“Having a gun in a game seldom means that one shot gets fired. It means that thousands do. It means that, when we play in these gun-filled game worlds, we live in places where our heroes are merciless, where we/they aim for the head, where everyone we see is defined, at first glance as 1) a person to shoot or 2) a person to spare. There’s a heat to these worlds and a hostility. These gun-filled game worlds feel cynical, angry and, worst, reduced. So little feels possible. When two people see each other in these worlds, most likely, one will shoot the other to death.” – Steven Totilo in The Disappointment of Video Game Guns [at kotaku.com]
Excuse me? “So little feels possible”? My experience with firearms both in the real world and videogames has never been that way. In both firearms provide a means of not only continued survival but progression and growth. The only thing missing from videogames is the strict adherence to various safety procedures and understanding of consequences.
Fantasy /= Reality
Most people play games with the assumption that you are supposed to shoot, in fact most games reward such actions over teamwork.
Let’s not forget… They are freaking games!
I didn’t see him draw a comparison between fantasy and reality. That’s not what this was about, at all. He was lamenting that the addition of guns was turning an interesting, modern, and complex thinking game into just another shooter, because when the gun can be used as a master key, often it will be. When you can get through the game by shooting anyone with whom you have a conflict with little to no repercussions, it takes away the motivation to use the harder method that the game was originally designed around.
Perhaps the next generation of games will have a more “real world” feel. One with more nuance, more interpersonal relations, less surety about when to draw and fire. A Sims type game with shooting not necessarily being the goal but surviving and thriving in that “society”, out of jail, as the goal.
Oh, the source is Kotaku. Don’t worry about it. Even in the world of game news, they are ignored. Writing useless articles and reporting on crap that was discovered 2 years ago. So nothing to worry about. Most of the writers don’t even know what they are talking about.
aa
So do they now concur with NRA Veep Wayne LaPierre? I am confused
The thug that video game hero is shooting looks an awful lot like Trayvon. Just saying.
And don’t forget that a psycho killer like Adam Lanza spent his days playing such violent video games as Super Mario Brothers. That can’t be healthy.
Yep. Violence in shooting games, driving in racing games, agriculture in Farmville, pissed feathered creatures in Angry Birds, juvenile humor in Adam Sandler movies… See how that works? Also, the sky is blue. The world where things are difficult to decide and you don’t get to be a villain or a hero most days is called reality, and as the saying goes, “imagination is our only weapon in the war against reality.” It’s called escapism, and it is what games and movies and books and television are for if I recall correctly. Einstein said “imagination is more important than knowledge.” I am not an electronic gamer, but I get it. If you want to play “Moral Ambiguity: The Video Game” feel free to create that, but I think it will be hard to market.
Whiny liberal gamer:
Have cake
Eat cake
Where is my cake?
The cake is a lie.
This is good info…. I agree.
If you STFU you will go to jail, directly to jail, not pass go, and not collect $200.
If you were reporting that you were assaulted you would not call 911 and then stand mute when they got there. Same thing here.
And you’re a fool if you talk to ANY LEO without an attorney after a DGU…
But, back to the original thread that was referenced, what happens when you say you were in fear for your life and the investigator asks, “why”? Now you’re back to giving a statement on the spot with a million things running though your head that someone can pick apart later, and if you live in a liberal state, good luck with the cops being understanding. Keeping quiet may become a trail defense but saying something without an attorney can put your neck in a noose that you can’t remove later.
Good pic Jeff, & get busy shoveling snow. No reason we in Wi. should have to bust our ass alone.
Ugh. Don’t ever talk to the police. This article is complete BS and the only proof that needs to be conjured is if the DA thinks you murdered someone, he’ll have to prove it. You have to prove nothing. Innocent until proven guilty is the way the law works. Do not seek legal advice from a police officer. They will lie to get more information from you and they are legally allowed to do so.
At most, tell the officer that you feared for your life and will corporate fully after consulting with a lawyer. You will most likely be arrested. That is normal. Best to have a lawyer on retainer. It sucks, but such is life.
Once again, never talk to the police beyond the absolute necessary requirements. What you say can be held against you, not to support you.
Being a 19 year old college student and a subject to the crown of New Jersey.
It’s called a “First Person Shooter” for a reason. If you want to go around buying coffee for someone and talking about your feelings as an in-game interaction play the Sims or something. First Person Shooters offer the dangerous fantasy of gun play, just like RPGs offer the ability to slay dragons and undead with as much blood and gore as possible. Dallas Buyer’s Club will never be turned into a video game just so liberals have something more up their alley.
I think there are three things to remember in a DGU. One, your memory will be sketchy. Two, it’s the cop’s job to be skeptical of your story. And three, you will be spending (at least) the night in jail if you clam up. I agree with Sgt. Hayes, keep it to the most basic facts and tell them you’ll make a full statement with your lawyer.
Well written article, but it’s easy to miss the most important point. He’s in a gun friendly state. In another state, current politics, recent events, all could make my situation much worse. “My lawyer” will be a public defender, too. Weakness from muscular disability and the need for commonly abused drugs, not to mention being in my 60’s, cause me to feel the need for a firearm to defend myself. SS disability doesn’t pay enough for me to own a lawyer (they’re terrible pets, messy, expensive, and talk funny). Trying to make room in my budget for self defense insurance, but most programs also refer to “my attorney.”
I agree with giving the basics such as “I feared for my life”, “there were X assailants and these are their descriptions”, “did you arrest the person I shot”, and whatnot. I am still going to have a lawyer for anything deeper than that.
For me, it took 7 years in military law enforcement and a degree in Criminal Justice to learn that a simple mistake in the wording of a statement will convict you for a crime you did not commit. I work with lawyers every day, and they will argue the meaning of a single sentence for days, and they will attack with everything thing they have to prove that a sentence meant something it did not. These people are experts at manipulating the written (and unwritten) word. Trust me, you do not want to play their game, for you will lose.
If you need an example, look at Zimmerman. He was very helpful to the police, and from that, the police decided it was a DGU. But in the end, it did not stop the prosecutor from taking it to trial, and they dug deep into the meaning of every word Zimmerman uttered.
I live in California.
That said, there may be some relief coming for us soon. I’ve just started looking into getting a CCL, kind of waiting for my Shriff to update his position on the matter.
Matt W.,
Thank you for supporting “the RKBA without any ifs, ands or buts. Any.” In my opinion, that’s far more important to the cause of liberty than whether you carry or not. The decision to carry is a personal one. In times past, I have offered up to friends the notion that I might not be as inclined to carry if most everyone around me was more likely than not already armed. I’ve scuttled that notion now, perhaps in part, because the struggle to re-establish the everyday exercise of the RKBA has been so difficult. However, I can understand some of the reasoning behind your personal choice and you won’t find fault for it coming from me. Again, thank you for your support of the right to keep and bear arms; regardless of your personal choice to carry or not.
Joisy is gun unfriendly unless your a politician, judge, leo, or you own one of the a fore mentioned. I’m hopeful that that will change.
And you didn’t troll them? Shame!
I must say, as much as I like guns and games, I too have longed to see a more complex or psychological spin on shooting or killing in games.
If a player character is supposedly ‘the good guy’, why would he/she/it just start killing people in a city for no reason? Therefore the game prohibits weapon use in friendly areas unless enemies are spotted
If a player character acts bad, and slaughters innocents on the daily, why would good npc’s have ‘missions’ for you to do still? Wouldn’t they want to fight you and stop you?
Maybe the more a character kills, it effects them emotionally or mentally (A psyche gauge like MGS4, or certain player dialogue is changed).
I’m not saying some current games don’t have feature like this, but I feel like there is a lot of interesting stuff that can be done in future video games that goes beyond healthbars and headshots that current games haven’t even scratched yet.
Sweet home Chicago!
Oklahoma is Shall issue, carry home and away except when on the local military base. Home carry I might not always carry an extra mag, but I do still carry, if not it is nearby. Knife, too.
Hoping that HB2329 / HB2886 pass into law.
http://ok2a.org/stateissues
Alan, I salute you! That is such a perfect photo of awesomeness….man…words really can NOT do it justice! Again, I salute you!
I carry, but not all the time. I’m definitely a homebody and the majority of my time outside the house is at work (no guns allowed, but I can keep it in the car per state law). I just don’t see the point in strapping on my gun to walk 10 feet to my car, drive to work, put it in the glove-box, go inside and work, then put the gun back on to drive home and walk 10 feet back inside. When I go out with friends on the weekends, I usually carry and if I’m going somewhere (such as this past weekend of looking in on a relative’s “middle of nowhere” home) where I know there won’t be many other people around, I definitely carry.
In loco parentis is a ridiculous argument and fails on multiple levels. Once a person reaches legal age to carry, a parent cannot restrict that right. By enacting a carry ban the university or college is infringing on a legal age to carry student’s right in a way that the parent cannot. Also, every law or proposed bill I have seen only allows people of legal age to carry to do so. A minor is still not allowed to carry. Since it is already the law, there is no need for the university or college to step in on the parent’s behalf. This is stepping past the right and responsibilities of the parent and is therefore not in loco parentis.
It seems we mostly hear about students on campus. What about the rest of the world that is also on campus, including faculty and staff? Even if you buy the in loco parentis argument why are the people working on a college campus restricted? We don’t restrict parents’ rights just because we don’t allow their children to carry because of their child’s age. Restricting faculty and staff rights because you think Johnny is too immature to be trusted with a gun is also ridiculous. Johnny is old enough that if he wants to get a gun he will do so and carry on campus no matter what the legislature or administration says.
People like Daniel Ruth are deluding themselves if they think these rules make any difference. They are deluding themselves more if these rules are what makes them feel safe.
Never underestimate the power of ridicule. The goal should be to construct as many situations that humiliate and frustrate the CT authorities as possible. To wit, ended up at a fundraising cocktail party with my NY Assembly-critter this past Saturday. Now could have harangued her in a group situation and come off as a nutcase (mostly liberals there). Instead just asked her a few polite questions about how many lives had been saved by the SAFE Act, particularly the assault weapon registration and magazine limits. Pretty much “hamada, hamada, hamada”. By the time I got to why we were allowing evil 30 round magazines to be sold to out of staters so they could kill kids in other states, she was doing her best to get out of Dodge–and I just looked like a perfectly reasonable person. When you are behind enemy lines like we are the offense has to be clever and layered. I think of my Polish great aunt who was a slave laborer in a Messerschmitt parts factory during the war–every 4th or 5th part was carefully and subtly sabotaged.