The recent shootings at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Connecticut has seen a wave of attention hit the shores of the video gaming industry. This attention has been derived from the fact that the alleged killer, Adam Lanza, was known to have played violent video games such as Call of Duty. This has led to widespread criticism of the gaming industry from the public as well as the 'higher ups' such as senator Rockefeller and the National Rifle Association (NRA).
MWEB GameZone takes a look
10°
10°
20°
20°
Ad 
20°
Teens are perfect and do no wrong.
(rolls eyes)
The guy was 20. So it has to have been the games.
/s
So... it IS their fault!
*Knocks down insomniac games with The Sonic Eruptor*
then I can blame misspelled words on my pencil.
If a drunk driver runs down a group of kids crossing the street, the car should be held accountable for their deaths and not the drunk driver...
If an idiot burns a house down, the match that the idiot lite should be held legally accountable than the drunk idiot himself...right???
Right???
Be logically-equal.
Lets accept that we have maniacs in society.
Undoubtedly it's not actually the gun's fault if they go on a killing spree, but that approach really misses the point.
Restricting gun sales protects us from ourselves - if these maniacs go on a killing spree without guns then there will be far less, perhaps no casualties (as it becomes difficult).
So lets think of guns as a catalyst rather than a source of gun crime.
What is the source? The world has always had people who didn't quite fit in with society, and Lanza probably felt isolated and went mad as a result.
If we are unable to attack the source then we must go for the catalyst instead. In this case, that means attacking gun sales.
As for the drunk driver analogy, it can be refuted by assuming that:
-There is a clear cause for the driver's behaviour (drunkenness) and thus we CAN attack the source
-We know that the car is the catalyst for alcohol-related violence, so would cut back on that too except that we can't ban cars as they are actually useful in civilian society(unlike guns, which are essentially an insurance policy against other gun owners).
It really is a case of cost-benefit here, and the benefit of owning guns is minimal (what do they actually DO other than harming people or allow you to improve your accuracy/ability to harm people?). Alcohol of course is the source of much enjoyment, and without cars, modern life would be impossible outside of major cities.
Logic therefore dictates an attack on the catalyst: guns!
He was perfectly normal before he played games.
Oh wait...
http://www.examiner.com/art...
'The Mail, citing The National Enquirer, notes that Trevor L. Todd told the tabloid that Lanza’s satanic webpage “gave him the chills.”'
I read it in a newspaper and i looked around online to find something to link to.
0_o
Whoa...
Case.
Closed.
:)
Did you know there was another in Pennsylvania a few days back? You see, you give this mass murdering twat mass coverage over his crimes and this causes some other unhinged loner to do the same because he knows he'll get the same reaction.
So the news and papers focus on the killer. Always the killer. His weapons. His clothing. "Oohhh he didn't have a facebook page - what a weird loner he was" and this can easily give some very disturbed people the push they need.
It's interesting to see half these media outlets point the finger at video computer games/films/music - just wait til the next Call of Duty or the one or the next big name titles they'd review comes along. They rave about it. The Sun - a paper here in Britain, even added Black Ops in their headline regarding the shooting. But not long ago, they called BLOPS2 one of the best shooters out there and they'll do the same with MW4.
It's idiotic and stupid and they can point the finger at anyone they want - they will always shoulder more of the blame than anyone else because they almost glorify these actions to people and give it too much focus and attention.
Everyone goes out and murders people after playing video games. :/
-USA has violent video games
-UK has violent video games
-USA has relaxed gun laws
-UK has strict gun laws
Murder rate is almost three times higher in USA
Conclusion: Violent video games are not responsible for American massacres. Guns are.
Honestly, surely a world where only the military have guns would be better? If nobody else has a gun, then you don't need one to defend yourself.
In the UK our main cause of homicide is knife crime, but I know that personally I'd rather be one on one with a guy with a knife than someone with a gun.
Also, knives being the most dangerous readily available weapon practically eliminates the potential for massacres such as Sandy Hook.
Skipping past all the references I basically learned that there are several switches that must be flipped in order for someone to be violent. A big one is they have to get the gumption to attack put in them. And playing video games would be a very small damn near non existent part of the equation. Even for mentally disturbed person.
(Trust me i am being nice by using stupid, although i wanted to use other hurtful words)