalizations and emotionally charged nonsense

It's Patrick's job to report the news in the industry. When you set up your own videogame website you can ignore all the politics you want or just not click on these stories, both are pretty effective.

... then again here is Patrick on the 2012 elections

https://twitter.com/patrickklepek/status/265676589998673922

I really appreciate that the Giant Bomb staff (for the most part) don't get into politics.

When I read some of the tweets from the staff at Polygon talking about how "being a white straight male is playing life on easy" tells me that they don't have any clue about what happens in the world around them. I'm referencing the anti-Irish campaigns in both the US and abroad. Did you see the Transformers movies? Remember the racist transformer? No, not the two stereotype black transformers (Skids and Mudflap) in Transformers 2 (which was also racist), but the green transformer in 3 who spoke in an Irish accent. Funny how no one called that out for being racist.

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

Patrick should understand that Giant Bomb is a diverse group of viewers who come from many religions, political views, races, gender, nationalities, and sexual orientations. Just because you have an audience doesn't mean you should use it as your political soap box.

http://massavepr.com/social-media-separate-your-personal-opinions-professional-brand/

http://www.prdaily.com/Main/Articles/Brands_and_politics_Does_joining_the_fray_hurt_or_13281.aspx#

Wait, what?

I clearly missed a middle bit. What was the connection making white liberal guilt at a too-cool-for-school gaming website and racist robots-in-disguise evidence that Patrick is an ignorant bigot?

Also, if Giant Bomb is a diverse group of viewers who come from many religions, political views, races, gender, nationalities, and sexual orientations, does that mean that Giant Bomb makes the Assassin's Creed games? If so I think I saw them credited at the beginning of each.

You're such an idiot @l4wd0g ... here's a diagram even an idiot like you can understand:

Giant Bomb + Politics + (Patrick * Racist Robots) - Europe / Gun Control (Ethic Issues² ≤ ????) = ISSUES!!1!

I hope that clears things up.

On a side note, Giant Bomb should report video game news. This is video game news. It's not editorialised comment or conjecture - it's a report on something that happened. @leinad44 you need to relax.

(that comment about Assassin's Creed made me laugh)

@YOU_DIED: And you can go to gun conventions without anyone batting an eye at you for getting a gun. We need these shitty loopholes closed so people can't skirt by without being checked.

How can anyone pay dues to an organization whose head, in the wake of the Newtown shooting, called a conference and, much like a senile old man, proceeded to blame everything but guns themselves for the tragedy?

The Second Amendment needs to be amended again. Outlawing guns completely is a fool's errand, but common sense preventative gun controls like the rest of the first world certainly aren't out of reach.

And to the people who think their AR-15 is necessary because of the potential need for government overthrow - we don't live in an age where everyone had muskets and bayonets any more. The government has missiles, and tanks, and fighter jets, and drones - the most overfunded military in the world - a handful of people living in the hills of Montana aren't overthrowing shit.

Allow hunting rifles and most pistols, with mandatory waiting periods and mandated proper storage for both, require possession and acquisition licenses for both, and outlaw the rest - or only make them available at licensed shooting ranges, and not legal for personal ownership.

@PandaBear:

@BRich said:

@Stonyman65 said:

@fustacluck said:

@Stonyman65 said:

@Colourful_Hippie said:

@ZGoon said:

@Bizen247 said:

Joe Biden is a joke. He's a character from a Mel Brooks film except in real life. Even sounds like one. Anyone who thinks this guy is a decent politician or has any charisma is somewhere between partisan hack and political tool.

All reps from the NRA and game industry need to do is walk in the room and say, "First and Second Amendments, ever heard of them?"

And then walk out.

I don't want to seem like an ignorant Canadian, but... Why do people in your country continue to blindly cling to a bunch of stuff written down 200 years ago by a bunch of sexist, slave-owning bigots whenever someone challenges your pathetic lack of any gun control, or anything else for that matter?

Cuz it's the only defense they have and never mind the fact that the thing has been amended numerous times and in the case of the cough (18th) cough repealed. They're too busy being paranoid about a big brother takeover and irrationally think that stockpiling will save them. (Generalization sure, but that way of thinking is seriously out there. You're lying to yourself if you think that's not true)

It's like people are incapable of separating the concept of gun control from no guns.

I think the problem is that the most vocal people for gun-control don't just want to strengthen laws, they want to outlaw them completely. People like Diane Fienstien and Michael Bloomberg have said as much. I have don't really have a problem with sensible laws that actually work, the problem is that the laws people like that are trying to pass aren't sensible, and have been proven (remember the 1994 crime bill?) not to work. Stopping criminals from getting guns is a great thing, but stopping law-abiding people isn't going to do a damn thing. We already have some 2,700 gun laws on the books as it is. Let's try enforcing those rather than cooking up new ones to make ourselves feel good.

That's great and all, but haven't the majority of those that have recently lost it with a gun in a public place been, up until that moment, law-abiding citizens?

Law abiding citizens who all had numerous mental health problems. And a few convicted felons that stole guns from from burglaries and police officers. Strengthening our mental health system should be our main priority here. There are some people that shouldn't have guns at all for various reasons, but taking guns away from people who don't have mental health issues or haven't broken the law isn't going to solve anything.

And even then, people are going to do what they want to do. Those freaks at Columbine stole pistols and shotguns and used them, and made their own explosives and used them because they wanted to. "Assault Weapons" where already banned then under the 1994 crime bill, and explosives have been banned forever, and they weren't of legal age to own a gun, much less buy one, but that didn't stop them one bit did it?

It's just more useless laws that we can't enforce - we can't even properly enforce the laws we have now.

If there were almost no guns in the country (like every other first world country on the planet), where would they steal them from exactly? Sure, mass shootings have happened in countries like Norway, but they average 2 guns homicides per year IN THE ENTIRE COUNTRY. England, a more comparatively diverse country to the U.S. had only 41 gun homicides compared with over 9100. There are 88.8 firearms in the U.S. for every 100 citizens (35-50% of the world's civilian owned guns for 5% of the world population).

Fuck a 230 year old document written during a revolution.

And the UK had the 2nd violent crime rate in the EU, and the US is rated 28th in the world in gun-related homicide. There are more gun related murders in south america and eastern-Europe than in america, and far less guns.

It's not a gun problem, it's a societal problem.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ooa98FHuaU0

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F2u6aen0RCY

@Colourful_Hippie said:

@YOU_DIED: And you can go to gun conventions without anyone batting an eye at you for getting a gun. We need these shitty loopholes closed so people can't skirt by without being checked.

I don't know what conventions you are going to, but the single gun show I've been to in my city (of about 500,000~ people) required background checks for all firearms purchases.

@Scotto said:

How can anyone pay dues to an organization whose head, in the wake of the Newtown shooting, called a conference and, much like a senile old man, proceeded to blame everything but guns themselves for the tragedy?

The Second Amendment needs to be amended again. Outlawing guns completely is a fool's errand, but common sense preventative gun controls like the rest of the first world certainly aren't out of reach.

And to the people who think their AR-15 is necessary because of the potential need for government overthrow - we don't live in an age where everyone had muskets and bayonets any more. The government has missiles, and tanks, and fighter jets, and drones - the most overfunded military in the world - a handful of people living in the hills of Montana aren't overthrowing shit.

Allow hunting rifles and most pistols, with mandatory waiting periods and mandated proper storage for both, require possession and acquisition licenses for both, and outlaw the rest - or only make them available at licensed shooting ranges, and not legal for personal ownership.

Fucking thank you. I never understand people's need to have weapons along the line of the AR-15, if you want to shoot something like that then go to a licensed a gun range. Also the whole government disarming its people is just another crackpot conspiracy some paranoid fuck farted out. If the government got to the point that they can strip away your freedoms and invade your home, don't expect to hold them off with your stupid gun collection. You only have yourself to blame for voting away your personal liberties.

@YOU_DIED: Same, they usually have fax machines on the tables for just that purpose, or at least behind their curtain. I assume most people have never been to an actual gun show though and are basing this of conjecture or heard it/read it somewhere. While it might happen, I've never seen it personally.

@Scotto: Handguns are responsible for FAR more deaths than rifles, let alone "assault rifles"(good luck defining what that means). Also how do you propose enforcing your mandated proper storage? Keep in mind we have unlawful search and seizure protection too, or is that just some irrelevant words that need to be amended too? Lets take it a step further, African Americans are the perpetrators and victims of a majority of all gun crime in the US.... Maybe that 14th amendment "needs to be amended"?

@PandaBear said:

You're such an idiot @l4wd0g ... here's a diagram even an idiot like you can understand:

Giant Bomb + Politics + (Patrick * Racist Robots) - Europe / Gun Control (Ethic Issues² ≤ ????) = ISSUES!!1!

I hope that clears things up.

On a side note, Giant Bomb should report video game news. This is video game news. It's not editorialised comment or conjecture - it's a report on something that happened. @leinad44 you need to relax.

(that comment about Assassin's Creed made me laugh)

You have hurt me dearly. I didn't mean to anger such a master of debate such as yourself.

I'm going to go cry into my MSc.

@YOU_DIED said:

@Colourful_Hippie said:

@YOU_DIED: And you can go to gun conventions without anyone batting an eye at you for getting a gun. We need these shitty loopholes closed so people can't skirt by without being checked.

I don't know what conventions you are going to, but the single gun show I've been to in my city (of about 500,000~ people) required background checks for all firearms purchases.

I went to the one of the bigger NRA conventions (I want to say last year?) that was held in Pittsburgh with my dad when we went to meet his old boss. My dad was looking at some remington rifles and was tempted to get one and the seller didn't even ask for shit. He was more enthusiastic about making a sale than anything else. He changed his mind and ended up not buying one.

@Colourful_Hippie said:

@Scotto said:

How can anyone pay dues to an organization whose head, in the wake of the Newtown shooting, called a conference and, much like a senile old man, proceeded to blame everything but guns themselves for the tragedy?

The Second Amendment needs to be amended again. Outlawing guns completely is a fool's errand, but common sense preventative gun controls like the rest of the first world certainly aren't out of reach.

And to the people who think their AR-15 is necessary because of the potential need for government overthrow - we don't live in an age where everyone had muskets and bayonets any more. The government has missiles, and tanks, and fighter jets, and drones - the most overfunded military in the world - a handful of people living in the hills of Montana aren't overthrowing shit.

Allow hunting rifles and most pistols, with mandatory waiting periods and mandated proper storage for both, require possession and acquisition licenses for both, and outlaw the rest - or only make them available at licensed shooting ranges, and not legal for personal ownership.

Fucking thank you. I never understand people's need to have weapons along the line of the AR-15, if you want to shoot something like that then go to a licensed a gun range. Also the whole government disarming its people is just another crackpot conspiracy some paranoid fuck farted out. If the government got to the point that they can strip away your freedoms and invade your home, don't expect to hold them off with your stupid gun collection. You only have yourself to blame for voting away your personal liberties.

And yet the Syrian rebels have been holding off the standing army of al-Assad for how long? With little more than rifles, RPGs, and makeshift mortars jury-rigged from grenades you say? While the army has what? You're reaching new heights of ignorance with your generalizations.

@YOU_DIED: Comparing that to the US military? OK guy. And none of that has invalidated what I said, carry on.

@Scotto said:

How can anyone pay dues to an organization whose head, in the wake of the Newtown shooting, called a conference and, much like a senile old man, proceeded to blame everything but guns themselves for the tragedy?

The Second Amendment needs to be amended again. Outlawing guns completely is a fool's errand, but common sense preventative gun controls like the rest of the first world certainly aren't out of reach.

And to the people who think their AR-15 is necessary because of the potential need for government overthrow - we don't live in an age where everyone had muskets and bayonets any more. The government has missiles, and tanks, and fighter jets, and drones - the most overfunded military in the world - a handful of people living in the hills of Montana aren't overthrowing shit.

Allow hunting rifles and most pistols, with mandatory waiting periods and mandated proper storage for both, require possession and acquisition licenses for both, and outlaw the rest - or only make them available at licensed shooting ranges, and not legal for personal ownership.

This^ And have maybe some actual safety training involved in the possession and acquisition license like in Canada. Everyone should be more like Canada. Yes.

@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.

@ZGoon said:

@Scotto said:

How can anyone pay dues to an organization whose head, in the wake of the Newtown shooting, called a conference and, much like a senile old man, proceeded to blame everything but guns themselves for the tragedy?

The Second Amendment needs to be amended again. Outlawing guns completely is a fool's errand, but common sense preventative gun controls like the rest of the first world certainly aren't out of reach.

And to the people who think their AR-15 is necessary because of the potential need for government overthrow - we don't live in an age where everyone had muskets and bayonets any more. The government has missiles, and tanks, and fighter jets, and drones - the most overfunded military in the world - a handful of people living in the hills of Montana aren't overthrowing shit.

Allow hunting rifles and most pistols, with mandatory waiting periods and mandated proper storage for both, require possession and acquisition licenses for both, and outlaw the rest - or only make them available at licensed shooting ranges, and not legal for personal ownership.

This^ And have maybe some actual safety training involved in the possession and acquisition license like in Canada. Everyone should be more like Canada. Yes.

Being trained should also be a requirement for sure. It was pretty gross seeing people say that someone else with a gun would have stopped these past massacres like the one in the movie theater. The only thing that would have happened is that the other guy with a gun who is now hopped up on adrenaline and fear will more than likely shoot someone else (not on purpose of course) instead of the shooter.

@Colourful_Hippie said:

@ZGoon said:

@Scotto said:

How can anyone pay dues to an organization whose head, in the wake of the Newtown shooting, called a conference and, much like a senile old man, proceeded to blame everything but guns themselves for the tragedy?

The Second Amendment needs to be amended again. Outlawing guns completely is a fool's errand, but common sense preventative gun controls like the rest of the first world certainly aren't out of reach.

And to the people who think their AR-15 is necessary because of the potential need for government overthrow - we don't live in an age where everyone had muskets and bayonets any more. The government has missiles, and tanks, and fighter jets, and drones - the most overfunded military in the world - a handful of people living in the hills of Montana aren't overthrowing shit.

Allow hunting rifles and most pistols, with mandatory waiting periods and mandated proper storage for both, require possession and acquisition licenses for both, and outlaw the rest - or only make them available at licensed shooting ranges, and not legal for personal ownership.

This^ And have maybe some actual safety training involved in the possession and acquisition license like in Canada. Everyone should be more like Canada. Yes.

Being trained should also be a requirement for sure. It was pretty gross seeing people say that someone else with a gun would have stopped these past massacres like the one in the movie theater. The only thing that would have happened is that the other guy with a gun who is now hopped up on adrenaline and fear will more than likely shoot someone else instead of the shooter.

That is exactly what I said at the time. Paranoid people come up with ridiculous excuses whenever they get scared that someone will take away their toys and their "rights".

@ZGoon said:

@Colourful_Hippie said:

@ZGoon said:

@Scotto said:

How can anyone pay dues to an organization whose head, in the wake of the Newtown shooting, called a conference and, much like a senile old man, proceeded to blame everything but guns themselves for the tragedy?

The Second Amendment needs to be amended again. Outlawing guns completely is a fool's errand, but common sense preventative gun controls like the rest of the first world certainly aren't out of reach.

And to the people who think their AR-15 is necessary because of the potential need for government overthrow - we don't live in an age where everyone had muskets and bayonets any more. The government has missiles, and tanks, and fighter jets, and drones - the most overfunded military in the world - a handful of people living in the hills of Montana aren't overthrowing shit.

Allow hunting rifles and most pistols, with mandatory waiting periods and mandated proper storage for both, require possession and acquisition licenses for both, and outlaw the rest - or only make them available at licensed shooting ranges, and not legal for personal ownership.

This^ And have maybe some actual safety training involved in the possession and acquisition license like in Canada. Everyone should be more like Canada. Yes.

Being trained should also be a requirement for sure. It was pretty gross seeing people say that someone else with a gun would have stopped these past massacres like the one in the movie theater. The only thing that would have happened is that the other guy with a gun who is now hopped up on adrenaline and fear will more than likely shoot someone else instead of the shooter.

That is exactly what I said at the time. Paranoid people come up with ridiculous excuses whenever they get scared that someone will take away their toys and their "rights".

Another thing I love that people like to bring up is how safe it is in Switzerland cuz a large amount of the population are equipped with assault rifles. First off you're going to have to ignore the fact that the country doesn't have a national army so they are opting for a well armed militia and the other thing is that all gun owners must be trained. Their gun laws are a lot more stricter.

@YOU_DIED said:

@Colourful_Hippie said:

@Scotto said:

How can anyone pay dues to an organization whose head, in the wake of the Newtown shooting, called a conference and, much like a senile old man, proceeded to blame everything but guns themselves for the tragedy?

The Second Amendment needs to be amended again. Outlawing guns completely is a fool's errand, but common sense preventative gun controls like the rest of the first world certainly aren't out of reach.

And to the people who think their AR-15 is necessary because of the potential need for government overthrow - we don't live in an age where everyone had muskets and bayonets any more. The government has missiles, and tanks, and fighter jets, and drones - the most overfunded military in the world - a handful of people living in the hills of Montana aren't overthrowing shit.

Allow hunting rifles and most pistols, with mandatory waiting periods and mandated proper storage for both, require possession and acquisition licenses for both, and outlaw the rest - or only make them available at licensed shooting ranges, and not legal for personal ownership.

Fucking thank you. I never understand people's need to have weapons along the line of the AR-15, if you want to shoot something like that then go to a licensed a gun range. Also the whole government disarming its people is just another crackpot conspiracy some paranoid fuck farted out. If the government got to the point that they can strip away your freedoms and invade your home, don't expect to hold them off with your stupid gun collection. You only have yourself to blame for voting away your personal liberties.

And yet the Syrian rebels have been holding off the standing army of al-Assad for how long? With little more than rifles, RPGs, and makeshift mortars jury-rigged from grenades you say? While the army has what? You're reaching new heights of ignorance with your generalizations.

@Colourful_Hippie said:

@YOU_DIED: Comparing that to the US military? OK guy. And none of that has invalidated what I said, carry on.

Yes, I am. The armed forces of the United States aren't mythical entities of terror, they are made up of boots on the ground with rifles and specialists in vehicles, from Hummers to fighter jets to aircraft carriers. It has been proven in many wars (Korea, Vietnam, Afghanistan, etc.) that undersupplied guerillas can be effective in fighting against large cumbersome war machines. If you don't know that, then I honestly have to ask, do you even know what you are on about? It sounds like you'd rather have a debate about emotions and how you feel about guns rather than fact and data analysis.

@YOU_DIED said:

It sounds like you'd rather have a debate about emotions and how you feel about guns rather than fact and data analysis.

I'll repeat myself, you still haven't invalidated anything that I have said before. You're still focusing on a fantastical situation that will only occur in the mind of a paranoid crazy person (in regards to a hostile takeover from the gov). And if you seriously think I'm having a debate on emotions then you're the one who doesn't know what the hell you're talking about therefore I'm done talking to you.

@Colourful_Hippie said:

@YOU_DIED said:

It sounds like you'd rather have a debate about emotions and how you feel about guns rather than fact and data analysis.

I'll repeat myself, you still haven't invalidated anything that I have said before. You're still focusing on a fantastical situation that will only occur in the mind of a paranoid crazy person (in regards to a hostile takeover from the gov). And if you seriously think I'm having a debate on emotions then you're the one who doesn't know what the hell you're talking about therefore I'm done talking to you.

What about when they confiscated guns during hurricane Katrina and the police stole peoples guns (literally, as in "this is mine now, I'm going to go shoot it") and never gave them back?

When the National Guard was going on house-to-house searches for anyone with guns and detaining or shooting anyone who didn't comply.

All it took for that to happen was an order from one Anti-Gun Mayor and peoples 2nd Amendment rights where taken away an they where imprisoned for simply owning a gun.

What happens then? What makes you think that can't, or won't happen again?

@Colourful_Hippie said:

@YOU_DIED said:

It sounds like you'd rather have a debate about emotions and how you feel about guns rather than fact and data analysis.

I'll repeat myself, you still haven't invalidated anything that I have said before. You're still focusing on a fantastical situation that will only occur in the mind of a paranoid crazy person (in regards to a hostile takeover from the gov). And if you seriously think I'm having a debate on emotions then you're the one who doesn't know what the hell you're talking about therefore I'm done talking to you.

I did though, and I still don't understand where you are coming up with this 'only crazy paranoid people think governments go rogue' business. Do you know nothing of history and of the world outside the United States? Have greed and lust for power gone out of style? Sorry man, this is getting a bit silly, and I can't help but laugh at you. Have a nice night!

@insanejedi said:

@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.

No, it's not. It is, though, about being part of a well regulated militia. I believe the majority of the NRA are not such, and therefore should relinquish their arms at once, given how much they love that ammendment.

And for those talking about how old it is, remember to add a hundred years as it was copied from the English Bill of rights in the late 17th century. Since then, though, Britain created a police force meaning the end to a need for everyone to arm themselves to protect themselves, their family, and their property.

Maybe the US should try that.

@Stonyman65: So the whole country is going to get hit by a natural disaster that will allow the National Guard to come take our guns? I'll admit though that that is really fucked up, it simply comes down to people being aware of that and then standing up to and being vocal about it. Thinking that you're going to go head to head with your government in a real fight doesn't solve anything.

@YOU_DIED: This is still a democracy and the people only have themselves to blame if they blindly allowed the government to strip them of their rights which I already said before but I realize you only like to cherry pick what you read. Maybe people should focus more on why bullshit like the NDAA is passed without any paying attention to it instead of thinking about being disarmed.

@fustacluck: You're a scary individual. The first 10 amendments, the bill of rights as it were, are individual rights. The Supreme Court has ruled that the second amendment is an individual right. The founders in their writings elaborate on the individual's right to own weapons. The 2nd amendment specifically refers to the militia as the reason individuals must not be restricted from owning firearms. They had just gone through the attempted mass disarmament of the country by the king. It is indeed an individual's right, and people like you are the reason we can't have an actual debate about common sense measures to help restrict people from getting weapons who NEED to be restricted.

Additionally, I've lived in a rural area before(my parents still do), 911 response times varied from 30 minutes, to 4 or 5 hours depending on proximity and which jurisdiction was taking the call. You can rely on someone else to protect you all you want, I prefer to be responsible for myself though, I know personal responsibility is fast becoming an extremely foreign concept though, so no worries that you dont feel the need.

@Colourful_Hippie said:

but I realize you only like to cherry pick what you read

Hilarious!

@Totoni said:

Wait. First they blame video games for the shooting, and then they release their own video game? It's just a target practice game, but that's just as hypocritical as it can be. Also ages four and up? That's just... I can't... What... Ahh, I give up.

Hey man.. that four year old has to be ready for anything.

Watched the video. The bulk of it was our VP droning about "nah, it's cool for us to do this, because we talked to other people, too." I'm... not entirely sure what the point of the video was, all told. I guess it was supposed to be the White House YT channel saying "don't worry, see, we're not picking on your video games." But, uh, you kinda are. And that's kinda crazy? So... yeah.

Cherry picked a comment with the word cherry pick in it, it just doesn't get any better than that.

can we still blame Night Trap?

@Colourful_Hippie said:

@Stonyman65: So the whole country is going to get hit by a natural disaster that will allow the National Guard to come take our guns? I'll admit though that that is really fucked up, it simply comes down to people being aware of that and then standing up to and being vocal about it. Thinking that you're going to go head to head with your government in a real fight doesn't solve anything.

There was actually a bill signed into law that specifically prevents that after seeing what happened. The problem is that the Obama administration (and others in congress and the senate) are actively trying to overrule that decision so that they can choose what and when they take something away. I'm not saying they would do it, but it would give them legal precedent to do it. That's whats scary about all of this, and that's why gun owners are freaking out. There would (theoretically) be nothing to stop them if this passed.

Being disarmed is only the beginning. Add that to things like the NDAA, PATRIOT ACT and everything else.... It strats painting a very scary picture for the future.

@Colourful_Hippie said:

Cherry picked a comment with the word cherry pick in it, it just doesn't get any better than that.

Is this even better then?

@Colourful_Hippie said:

@YOU_DIED said:

It sounds like you'd rather have a debate about emotions and how you feel about guns rather than fact and data analysis.

I'll repeat myself, you still haven't invalidated anything that I have said before. You're still focusing on a fantastical situation that will only occur in the mind of a paranoid crazy person (in regards to a hostile takeover from the gov). And if you seriously think I'm having a debate on emotions then you're the one who doesn't know what the hell you're talking about therefore I'm done talking to you.

From:

@YOU_DIED said:

@YOU_DIED said:

@Colourful_Hippie said:

@Scotto said:

How can anyone pay dues to an organization whose head, in the wake of the Newtown shooting, called a conference and, much like a senile old man, proceeded to blame everything but guns themselves for the tragedy?

The Second Amendment needs to be amended again. Outlawing guns completely is a fool's errand, but common sense preventative gun controls like the rest of the first world certainly aren't out of reach.

And to the people who think their AR-15 is necessary because of the potential need for government overthrow - we don't live in an age where everyone had muskets and bayonets any more. The government has missiles, and tanks, and fighter jets, and drones - the most overfunded military in the world - a handful of people living in the hills of Montana aren't overthrowing shit.

Allow hunting rifles and most pistols, with mandatory waiting periods and mandated proper storage for both, require possession and acquisition licenses for both, and outlaw the rest - or only make them available at licensed shooting ranges, and not legal for personal ownership.

Fucking thank you. I never understand people's need to have weapons along the line of the AR-15, if you want to shoot something like that then go to a licensed a gun range. Also the whole government disarming its people is just another crackpot conspiracy some paranoid fuck farted out. If the government got to the point that they can strip away your freedoms and invade your home, don't expect to hold them off with your stupid gun collection. You only have yourself to blame for voting away your personal liberties.

And yet the Syrian rebels have been holding off the standing army of al-Assad for how long? With little more than rifles, RPGs, and makeshift mortars jury-rigged from grenades you say? While the army has what? You're reaching new heights of ignorance with your generalizations.

@Colourful_Hippie said:

@YOU_DIED: Comparing that to the US military? OK guy. And none of that has invalidated what I said, carry on.

Yes, I am. The armed forces of the United States aren't mythical entities of terror, they are made up of boots on the ground with rifles and specialists in vehicles, from Hummers to fighter jets to aircraft carriers. It has been proven in many wars (Korea, Vietnam, Afghanistan, etc.) that undersupplied guerillas can be effective in fighting against large cumbersome war machines. If you don't know that, then I honestly have to ask, do you even know what you are on about? It sounds like you'd rather have a debate about emotions and how you feel about guns rather than fact and data analysis.

I know you don't like reading, but I'll drop this in case anyone else stumbles upon this conversation: http://www.law.harvard.edu/students/orgs/jlpp/Vol30_No2_KatesMauseronline.pdf

@Stonyman65 said:

@Colourful_Hippie said:

@Stonyman65: So the whole country is going to get hit by a natural disaster that will allow the National Guard to come take our guns? I'll admit though that that is really fucked up, it simply comes down to people being aware of that and then standing up to and being vocal about it. Thinking that you're going to go head to head with your government in a real fight doesn't solve anything.

There was actually a bill signed into law that specifically prevents that after seeing what happened. The problem is that the Obama administration (and others in congress and the senate) are actively trying to overrule that decision so that they can choose what and when they take something away. I'm not saying they would do it, but it would give them legal precedent to do it. That's whats scary about all of this, and that's why gun owners are freaking out. There would (theoretically) be nothing to stop them if this passed.

Being disarmed is only the beginning. Add that to things like the NDAA, PATRIOT ACT and everything else.... It strats painting a very scary picture for the future.

Yeah it's seriously scary but still doesn't necessarily invalidate the need for gun control. The real problem is an indifferent society, more people simply need to pay attention or at least there needs to be something that raises awareness on this kind of shit. The government is only as strong as you let it be.

@YOU_DIED: I'm not for banning all guns, but if you want to keep deteriorating your stance against me then by all means keep going.

@Renahzor said:

@fustacluck: You're a scary individual. The first 10 amendments, the bill of rights as it were, are individual rights. The Supreme Court has ruled that the second amendment is an individual right. The founders in their writings elaborate on the individual's right to own weapons. The 2nd amendment specifically refers to the militia as the reason individuals must not be restricted from owning firearms. They had just gone through the attempted mass disarmament of the country by the king. It is indeed an individual's right, and people like you are the reason we can't have an actual debate about common sense measures to help restrict people from getting weapons who NEED to be restricted.

Additionally, I've lived in a rural area before(my parents still do), 911 response times varied from 30 minutes, to 4 or 5 hours depending on proximity and which jurisdiction was taking the call. You can rely on someone else to protect you all you want, I prefer to be responsible for myself though, I know personal responsibility is fast becoming an extremely foreign concept though, so no worries that you dont feel the need.

And the fact that the Supreme Court ruled in 2008 (I think it was 2008) that the Police have no legal obligation to protect citizens. Their job is to investigate crimes already committed and apprehend criminals, not stop crime.

It's fucked up, but that's how it works. Add to that that there is only one police officer for every 10,000 people or so, even if it was there job to protect us, it would be impossible to do so.