"Active Shooter" video game lets you be school shooter

[OldLady]

I don't know, Aaron.

Why not?

The horror genre is different from what I was talking about. An axe, a car, a vampire, a zombie, a chain saw, that's like taking a ride on a roller coaster, more than embedding guns and lots of shooting in a movie or a tv action show.

Damn girl... I dont even know how to respond to that logic.

Reading Stephen King is the equivalent of going in the Haunted House at the fair or the Haunted Hayride at Halloween. It's meant to be scary.

And sitting in front of a screen playing a video game is the equivalent of sitting in front of a screen playing a video game.

I gave this some thought yesterday and approaching it from this angle actually made me question if these games were as bad as I thought. You had to approach me through books, and then the wheels started turning.
Ultimately, I still think it is dead wrong to have first person shooter games, but I understand why people have "fun" with them. Maybe banning them is not the answer, except in the same way Roseanne was just "banned," by private industry saying it's bad business to hire a racist. We'll see what happens; seems whatever business put this game forward has no social conscience.

 

[G.T.]

what part of our culture is degenerate in your opinion? Let's compare us to history, aspect to aspect, and see how we measure up....

Don't get me started................

I can remember when black music was the best in the world -- doo-wop, rock and roll invention and innovation --- and now it's just jungle-rhythms rap with grossly violent lyrics celebrating killing women and police. Now, THAT is degenerate.

I can remember when art was something interesting to look at. Now it's a bullwhip in a homosexual's anus, it's a bull in formaldehyde, it's American flags tacked down to the floor so the audience for this "art" has to walk on it. Degenerate in the extreme.

Literature is doing fine --- because it has a very strong profit track these days. When it was controlled by the types who thought Philip Roth's masturbation fantasies were somehow great literature, then it was degenerate, but that aspect of the culture has recovered.

The news media is worse than degenerate: it has wholly died, for the most part. There is some clear business news still (profit track again) but the rest is the most vicious opinion expressed with hyperbole and obscenity. Right now on Google News (5/30, 9 AM) OPINION: Trump is not a liar, he's a madman: Washington Post. OPINION: RED ALERT: Electing the Trump Resistance: New York Times. That's not even degenerate: it's just gone. I suppose what used to be news is all amateur propaganda now, trying to promote civil war.

Oh, so this isn't empirically true it's just a feeling that old people get?

Because let's start with music.

Due to the age of information, independent music as an industry is larger than literally ever - and not only are there hundreds of genres of NEW music.....from folk, to rock, to hard rock, to classic rock, to classical, to symphony............................but the lyrics vary from tame, to lame, to raw and unapologetic. You blame an entire culture for your inability to be imaginative enough to go and do a damn search for what you like? That's a degeneracy of your brain.

Also, it's a much more enlightened view to suck the power out of harmful/abusive language. That is the optimistic view of obscene lyrics. Language is simply a means to communicate - and the folks who invented "bad words" as being a taboo thing were unenlightened in the sense that they themselves gave those words their power. Today's culture is literally taking the power away from bad words - and that's a step in the right direction from an optimists' perspective and so....again, today is better IMO.

Art? I hope you're joking. See my prior lines regarding music. There's literally not a single form or style of art that you can claim to me, here and now, doesn't get practiced. I'd dare you to try, so that was quite the baffling case you presented.

News media has not degenerated, it's done exactly what Capitalism has guided it towards: the profit motive. If you don't like its direction, you're supposed to use your voice by not watching it - - - and if enough folks take that level of responsibility and then begin watching when it represents objective journalism, like you'd like, then it'd be fine. You could also browse the internet for fair and objective sources and help them grow their business by using it.

Today's art, music, etc. is more advanced than any time in Cultural history. That's through diversity - literally anything you can imagine? Exists. You couldn't make an objective case that it isn't better by that fact alone.

 

[G.T.]

Why not?

The horror genre is different from what I was talking about. An axe, a car, a vampire, a zombie, a chain saw, that's like taking a ride on a roller coaster, more than embedding guns and lots of shooting in a movie or a tv action show.

Damn girl... I dont even know how to respond to that logic.

Reading Stephen King is the equivalent of going in the Haunted House at the fair or the Haunted Hayride at Halloween. It's meant to be scary.

And sitting in front of a screen playing a video game is the equivalent of sitting in front of a screen playing a video game.

I gave this some thought yesterday and approaching it from this angle actually made me question if these games were as bad as I thought. You had to approach me through books, and then the wheels started turning.
Ultimately, I still think it is dead wrong to have first person shooter games, but I understand why people have "fun" with them. Maybe banning them is not the answer, except in the same way Roseanne was just "banned," by private industry saying it's bad business to hire a racist. We'll see what happens; seems whatever business put this game forward has no social conscience.

The disconnect is literally your lack of trust in human beings other than yourself.

99.9999% of people can distinguish between a game, book, or movie and real life just like you can.......but you don't trust that they can, which is where your feelings come from.

I tried to tell you, it's obviously an incorrect feeling because we are, as an objective fact, a less violent society.

 

[TNHarley]

Why not?

The horror genre is different from what I was talking about. An axe, a car, a vampire, a zombie, a chain saw, that's like taking a ride on a roller coaster, more than embedding guns and lots of shooting in a movie or a tv action show.

Damn girl... I dont even know how to respond to that logic.

Reading Stephen King is the equivalent of going in the Haunted House at the fair or the Haunted Hayride at Halloween. It's meant to be scary.

And sitting in front of a screen playing a video game is the equivalent of sitting in front of a screen playing a video game.

I gave this some thought yesterday and approaching it from this angle actually made me question if these games were as bad as I thought. You had to approach me through books, and then the wheels started turning.
Ultimately, I still think it is dead wrong to have first person shooter games, but I understand why people have "fun" with them. Maybe banning them is not the answer, except in the same way Roseanne was just "banned," by private industry saying it's bad business to hire a racist. We'll see what happens; seems whatever business put this game forward has no social conscience.

Greed has a way of doing that. Capitalism and ambition can bring out the worst in people.
Well, if i was able to make a game like this and possibly get rich, i might do it too. IDK Seems shitty but people love it. Especially games built around new ideas.

 

[OldLady]

A game that starts off with the premise is wrong, but then again what do you expect from the culture that embraced Grand Theft Auto..

My son was playing that when I went to visit my toddler granddaughter, and I BEGGED him to get rid of it, or at least not play it in the living room where she would be exposed to it. He completely ignored me. Reminded me it was just a game. And to her it was. I don't think she was much of a gamer, anyway--except for that one where you jump all around and play tennis and stuff--I can't remember what you call it.

 

[G.T.]

A game that starts off with the premise is wrong, but then again what do you expect from the culture that embraced Grand Theft Auto..

My son was playing that when I went to visit my toddler granddaughter, and I BEGGED him to get rid of it, or at least not play it in the living room where she would be exposed to it. He completely ignored me. Reminded me it was just a game. And to her it was. I don't think she was much of a gamer, anyway--except for that one where you jump all around and play tennis and stuff--I can't remember what you call it.

Wii

 

[OldLady]

The horror genre is different from what I was talking about. An axe, a car, a vampire, a zombie, a chain saw, that's like taking a ride on a roller coaster, more than embedding guns and lots of shooting in a movie or a tv action show.

Damn girl... I dont even know how to respond to that logic.

Reading Stephen King is the equivalent of going in the Haunted House at the fair or the Haunted Hayride at Halloween. It's meant to be scary.

And sitting in front of a screen playing a video game is the equivalent of sitting in front of a screen playing a video game.

I gave this some thought yesterday and approaching it from this angle actually made me question if these games were as bad as I thought. You had to approach me through books, and then the wheels started turning.
Ultimately, I still think it is dead wrong to have first person shooter games, but I understand why people have "fun" with them. Maybe banning them is not the answer, except in the same way Roseanne was just "banned," by private industry saying it's bad business to hire a racist. We'll see what happens; seems whatever business put this game forward has no social conscience.

The disconnect is literally your lack of trust in human beings other than yourself.

99.9999% of people can distinguish between a game, book, or movie and real life just like you can.......but you don't trust that they can, which is where your feelings come from.

I tried to tell you, it's obviously an incorrect feeling because we are, as an objective fact, a less violent society.

Don't tell me what my feelings are, G.T., or that I am "incorrect" or "old" or "irrational." It is just viewing this issue from a different perspective. You don't have a patent on the "right" answer to everything, however much you think you do.
Lecture over.

It is an interesting question: Does media simply reflect our reality or does it shape it? Which came first? Regardless, it becomes a feedback loop. Which came first doesn't really matter at this point. First person shooter games as entertainment reflect the 10,000 + gun homicides a year in this country and the great popularity of guns in our culture. We shoot people. It is what 10,000 plus people a year choose as their option if they're pissed, if they've got a social conflict, if they're just plain nuts and looking to go out in a blaze of GLORY.

Glorifying shooting people doesn't need to be part of our culture. Yet we allow it in music, movies, tv and video games. And now we have people defending a video game that allows you to be the school shooter because it is "Freedom of Speech?" To steal a phrase from our President, that's sad.

We got a whole lot of people to stop/never start smoking through incremental social pressure; it's no longer a popular thing to do in most circles. One of the first steps was "banning" smoking from tv shows and removing advertising from print media. We could mount a similar campaign about using guns. ALONG with spending much more attention on mental health services and whatever else.

But I see the entering-the-haunted-house side of the argument, too.

 

[OldLady]

The horror genre is different from what I was talking about. An axe, a car, a vampire, a zombie, a chain saw, that's like taking a ride on a roller coaster, more than embedding guns and lots of shooting in a movie or a tv action show.

Damn girl... I dont even know how to respond to that logic.

Reading Stephen King is the equivalent of going in the Haunted House at the fair or the Haunted Hayride at Halloween. It's meant to be scary.

And sitting in front of a screen playing a video game is the equivalent of sitting in front of a screen playing a video game.

I gave this some thought yesterday and approaching it from this angle actually made me question if these games were as bad as I thought. You had to approach me through books, and then the wheels started turning.
Ultimately, I still think it is dead wrong to have first person shooter games, but I understand why people have "fun" with them. Maybe banning them is not the answer, except in the same way Roseanne was just "banned," by private industry saying it's bad business to hire a racist. We'll see what happens; seems whatever business put this game forward has no social conscience.

Greed has a way of doing that. Capitalism and ambition can bring out the worst in people.
Well, if i was able to make a game like this and possibly get rich, i might do it too. IDK Seems shitty but people love it. Especially games built around new ideas.

For many years, I've had an idea for a driving video game. Nothing gets killed (well, maybe the turkey vultures). I think it would be fun and challenging. Does it HAVE to involve shooting people for it to be fun for you?

 

[G.T.]

Damn girl... I dont even know how to respond to that logic.

Reading Stephen King is the equivalent of going in the Haunted House at the fair or the Haunted Hayride at Halloween. It's meant to be scary.

And sitting in front of a screen playing a video game is the equivalent of sitting in front of a screen playing a video game.

I gave this some thought yesterday and approaching it from this angle actually made me question if these games were as bad as I thought. You had to approach me through books, and then the wheels started turning.
Ultimately, I still think it is dead wrong to have first person shooter games, but I understand why people have "fun" with them. Maybe banning them is not the answer, except in the same way Roseanne was just "banned," by private industry saying it's bad business to hire a racist. We'll see what happens; seems whatever business put this game forward has no social conscience.

The disconnect is literally your lack of trust in human beings other than yourself.

99.9999% of people can distinguish between a game, book, or movie and real life just like you can.......but you don't trust that they can, which is where your feelings come from.

I tried to tell you, it's obviously an incorrect feeling because we are, as an objective fact, a less violent society.

Don't tell me what my feelings are, G.T., or that I am "incorrect" or "old" or "irrational." It is just viewing this issue from a different perspective. You don't have a patent on the "right" answer to everything, however much you think you do.
Lecture over.

It is an interesting question: Does media simply reflect our reality or does it shape it? Which came first? Regardless, it becomes a feedback loop. Which came first doesn't really matter at this point. First person shooter games as entertainment reflect the 10,000 + gun homicides a year in this country and the great popularity of guns in our culture. We shoot people. It is what 10,000 plus people a year choose as their option if they're pissed, if they've got a social conflict, if they're just plain nuts and looking to go out in a blaze of GLORY.

Glorifying shooting people doesn't need to be part of our culture. Yet we allow it in music, movies, tv and video games. And now we have people defending a video game that allows you to be the school shooter because it is "Freedom of Speech?" To steal a phrase from our President, that's sad.

We got a whole lot of people to stop/never start smoking through incremental social pressure; it's no longer a popular thing to do in most circles. One of the first steps was "banning" smoking from tv shows and removing advertising from print media. We could mount a similar campaign about using guns. ALONG with spending much more attention on mental health services and whatever else.

But I see the entering-the-haunted-house side of the argument, too.

Its not a matter of simply one's perspective ~ and all apologies, but being unclear on the facts does seem to be a function of age. You're purposefully choosing hard-headedness over the reality on the ground. That's not a function of me, my personality, your implication that Im a knowitall or anything else ---- it is objective reality.


You continue to ignore what you actually seem to have a problem with: HOMICIDE.


Does a dead person care if they were killed by gun, or by motor vehicle? The tool is irrelevant, it's the psychotic inclination to think that it's ok to murder.

The statistics PROVE, (NOT A MATTER OF PERSPECTIVE, BUT OBJECTIVE FACT*) - that our current culture produces LESS murderers.

That means - that in-terms of what we all have a problem with (homicide....people killing people)....we are doing BETTER as a culture.

That's not a debatable fact, as its not subjective. Its hard data. Its not my perspective on the hard data, its the hard data.

Guns being the tool of choice is a matter of convenience, for psychotics.....not a matter of there being more psychotics or that movies and games are producing psychotics. The numbers literally prove that, because you can directly correlate the rise of violence in games, lyrics and movies....to a DECREASE in homicides.


You are focused solely on the tool, and ignoring an overall picture of a MORE civil society, statistically. Thats lazy. Thats intellectual sloth. Blaming me, is personal. I'll remember that, though.

 

[TNHarley]

Damn girl... I dont even know how to respond to that logic.

Reading Stephen King is the equivalent of going in the Haunted House at the fair or the Haunted Hayride at Halloween. It's meant to be scary.

And sitting in front of a screen playing a video game is the equivalent of sitting in front of a screen playing a video game.

I gave this some thought yesterday and approaching it from this angle actually made me question if these games were as bad as I thought. You had to approach me through books, and then the wheels started turning.
Ultimately, I still think it is dead wrong to have first person shooter games, but I understand why people have "fun" with them. Maybe banning them is not the answer, except in the same way Roseanne was just "banned," by private industry saying it's bad business to hire a racist. We'll see what happens; seems whatever business put this game forward has no social conscience.

Greed has a way of doing that. Capitalism and ambition can bring out the worst in people.
Well, if i was able to make a game like this and possibly get rich, i might do it too. IDK Seems shitty but people love it. Especially games built around new ideas.

For many years, I've had an idea for a driving video game. Nothing gets killed (well, maybe the turkey vultures). I think it would be fun and challenging. Does it HAVE to involve shooting people for it to be fun for you?

ummm YES lol
That sounds boring as hell.
You are so cute though. Turkey vulture hunting! lol

 

[TNHarley]

Damn girl... I dont even know how to respond to that logic.

Reading Stephen King is the equivalent of going in the Haunted House at the fair or the Haunted Hayride at Halloween. It's meant to be scary.

And sitting in front of a screen playing a video game is the equivalent of sitting in front of a screen playing a video game.

I gave this some thought yesterday and approaching it from this angle actually made me question if these games were as bad as I thought. You had to approach me through books, and then the wheels started turning.
Ultimately, I still think it is dead wrong to have first person shooter games, but I understand why people have "fun" with them. Maybe banning them is not the answer, except in the same way Roseanne was just "banned," by private industry saying it's bad business to hire a racist. We'll see what happens; seems whatever business put this game forward has no social conscience.

The disconnect is literally your lack of trust in human beings other than yourself.

99.9999% of people can distinguish between a game, book, or movie and real life just like you can.......but you don't trust that they can, which is where your feelings come from.

I tried to tell you, it's obviously an incorrect feeling because we are, as an objective fact, a less violent society.

Don't tell me what my feelings are, G.T., or that I am "incorrect" or "old" or "irrational." It is just viewing this issue from a different perspective. You don't have a patent on the "right" answer to everything, however much you think you do.
Lecture over.

It is an interesting question: Does media simply reflect our reality or does it shape it? Which came first? Regardless, it becomes a feedback loop. Which came first doesn't really matter at this point. First person shooter games as entertainment reflect the 10,000 + gun homicides a year in this country and the great popularity of guns in our culture. We shoot people. It is what 10,000 plus people a year choose as their option if they're pissed, if they've got a social conflict, if they're just plain nuts and looking to go out in a blaze of GLORY.

Glorifying shooting people doesn't need to be part of our culture. Yet we allow it in music, movies, tv and video games. And now we have people defending a video game that allows you to be the school shooter because it is "Freedom of Speech?" To steal a phrase from our President, that's sad.

We got a whole lot of people to stop/never start smoking through incremental social pressure; it's no longer a popular thing to do in most circles. One of the first steps was "banning" smoking from tv shows and removing advertising from print media. We could mount a similar campaign about using guns. ALONG with spending much more attention on mental health services and whatever else.

But I see the entering-the-haunted-house side of the argument, too.

This convo is more than just perception, my dear. It is statistics. It is reality.

 

[OldLady]

''Active Shooter' video game pulled after huge backlash

A game developer and digital distribution company has announced, after facing harsh criticism, that it will pull a video game that allows players to simulate a school shooter.

Valve Inc. announced Tuesday it would pull “Active Shooter” from its online gaming platform, Steam, after learning that the game’s publisher and developer has a “history of customer abuse” that was uncovered as a result of the controversy surrounding the game, Variety and other news outlets reported.

 

[OldLady]

Reading Stephen King is the equivalent of going in the Haunted House at the fair or the Haunted Hayride at Halloween. It's meant to be scary.

And sitting in front of a screen playing a video game is the equivalent of sitting in front of a screen playing a video game.

I gave this some thought yesterday and approaching it from this angle actually made me question if these games were as bad as I thought. You had to approach me through books, and then the wheels started turning.
Ultimately, I still think it is dead wrong to have first person shooter games, but I understand why people have "fun" with them. Maybe banning them is not the answer, except in the same way Roseanne was just "banned," by private industry saying it's bad business to hire a racist. We'll see what happens; seems whatever business put this game forward has no social conscience.

The disconnect is literally your lack of trust in human beings other than yourself.

99.9999% of people can distinguish between a game, book, or movie and real life just like you can.......but you don't trust that they can, which is where your feelings come from.

I tried to tell you, it's obviously an incorrect feeling because we are, as an objective fact, a less violent society.

Don't tell me what my feelings are, G.T., or that I am "incorrect" or "old" or "irrational." It is just viewing this issue from a different perspective. You don't have a patent on the "right" answer to everything, however much you think you do.
Lecture over.

It is an interesting question: Does media simply reflect our reality or does it shape it? Which came first? Regardless, it becomes a feedback loop. Which came first doesn't really matter at this point. First person shooter games as entertainment reflect the 10,000 + gun homicides a year in this country and the great popularity of guns in our culture. We shoot people. It is what 10,000 plus people a year choose as their option if they're pissed, if they've got a social conflict, if they're just plain nuts and looking to go out in a blaze of GLORY.

Glorifying shooting people doesn't need to be part of our culture. Yet we allow it in music, movies, tv and video games. And now we have people defending a video game that allows you to be the school shooter because it is "Freedom of Speech?" To steal a phrase from our President, that's sad.

We got a whole lot of people to stop/never start smoking through incremental social pressure; it's no longer a popular thing to do in most circles. One of the first steps was "banning" smoking from tv shows and removing advertising from print media. We could mount a similar campaign about using guns. ALONG with spending much more attention on mental health services and whatever else.

But I see the entering-the-haunted-house side of the argument, too.

This convo is more than just perception, my dear. It is statistics. It is reality.

You becoming an acolyte of 2AGuy? If you want to talk statistics, tell me about the 10,000+ who die every year from gun homicide. That is not acceptable to me. Sorry it is to you.

 

[OldLady]

Reading Stephen King is the equivalent of going in the Haunted House at the fair or the Haunted Hayride at Halloween. It's meant to be scary.

And sitting in front of a screen playing a video game is the equivalent of sitting in front of a screen playing a video game.

I gave this some thought yesterday and approaching it from this angle actually made me question if these games were as bad as I thought. You had to approach me through books, and then the wheels started turning.
Ultimately, I still think it is dead wrong to have first person shooter games, but I understand why people have "fun" with them. Maybe banning them is not the answer, except in the same way Roseanne was just "banned," by private industry saying it's bad business to hire a racist. We'll see what happens; seems whatever business put this game forward has no social conscience.

Greed has a way of doing that. Capitalism and ambition can bring out the worst in people.
Well, if i was able to make a game like this and possibly get rich, i might do it too. IDK Seems shitty but people love it. Especially games built around new ideas.

For many years, I've had an idea for a driving video game. Nothing gets killed (well, maybe the turkey vultures). I think it would be fun and challenging. Does it HAVE to involve shooting people for it to be fun for you?

ummm YES lol
That sounds boring as hell.
You are so cute though. Turkey vulture hunting! lol

All the surprise things I've encountered driving in the country and in the city. Just about dented my fender on two turkey vultures who couldn't lumber their way out of the road fast enough--they were eating a rabbit.

 

[Some Guy]

If it could be shown that access to and playing the video game would lessen school shootings, would you be in favor of it?

It's interesting to see people who are appalled by this yet have little issue with song lyrics in various forms of music (namely rap) about objectifying women and capping people's asses, or videogames that allow you run around a city murdering people and jacking their cars (GTA). If you think this is so bad, then certainly you'd agree that our culture has degraded to a point that might help to explain why more kids are willing to shoot up schools?

Or in other words. If this is bad enough to ban, then where is the line of acceptable entertainment that indulges bad behavior? Why is this so out-of-bounds when GTA isn't? And if this is such a negative, horrible thing for kids to have then why isn't GTA?

 

[G.T.]

And sitting in front of a screen playing a video game is the equivalent of sitting in front of a screen playing a video game.

I gave this some thought yesterday and approaching it from this angle actually made me question if these games were as bad as I thought. You had to approach me through books, and then the wheels started turning.
Ultimately, I still think it is dead wrong to have first person shooter games, but I understand why people have "fun" with them. Maybe banning them is not the answer, except in the same way Roseanne was just "banned," by private industry saying it's bad business to hire a racist. We'll see what happens; seems whatever business put this game forward has no social conscience.

The disconnect is literally your lack of trust in human beings other than yourself.

99.9999% of people can distinguish between a game, book, or movie and real life just like you can.......but you don't trust that they can, which is where your feelings come from.

I tried to tell you, it's obviously an incorrect feeling because we are, as an objective fact, a less violent society.

Don't tell me what my feelings are, G.T., or that I am "incorrect" or "old" or "irrational." It is just viewing this issue from a different perspective. You don't have a patent on the "right" answer to everything, however much you think you do.
Lecture over.

It is an interesting question: Does media simply reflect our reality or does it shape it? Which came first? Regardless, it becomes a feedback loop. Which came first doesn't really matter at this point. First person shooter games as entertainment reflect the 10,000 + gun homicides a year in this country and the great popularity of guns in our culture. We shoot people. It is what 10,000 plus people a year choose as their option if they're pissed, if they've got a social conflict, if they're just plain nuts and looking to go out in a blaze of GLORY.

Glorifying shooting people doesn't need to be part of our culture. Yet we allow it in music, movies, tv and video games. And now we have people defending a video game that allows you to be the school shooter because it is "Freedom of Speech?" To steal a phrase from our President, that's sad.

We got a whole lot of people to stop/never start smoking through incremental social pressure; it's no longer a popular thing to do in most circles. One of the first steps was "banning" smoking from tv shows and removing advertising from print media. We could mount a similar campaign about using guns. ALONG with spending much more attention on mental health services and whatever else.

But I see the entering-the-haunted-house side of the argument, too.

This convo is more than just perception, my dear. It is statistics. It is reality.

You becoming an acolyte of 2AGuy? If you want to talk statistics, tell me about the 10,000+ who die every year from gun homicide. That is not acceptable to me. Sorry it is to you.

Is that honest?

I said that it's alright?

I'm not sure why you have such an emotional detachment from objectively analyzing a situation so that it can be properly addressed.

If homocides overall are DOWN, we can all agree that's a GOOD thing and start from there - YES?

Or - would it be better if homocides go BACK UP - but they're spread across a more even distribution of murder weapons?

Please answer both as honestly and as objectively as you can - I'm kind of at my limit here with your fingers in your ears and being personal thing.

 

[Synthaholic]

Don't like it don't download it. Simple as that. It shouldn't be banned.

How about a game where you get to rape Melania and Ivanka? Would you be OK with that, too?

 

[OldLady]

we need to recognize how fatalistic many teenagers, especially inner-city teens, feels about violence. firearms are intimately known to these kids.

many poor, black, inner-city kids are living surrounded by an amount of violence that's astounding.

Their neighborhoods are war zones. I'm glad the Parkland kids remembered them when they began protesting gun violence.

 

[Some Guy]

Don't like it don't download it. Simple as that. It shouldn't be banned.

How about a game where you get to rape Melania and Ivanka? Would you be OK with that, too?

False equivalency. This game isn't naming people. In it, you're a faceless, nameless guy/girl killing faceless/nameless people.

 

[G.T.]

If it could be shown that access to and playing the video game would lessen school shootings, would you be in favor of it?

It's interesting to see people who are appalled by this yet have little issue with song lyrics in various forms of music (namely rap) about objectifying women and capping people's asses, or videogames that allow you run around a city murdering people and jacking their cars (GTA). If you think this is so bad, then certainly you'd agree that our culture has degraded to a point that might help to explain why more kids are willing to shoot up schools?

Or in other words. If this is bad enough to ban, then where is the line of acceptable entertainment that indulges bad behavior? Why is this so out-of-bounds when GTA isn't? And if this is such a negative, horrible thing for kids to have then why isn't GTA?

Rugged freedom of speech - when they say that knowledge is power, they don't mean within limits. Knowing things and having perspective is better than book/game burning and not knowing at all.