Comments (92)
« 1 2 »
Karum  +   1144d ago
I dunno why people are hating, admittedly Kotaku put a lot of garbage out and seldom do I like anything I've ever read on there but this was a pretty interesting article.

For those that didn't bother to read it the article is basically reporting on the points of view of he guy who arranged for gamers to have that ceasefire on Friday and that of that guy that changed his name to Tri-Force who disagreed and had his own event on the same day streaming games.

It quoted both for their reasoning and what they said to each other.

It was actually an interesting read to hear both points of view. One of the few Kotaku articles worth reading I thought.
Soldierone  +   1144d ago
Why are they making that guy seem like the bad guy? He hosted his own event with similar manner and respected the original cease fire event.... Yet Kotaku sits there saying he is a douche?

This shows gamers are kind. Try doing that cease fire thing with violent TV (news included) and movies.... won't happen at all.
InTheLab  +   1144d ago
to participate in the cease fire lends weight to the notion that violent games influences these psychos that do these mass shootings....

I'm with Triforce on this one.

edit: kotaku is shit and totillo is a tool.
#33 (Edited 1144d ago ) | Agree(0) | Disagree(0) | Report | Reply
spartanlemur  +   1144d ago
precisely. We're not even slightly obliged to make a statement as the games we play are harmless.
spartanlemur  +   1144d ago
Violence in games doesn't kill people: guns do.

In the UK we have access to all the violent games you have in the USA (our censors don't really touch anything) yet our murder rate is far lower and gunmen are unheard of.

Here, rifles and shotguns are owned only by a few farmers, and we have a murder rate of 1.2 per 100,000 people compared to the USA's 4.2.

Violent games are not the problem and need to be let off the hook, as there is no evidence they cause crime, whereas guns directly do!
The argument that people kill people rather than guns is rather weak as well - you wouldn't sell nukes or small bombs as "people kill people and they are harmless unless people decide to use them", so why not extend that logic to all weapons which don't have incredibly common non-violent uses (you can't ban knives as you need them to cook, but surely hunters can deal with a little extra regulation?)
#34 (Edited 1144d ago ) | Agree(0) | Disagree(0) | Report | Reply
« 1 2 »

Add comment

You need to be registered to add comments. Register here or login