Joe Biden shouldn’t blame video games for gun violence

Games like Call of Duty tend to give video games a bad name. Not every video game is violent and not every video game needs to be violent in order for it to be entertaining or tell its story.

For some people, violent media and video games can encourage violent behaviour. Those people could also be encouraged by images in books in magazines as easily as video games and movies.

[360ICE]

Good article, but I must say, after playing The War Z I really felt like shooting someone.

[Lord_Sloth]

Neither games nor guns are to blame. Only the psychos who shoot are to blame for shootings.

[PopRocks359]

Can't we at least acknowledge that it's too easy for said psychopaths to obtain automatic weapons (or really any type of weapon)? I don't see what the issue is in applying SOME restrictions. Gun control is not the same as gun bans and if the idea is to let law abiding citizens collect guns as desired while keeping it out of the hands of adverse people, then why even fight the issue?

@AO1JMM

SOME DO. The man who shot Gabrielle Giffords and several others? He legally purchased a gun as well as a clip that supported well over double the usual number of bullets. How is there not a problem with that?

[AO1JMM]

Because these psychos all buy legal weapons right?

[Lord_Sloth]

Sounds like a Five Seven. If somebody is going to break the law they will get the gun, legally or otherwise. The only thing making it harder to obtain a gun legally will accomplish is there would be nobody capable of STOPPING a madman with a gun.

Illegal weapons aren't as hard to find as many seem to think. The best way to stop a bad-guy with a gun, is a good guy with a gun.

[UnholyLight]

I agree. and AO1JMM you're dumb. I've talked to many Americans about what getting guns is like (Im from Canada) and from what they told me it's pretty obvious any person who is crazy can buy a weapon legally, I am sure a lot of these people that carry out these shootings do not buy them on the black market as any citizen can simply walk into a store and buy an M4 or whatever. Every day people carry out these killings, I highly doubt most of these people that do these shootings (the younger ones anyways like at Virginia Tech etc) have connections with the Black Market when they can simply walk into a gun store and purchase auto weapons

[cl1983]

The fire arms act of 1934 required the atf to sign off on any select fire or full auto weapon sale. The weapons used in these mass shootings are all semi-auto meaning that each pull of the trigger sends out a single bullet.

Edit
@Unholylight
I don't know who you're talking to but a sale from a business to an individual has to have a federal back ground check that takes 3-5 business days. The only way a person can get a gun the same day is if they buy it from a private individual sale. Depending on where you live also puts restrictions on a ownership of different types of guns. Also depending upon your state you may be limited to one buying transaction each month.

[PopRocks359]

@cl1983

What are you talking about? One of the weapons used in the Sandy Hook shooting was an assault rifle. Two of the handguns used had the capability to fire five bullets a second.

@Ares84HU

That's incredibly narrow minded. ALL gun control laws will be that restrictive? Really? You honestly don't believe that there can be any reasonable gun control of any kind that does not inflict on the rights of any law abiding citizen?

[Ares84HU]

All "gun control" will do is take away guns from people who wouldn't use it for evil but psychopaths will ALWAYS find a way to get hold of a gun. If not a gun, than a bow, if not a bow than a knife, if not a knife than a rock.....people psychopaths will always find a way to kill if they want to kill.

[cl1983]

You need to learn what an assault weapon is, and the difference between an assault weapon and a assault riffle.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wik...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wik...

All of the guns used in ct were semi auto meaning each trigger pull shot a bullet, and it fires as fast as you pull the trigger. edit
@ Enigma_2099 you should read this article http://n4g.com/news/1151934...

[SilentNegotiator]

"SOME DO. The man who shot Gabrielle Giffords and several others? He legally purchased a gun as well as a clip that supported well over double the usual number of bullets. How is there not a problem with that?"

1) Many psychopaths can easily play things straight for an exam of mental health.
2) That wouldn't have stopped many of the shootings, including Sandy Hook, as those weapons were stolen.
3) Sandy Hook, Aurora, Virginia Tech - those guys were well prepared. Smaller clips would have meant they would have carried more clips in a clip belt.
4) Restricting EVERYONE will not put an end to psychopaths getting guns, and will barely slow them down.
5) Remember, the worst school mass murder (and one of the worst in general, especially as performed by one person) was due to home-made bombs, not guns. Frankly, guns are far from the worst weapon possible if someone wanted to kill a bunch of persons.

You're confusing "no one having a problem with it" with critical thinking.

[swansong]

Hollywood movies and music,even tv shows, has more effect on society then video games ever will.It still comes down to a choice an individual makes on whether they want to entertain and act upon those evil horrendous thoughts of violence.

[Jek_Porkins]

Crazy Joe..........

Not to get too political but the leaders here in the US are a complete and utter joke, not only are we heading more and more into a socialist society, but the rights our forefathers wanted for us, like the right to bear arms, are getting slowly taken away because of isolated incidents that spark fear and the fear mongering news outlets reporting on it like they do.

Outlawing guns wont take them off the streets, it will only take away protection from honest, hard working people who protect themselves and their families. Anyone that thinks outlawing guns will stop them from being used in crimes should look at any number of illegal drugs, prostitution and a ton of other "outlawed" things.

When our Constitution was made and we got out Amendments,the right to bear arms wasn't just for hunting, it was to protect ourselves in case our Government got out of hand. Hitler said the first part to taking over is disarming the people.

[Unicron]

Respectfully - Our government IS out of hand. The second amendment and those who tout it's necessity have not stopped our government from passing things like the Patriot Act, making corporations people, letting wallstreet destroy our economy, ignoring the will of the people, etc.

The foolish part is thinking any "battle" with the government will be one of arms - owning guns has not stopped them from walking over citizens. I think the talking point of "our guns will protect us from bad government" is just that, an out of date, rhetorical and frankly hysteria causing talking point - not reality.

The government doesn't NEED to "take your guns," they can wreck lives without firing a shot, as they have proven.

[smashcrashbash]

Come on.No one is going to outlaw guns completely. The only people afraid of that are the trigger happy people constantly clinging to their guns.All people are asking for is gun control. That is all.But they even refuse to do that.All people are doing is looking ahead to something that MIGHT happen that could be completely imaginary while ignoring what is happening NOW.Which in turn is preventing anything being done about the immediate problem. Gun crazy people are so busy looking at the government maybe becoming some Hitler like form in the future to see that guns are becoming a problem and killing people here and now causing awful tragedies like the one that just happened recently.

When the people did that bill with the 'right to bear arms' that was done then when the guns were not as plentiful or as dangerous as they are now with guns that shot one pellet at a time then needed to be reloaded and only certain people could afford them or access them. Not now where every psycho and radical can get their hands on a gun legally or illegally and fill their houses with weapons that can mow down several people per second.I am certain when the people wrote that down they weren't expecting America to become as chaotic as it is now.So while you keep on talking about fighting the CONCEPT of a future dictatorship government the present problem is spiraling out of control.

They ask people to entertain more gun control measures and the only response is 'Don't take my guns away'. We are not taking your precious Fing guns away from you we just want you to be more careful to make people safer. But people would rather see more dead school children then see any changes in their precious gun rights. They instituted measures to stop the number of people from being killed in car accidents did they take our cars away because they might be dangerous on the road? No.They put measures in place to stop making smoking cigarettes look so glamorous and to protect people from second hand smoke. Did they take the cigarettes away? No.So what is so hard about doing the same to guns? All you scream about is your rights your rights and you don't care about the consequences of your rights that are killing people now but rather the consequences of what MIGHT happen later

[pat_11_5]

Americans and their guns, I'll just never understand it.

[TENTONGUN]

rest of the world and their guns, just as fkn bad. unless youre from canada.

[Scrupuless]

Don't forget, Scotland, Ireland, Australia, Switzerland, England, and most of the rest of the first world that believes in and has seen success with gun regulation and control.

[pat_11_5]

Yes, I'm from Canada. A land where we will never understand American's obsession with owning guns.

[TENTONGUN]

yall canadians are peaceful. not a damn thing wrong with that. its high crime where i live and it sucked to see some people go over the years. tired of the people and their bullshit here

[SilentNegotiator]

We had some crazy events happen a few hundred years ago and decided that Government, even with the best of intention, is abused to take rights. We created a government as a limited entity and gave sectors of governments different pieces of power and checks and balances to keep them from being tyrannical.

With laws that clearly violate the ten basic rights outlined in our laws, the government has taken more and more power out from underneath us, created a two-party system, and made us servants by "civil" means.

Guns represent an important remaining counter balance (although looking at the bloated war machine army, it's not a perfect counter-balance). Our constitution states that a government, even the one created by the document, that infringes its citizens should be taken down by force. Maybe we'll never need to. HOPEFULLY we never need to. But between the right to protect our own lives and have something to keep old men that run our lives afraid to pass laws that will infringe us, the right to ownership of a gun is considered a sacred right.

People call it "paranoid", but it doesn't have to seem a necessity NOW. That's what counter-balances (against criminals and tyrants) are FOR.

@below
Better than sticks and rocks.

[Scrupuless]

I know, since it is your sacred right to bare arms to protect against a tyrannical home government. Since airplanes, drones, tanks, and mechanized infantry are the more relevant medium for effective arms deployment. Shouldn't we pursue our right to arm our airplanes, our right to own tanks, our right to own anti air capable arms and rockets and such, otherwise we will have no chance to rise up against the might of the american military. No rocket control! No tank control! We must be armed with modern military arms in order to stave off any and all perceived threats! /s

[Scrupuless]

Whats better then sticks and stones? Tanks, rockets, and armed planes, you don't say. On a serious note though if your government did rise against you or if civil unrest came to the point of armed civilian confrontation against federal power, you would almost be better off with sticks ans stones, maybe the soldiers and drone operators would take pity on you. Your guns would be just as useful against a cruise missile and do less damage to your society in the mean time. A gun, a million guns, 300 millions guns or stick and stones it makes no difference when you enemy is flying bombers over your head. War has evolved, much like the sword the gun is obsolete in the grand scheme of warfare and rebellion. Fuck, it took NATO, and a fully armed rebellion a few months to depose of Qaddafi.In light of that do you think your semi auto guns are going to protect you from the most powerful military on the planet, just laughable. The way I view Americans and their love of guns, is the same way I view a toddler and his safety blanket, you just think it keeps you safe, shoot at least a blanket keeps you warm at night. Furthermore if you think guns keep you safe from criminals, I would just point out that the country with the most guns in the world has the most homicides, and most assaults per capita in the firs world. Well why aren't all those guns, the 88 of a 100 people who own a firearm in the usa curbing that ridiculous crime rate of yours?

[Enigma_2099]

If you're gonna point the finger, do it right. Point them at everybody, stop ignoring those who give you campaign contributions, and stop cherry picking.

If you insist on ignoring the real problem and just play the blame game, then at least be fair about it.

[Bathyj]

The bottomline is, even if 95% of the guns in America disappeared tomorrow, which would be an incredible reduction, every now and then someone would still shoot up a school.

If 100% of guns disappeared, they would just make a bomb from household chemicals or drive their cars through a crowded mall. I'm pretty sure, all through history, people have found ways to hurt people.

PS
I had over 10 thousand headshots in Perfect Dark and watched Friday the 13th at age 10 and I've never so much as even started a fight in my life.