Kotaku False Reports On Gun Control Video

Written by: (@ToriMcGrath) | February 6, 2013 2:38 pm

110 Comments

Kotaku misconstrued an anti gun control argument into something it’s not

Practically everyone and their mother is talking about gun control right now, some of course talking about the arguable correlation between gun violence and video game violence.

The other day Kotaku, the video games-focused blog and part of Gawker Media‘s “Gawker” network of sites, reported on a video from Fox News about gun control. The writer of the article entitled “Fox News Host’s Guns Vs. Video Games Argument Doesn’t Make Sense” which you can read here, makes some valid points. The fishy part here is that what was discussed was totally taken out of context.

Here is word-for-word what was said in the clip provided at the beginning of the article at 4:27 :

“So, if we ban assault rifles, then should we ban the images of assault rifles in movies and video games? What’s that, you say? The First Amendment protects free speech? Of course it does! And the Second Amendment protects my right to bear arms. Neither trumps the other.”

In-of-itself the excerpted quote is pretty surprising (though not so much by Fox News standards) but its just an opinion. Upon watching the excerpt video I defiantly immediately thought “wow this lady is a moron” rolled my eyes and went on to read the article. But having just that small segment of the argument does not give you the full picture by any means of what Judge Jeanine Pirro was trying to say. If you watch the whole video it isn’t even a video games vs. real world violence argument, it’s fully just a pro gun rights argument in fact the title of the video on youtube is ‘Banning weapons to prevent crime doesn’t work’ On top of that in the pulled quote Judge Pirro was not comparing real world violence to violence in video games at all, except maybe to say that we as Americans have both the right to free speech and expression (video games movies etc.) and the right to bare arms. Both of those rights are equally important therefore neither should take precedence over the other.

game industry news     Kotaku False Reports On Gun Control Video

The only other time Judge Pirro mentions video games in the 7 minute long video at 3:59 is when she says:

“And now the president wants to have a dialogue on mental illness. We know the Virginia Tech shooter, the Colorado movie theater shooter and the Gabby Gifford shooter each had serious mental problems or were declared to be dangerous. Even the Newtown shooter who would play violent video games for days on end had mental problems”

To me this quote simply states that the Newtown shooter played video games, which is arguably a cause of violence. Or possibly it was more so a statement on the idea that video games may effect mentally unstable people but not necessarily mentally stable people. Either way her argument wasn’t whether or not his gaming habits were the cause of mental illness or the desire to cause harm to other people or anything along those lines. I truly wish that rather than analyzing the effects that violent video games have on people the government would concentrate on helping mentally ill people.

All I have to say is it’s this type of gossip-seeking mis-reporting that makes the gaming community look bad, like we are just fishing for reasons to be angry. Please do your research guys.

Kotaku False Reports On Gun Control Video

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Alan-O-Reilly/517423076 Alan O Reilly

    Urge to punch screen rising listening to that idiot talking

    • http://profile.yahoo.com/NVD2INPG7EGBKYZAU36OPBYRHU Hayden

      Why? There was nothing she said that was remotely idiotic – every point she made was logical and had factual evidence to support it.
      Even the supposed ‘jab’ at video games wasnt actually about video games being bad – it was to reinforce her point that guns are as much as a right as free speech and expression.

      l2think sheep

      • Deacon1979

         Her point about making guns illegal wont prevent gun crime is true to an extent because a lot of gun crime is committed by people with illegal fire arms rather than legal ones.

        The reason why her argument is somewhat idiotic is that the type of shooting that has started this debate, are mostly with legal fire arms that they got from home/someone else’s home.

        Yes gun crime will exist, however making guns hard to obtain or illegal will prevent a lot of people who just snap from bringing one into school/work and causing mass tragedy.

        • http://www.facebook.com/spankthismonkey Thomas Vu

          I don’t agree with your final statement.  If a deranged person snaps, he/she will kill and murder with whatever weapon on hand.  Look at the case where a man goes on a rampage and slices up children with a knife (happened late last year, a week after Sandy Hook).  Deranged people are dangerous with or without a legal gun.

          Personally I agree with the idiot on screen.  What is the point of  these regulations?  It won’t stop the crime, and it’ll only make it more difficult for law abiding citizens to even bother to get one to protect themselves with.

          • Deacon1979

             No I agree that people can and will snap, but you can do more damage, faster and from a distance with a gun, “guns don’t kill people, people do” is true, however so is “nukes don’t kill people, people do”, it’s the scale thats the issue.

            I would be scared of someone with a knife sure, but I would willing to try and over power them if in a group of more than 2, or be able to get away if not, same can not be said about automatic weapons.

          • http://www.facebook.com/people/Jason-Milligan/100002897983906 Jason Milligan

            Hows this for how to stop crazies from getting guns…diagnose them, teach parents how to spot warning signs, and commit them.  This is, and should be a debate about mental health, not guns.

          • Deacon1979

             Why does it have to be an either or situation? Surely “do both” is the best answer? Yes these people need help, but sometime symptoms can be very hard to spot, symptom’s can very from person to person and some people can just suddenly snap.

            Limiting access to fire arms will save lives, you cant honestly deny it because the simple fact is guns make it easier for someone to kill than not having one.

          • http://www.facebook.com/people/Jason-Milligan/100002897983906 Jason Milligan

            Chicago continues to disagree with your rose colored glasses (which is continuously reported on by even the most annoying liberal tripe rags like the Huffington Post).  Limiting access does not, will not, and never has saved lives.  At best, it would shift the nature of murders.  Knives, hammers…dropping pianos on peoples heads.  The number of deaths as a result of legal gun ownership is a drop in the bucket compared to the number caused by illegally owned guns.

            I’m sure at some point you might want to point out that the Britain has a lower murder rate, particularly with guns.  However the most popular weapon involved in murders in the Britain is *drumroll* the knife.  Side note: Britain also had a lower gun murder rate when their guns laws were extremely lax and more like ours.  Damn, there goes the idea that stricter gun laws save lives.

            You are right though…sometimes people just snap and it can’t be stopped.  Dems da breaks.  I’d rather a few people die than take away a legal gun owners ability to own that gun, while the criminal remains unaffected.

          • Deacon1979

            We were talking about school shootings and the like, not general gun crime with illegal fire arms.

            I have already stated that yes gun crime will remain an issue, what we are talking about is reducing the amount of random shootings with legal fire arms, you know the thing that started this debate?

          • http://twitter.com/dularr Dularr

            No, what started this debate is a government taking advantage of a tragedy for political gain.

        • http://twitter.com/dularr Dularr

          Theses kids don’t just snap, most cases show a long history of anti-social behavior clearly leading to violent behavior. 

          So, you are saying you want the government to eventually enter my home and remove any personally owned guns or brand me as a criminal because I own a hand gun for self-defense.  Or you want to make it hard for someone to legally own a firearm for self-defense. 

      • http://www.facebook.com/people/Alan-O-Reilly/517423076 Alan O Reilly

        It has nothing whatsoever to do with a “supposed jab”, it has to do with my general dislike of anything Fox and how there correspondents are the most condecending people on the planet

  • http://twitter.com/Slayerqt Bradley

    I hope the irony is not lost on anyone, you know with Gamebreaker reporting on taking things out of context, fishy headlines….

  • Monstercloud

    This is nothing surprising coming from Kotaku. They will report on ANYTHING that is remotely related to gaming, and their crack team of overpaid, glorified interns (Oh, their job title says “Editor”, but we know better) will do everything in their power to stretch that video game angle to some how make it relevant to it’s shit garbling audience,

    The most amusing part is when they get all pissy when you call out their journalistic integrity.

  • Deacon1979

    I looked into the abyss and it wore pastel blue /shudder

  • http://www.facebook.com/thelethrface Steven Opie Wallace

    I gotta agree with this article.  And this is one of the many reasons I stopped reading Kotaku also.  I may not agree 100% with Judge Pirro but I also have more self-respect than to take her opinion out of contest and then go posting an article about it.  

    (on another note, I’m unbiased in the case of gun control.  I hold no opinion and thus it gives me the ability to take an argument for face-value and BAM neutrality is achieved.  Win)

  • ReAlIzEr

    “God given right” …Its a Right…  etc etc…   –   really, use some common sense here people.

    The system was created in a time of high period violence / poverty / hunger / development / wars. It was deemed a necessary solution to give the “right” to the people of the developing country, to bare arms to protect ones self / family / land (farm) as needed.With the time that has past, I would like to think, we have grown up a little since then and are looking towards the future and consider what “rights” should be now – today. Perhaps its time for a version 2.0b. Clearly the violence is not stopping or going to stop any time soon with such backward thinking from those in “power” or those able to make such powerful visual statements in live stream media.Oh – and God has no place in speech when talking about human laws, nor is it a “right by nature” either.  Having a thing is a privilege and life is a gift otherwise, nature has the right to kick your butt for harming her land, her animals, her self.  Or are the “rights” of “man” only for low level thinkers?

    And so what if the person who committed the crime played video games.  We have been over this song and dance and the threads that bind the mind run deeper than visual stimulation. People have been killing other people, for no good reason, for hundreds of years – WITHOUT imagery present.

    Saying something does not work, without the agreement by everyone to give it a try and make it work, will ALWAYS kill the thought or idea. ( like the banned on guns ).  Specially if so many want to do nothing more then cause violence – even verbal violence.

    • http://www.facebook.com/people/Jason-Milligan/100002897983906 Jason Milligan

      Common sense?  How about reading the actual 2nd Amendment.  It wasn’t created to give the people a “solution to protect ones self/family/land as needed.”  It was created to give the people the ability to protect themselves from the very same type of government they had gotten away from, should the government get to that point.  Unfortunately, the government still threatens rights and the people every single day.

      • ReAlIzEr

        I always notice people saying “How about reading the actual 2nd Amendment”.  I think I was talking about something more then the 2nd….  just saying.

    • http://www.facebook.com/people/Bill-Gerrettie-Jr/1287578323 Bill Gerrettie Jr

      Please do a little reading before posting authoritatively on a subject. The Second Amendment reads; “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”

      The founders recognized that their newly formed government needed a well armed military to protect its freedoms. They also knew that governments can become corrupt and that a military can be turned upon its own citizens to seize power.

      That one sentence is so well crafted. Please read it again, it cannot be misconstrued. Our right to keep and bear arms is to protect us from a corrupt government and military, not to allow us the freedom to perform the duty of the military or police.

      • A Pinto

        That’s weird, because in law school, I learned that there were many, many different interpretations of that sentence. One school of thought suggests that the militia phrase coming first styles it as the reason for the right to bear arms, and thus is historically irrelevant (much like the 3rd Amendment, which no one insists we hold sacrosanct now), other (more conservative) schools of thought see the phrase as just the precondition which allowed for the rise of the right to bear arms.

        Can we also at some point discuss the conservative tendency to argue that our government is on the verge of oppressing us? Isn’t that a classic delusional position? America is many things, but one thing it is nowhere near is oppressive towards its own citizens. If the gun rights argument solely rests on the need to protect ourselves against our government – that’s a bit of poor reasoning.

        • http://www.facebook.com/people/Jason-Milligan/100002897983906 Jason Milligan

          You have your parties mixed up.  The conservative line of thinking is to protect themselves primarily from criminals, but they still love their government (so far as it can provide for them, but not for others).  The libertarian line of thinking is to, yes protect themselves from criminals, but to primarily protect themselves from the Government (not like there’s a difference between the two).  I prefer the latter parties line of thinking.  Better to cover all the bases, because I don’t trust either of them, particularly the government anymore.

      • ReAlIzEr

        “being necessary”….  and yes I can google as well and find both versions online, original and refined, for reading. I also read the line before and after what was written, by me,  that lead to the reference made.

  • http://twitter.com/Nathiest Nathiest

    Own all the assault weapons you want. It’ll never be enough to stop an Army as big as the US Army. 2ed Amendment is moot.

    • theunwarshed

       i seem to recall an excerpt of American history that proves your statement wrong.

    • http://twitter.com/dularr Dularr

      Nice, so you believe the oath the US military takes to protect and defend the Constitutions, means nothing. 

    • Azzras

       I served in the USMC.  If my orders were to fight my fellow Americans, it would have been the first time I would disobey.

      Your point is moot.

  • Deffizzle

    Even though this is Fox News some of her points are valid, but banning images of an assault rifle if you can not own one is rediculous. Heres a crazy concept that im going to throw out there an what she fails to realize; of course we should have the right to protect ourselves, but maybe just maybe if we spent as much energy as we spend on endless debates and whether billy bob has the right to be armed to the teeth, why dont we try to figure out why this is happening and work w/ the same zeal on trying to fix it.

    • http://twitter.com/dularr Dularr

      That was the entire point of her opinion piece.  We must focus on the dangerously mentally ill.    

    • Layithen

      You do realize she was being facetious when talking about video and image of assault rifles right?

  • Miguel Justiniano

    This should not be shocking.

    Gawker has gone on an anti-gun crusade over the last couple of months.

    Just a few weeks ago a gawker writer published a list of the names of all the gun owners in New York City with the headline “Here Is a List of All the A-holes Who Own Guns in New York City.”  Because owning a gun somehow makes you a bad person or something, I guess?

    Of course they are going to try and distort any pro-2nd amendment argument to try and make it look nutty.

    • http://twitter.com/ToriMcGrath Tori McGrath

      Wow. That’s ridiculous. All of them? Is that public information. Geez… That’s just great lets make crime more possible. ‘oh person A B and D have guns but person C doesn’t .. go ahead go on and rob em.

      • Ravenstorm

        What about: I need a gun to [insert crime], oh that guy lives 2 blocks from me, let’s go get his when he’s out. A little breaking and entering and voilá…

        • http://twitter.com/ToriMcGrath Tori McGrath

          Exactly

      • Joshua Branstetter

        It is an naive and bitter move on that Gawker poster’s part; especially because I believe that information has always been public access, much like looking up local sex offenders; which would have made a much better list of “A-holes.”

  • http://twitter.com/Zax19taken Zax19

    Please don’t feed the troll.

  • http://www.MasterRenny.com/ Thomas Renshaw

    Im sorry but there arechildren being killed over in afghan with the war going on yet they dont give a shit, yet as soon as it happens in their own country they start to give a shit? so predictable, “no one gives a shit until it effects them”

  • http://twitter.com/HallusH HallusH

    so many words used. yet not a single solution given. 

    • http://twitter.com/dularr Dularr

      Civil confinement of the dangerously mentally ill.  

  • http://twitter.com/dularr Dularr

    I found the writers snide cracks about Fox News, seem to dilute the creditably of the author. Slipping a little political hack into the article.   

  • Revanhavoc

    I laughed out loud at the Fox News jab. So true…

    But really, I don’t see how a goddamn word she said in that video added a single idea to the debate.

    Now we’re all just talking in circles.

  • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=754168227 Len Hobbel

    I own guns, I own 2 very high powered rifle and they both have several 30 round magazines, also own several pistols. I play violent games, I enjoy killing Game people, I have myself Killed a few people who needed it done. I fought for 15 years in martial arts, I carry a gun open carry not concealed.  I have NEVER been drunk in 47 years of my life, never once been in trouble with the law, I am married with 2 children. I live a perfectly normal life. But they are calling me a terrorists, a bad man….thats fine but remember what a BAD MAN CAN DO.

    • Ravenstorm

      What is that? Go on, tell us. What can you, bad man, do? 
      Go on a killing spree like a maniac?
      You are one of the reasons all this crap is going on.
      Boasting idiot, you make things worse, not better.
      Go slash at your wooden pole some more.

  • http://www.facebook.com/blake.williams.5876 Blake Williams

    The problem is that because guns have been available to all for so long, that you could arm half of the country (which for the record is a good thing), trying to add some type of restriction or ban will be completely useless. You can’t pull illegal guns off the market, which are the ones which need to be removed. The problem we face now is that there is no right answer, because the window for implementing some type of gun control is far passed, but because it’s politics and people want a solution they can see an immediate effect from, they will pointlessly argue in a circle and waste resources on campaigning of the subject until the end of time.

    • http://twitter.com/Needlesse Henrik A.

      I agree, a tragedy on a totally surreal scale would have to occur for the US public to get off their asses and actually do something about this.

    • InvaderMig

      Well in all fairness, most of the guns at the root of famous school shootings were legally owned.

      • http://www.facebook.com/gabriel.martin.5682 Gabriel Martin

        “Universal background checks, very strict licensing, safety school, and longer waiting periods can all help” We have all those in Canada, NONE of it helps unless you count making uninformed people feel better. 

        If you witnessed illegal gun trade and you did not report it then YOU are part of the REAL problem, if the seller was an FFL dealer then you are just misinformed. Personally I think you are just talking out of your ass to look cool.

        • InvaderMig

          I could care less what you believe, I know what I saw because I was there.  It was the first time in my life I ever held a gun I was 20 and asked the man if he needed a license to sell the guns.  He said I would if I was an official dealer, and just laughed as if it were a joke.  Everyone walking around the area didn’t seem the least bit shocked so I just assumed that how things are on that side of the fence.  One of the guns I held was a 357 and the other was a Remington Pump action 870.  There was a laundry list of others there as well.  

          I also saw one of the corner hustlers I knew from childhood bragging about this brand spanking new AR 15 which I got to see close up.  At the time of purchase this man had a criminal record and had no problem acquiring this firearm.  

          As far as the pure an utter nonsense you said about none of the measures I suggested working.  You do realize that Canada does not come even remotely close to the number of gun related deaths that US has per capita.  No first world nation does.  If anyone is talking out of his ass, it’s you.  Don’t speak about things you know nothing about my friend, you end up looking foolish.

  • http://twitter.com/Needlesse Henrik A.

    Its so good to be living in a sekular country with super strict policies on guns. We dont really have any shootouts because the availability is not there. Bill maher is the only one in your country who seem to get it… I cant wait for the next economical meltdown in the us, you’re gonna have rioting in the streets which turn into a free for all frenzy because some retard start firing his assault rifle which he bought at wall mart or whatever. thats what gonna happen because you are a country based on greed and screwing other people over.

    • Layithen

      You’re a complete idiot. Please leave this SECULAR country.

    • http://www.facebook.com/people/Jason-Milligan/100002897983906 Jason Milligan

      Norwegia on your twitter.  Norway’s flag as the background.  I’m guessing the seCular country you live in is Norway?  That place that some dude killed 70-something people, including kids, with a gun AND a homemade bomb, yet only got a 21 year ‘preventative detention’ sentence?  

      Okay, thanks.  Your opinion has just been validated.  

      • Joshua Branstetter

        Thank you for adding a dose of reality to Henrik A’s fantasy.

      • http://twitter.com/Needlesse Henrik A.

        Single case since ww2 of shootings in our country br0.. he got his assault rifle in the US and most of his political religious views are pretty much equal to the average republican. Yeah, sure we had 1 nutter but this shit happen all the bloody time in your country..

        • http://www.facebook.com/people/Jason-Milligan/100002897983906 Jason Milligan

          Just pointing out the hilarity of your assertion.  And all the time?  The case of legally owned guns being involved in massacres is insanely low compared to shootings involving legal guns.  I’d like to hope the ‘retard’ that decided to start shooting is in a place like Texas.  He might get 2 rounds off before he’s riddled by privately owned bullets.  If it’s in New York…well sucks for them.

          • http://twitter.com/Needlesse Henrik A.

            Yes, when we turn on the news its pretty much all we ever hear. School shootings, crazy jokers whatnot.. all of those guns were legally owned.. “The case of legally owned guns being involved in massacres is insanely low compared to shootings involving legal guns.”   it might be the language barrier, but i think you misstyped this somehow..

          • http://www.facebook.com/people/Jason-Milligan/100002897983906 Jason Milligan

            Sandy Hook was not a case of legally owned firearms.  He stole them out of his mothers cabinet before killing her (hi, those are both crimes).  He himself didn’t own them.  Even if the Colorado shooter owned the guns legally, both cases had warning signs of mental instability that should have been acted on.  The guns themselves were neither the cause, nor were gun laws or availability the problem.  You’re also comparing the sensationalist news that’s going to get an abnormal amount of coverage versus murders that happen every day involving illegally owned firearms by criminals, particularly in urban areas where gun laws are extremely strict.  Try, with as much effort as you can muster, to see the larger picture of firearms getting in the hands of people ILLEGALLY (as well as the poor handling of mental health), rather than the small snippet of cases involving legally owned guns.  Or do they just not teach critical thinking in Norway?

          • http://twitter.com/Needlesse Henrik A.

            had his mother not owned that gun, he would have had to aquire it elsewhere.. now lets say if this kid who had shown warning signs of mental instability would go out and try to aquire a gun it would be rather clear to everyone that something was wrong, no? There is probably just as many fked up mentally unstable children elsewhere as well, but none of them can act on the impulse because they dont have access. 

            But yes, your country has long passed the point of no return when it comes to guns. Even if you were to introduce restrictions now, there would still be a very large market for aquiring them illegally.. Because the scandinavian countries always have had strict policies on this, we will never have the problems you now face.

          • http://www.facebook.com/people/Jason-Milligan/100002897983906 Jason Milligan

            You’re really not being serious when you say someone who’s mentally ill can’t act on a killing impulse because of a lack of access to guns are you?  Because if so, you lose every shred of what little credibility you had left.  That statement is so incredibly intellectually dishonest I’m debating on whether or not I’m being trolled.

          • http://twitter.com/Needlesse Henrik A.

            I what maner is that statement intellectually dishonest in any way? It is a VERY SIMPLE conclusion based on LOGIC: If you dont have access to firearms, you would not be able to go on a rampage spree like the ones we previously mentioned. Unless he is like jet mdf lee with a knife he is not gonna get very far on that murder spree..

          • http://www.facebook.com/people/Jason-Milligan/100002897983906 Jason Milligan

            Once again, your use of logic is simple at best.  Go to any random federal prison in America.  Look for some random thug, who killed someone in a robbery or drive by. Ask them if they bought the gun legally, or if they were even worried about legal access to firearms.  It’s intellectually dishonest because you know that if someone wants to commit a crime with a gun and can’t get one legally, the VERY SIMPLE conclusion is to acquire one illegally (or take the next best thing).  If you don’t understand that, you’re a sheltered moron who refuses to understand how adult-land works. 

            How you can keep focusing on this arbitrary argument of legal vs. illegal based on, at best, 1 valid case of a crime committed with a legally owned firearm is beyond me.  It’s such a crazy, myopic view of things. 

            Now pay attention to this, because I’m about to blow your mind:  In 2001, a man in Japan, with a history of mental illness, went on a killing spree, in an elementary school, killed at least 8 kids, and injuring 15.  In 10 f*ing minutes he killed/injured 23 people total before he was stopped, with the mental illness base covered as well as his lack of legal access to a gun.  Could he have gotten a gun had he really wanted to?  Probably. Instead he drew a VERY SIMPLE conclusion, took the next best thing, and still racked up an impressive body count.  

          • InvaderMig

            He is right to a a certain extent and you know that.  A firearm is a force multiplier, and if a person doesn’t have access to one, I suppose they could go on a stabbing spree, or that isn’t the same as being able to pump multiple rounds into people in a short amount of time.

            Aside from that this person seems to be spewing alot of nonsense.

          • http://www.facebook.com/people/Jason-Milligan/100002897983906 Jason Milligan

            His entire statement, “Can’t act on the impulse because they don’t have access” can mean either acting on a killing impulse or just the random impulse to get a gun.  Considering the conversation, I’m assuming it’s the first one.  Even if it’s not, and it’s just the random urge to get a gun, show me one person that can’t get a gun if they want.  It doesn’t and never will matter if it’s legally or not.  His entire thought process assumes that someone who wants a gun to commit a crime HAS to get one legally.  

            You yourself say, “If they don’t have access, they can go on a stabbing spree.”  Sure they can.  But do they not have access from legal or illegal guns.  If it’s lack of legal access, show me one, just ONE criminal that is looking to get a gun legally to commit a crime.  If it’s lack of illegal access…well…yeah.  Not gonna bother with that one.

          • InvaderMig

            You’re missing the point, or at least mine.  The gun culture as a whole in this country is toxic.  Of course people who are looking to commit crimes aren’t looking for legal guns, the problem is people who have legally owned guns selling them illegally.  And this happens all the time all over this country.  People sell guns in this country like they were candy.  Like I pointed out on another post, I saw people with arsenals laid out on picnic tables in flea markets in Duluth Minnesota.  I’m from the east so I was completely shocked by this and asked if he needed a license to sell the guns.  He laughed and said yea if I was an official dealer.  
             
            People I know from around my area went to PA and acquired an assault rifle with cash.  This man had a criminal record and they were just selling stuff out in the open.  It’s ridiculous because in certain areas gun laws are so lax that, the even existing gun laws are not enforced.  This is the problem, and doing something about it will make a difference.  Anyone who doesn’t think so can look towards European countries with extreme strict gun laws and see that they barely break 100 gun deaths a year, while we go well passed 10,000 each year.

          • http://www.facebook.com/people/Jason-Milligan/100002897983906 Jason Milligan

            So you’re point below in reference to this one is basically this.  Denying access to guns lowers gun crimes.  But then you follow that up by trying to validate that point with the fact that people who legally own the gun sells it illegally?  So to stop one crime, we have to stop another crime, but to stop that crime we should what?  Just implement tougher laws to own one anyways?  Until when?  Until we get to the point of Chicago style gun laws?  

            Or maybe should we make selling them harder? Because you know, the guy you said laughed off not having a license was already thinking of how much an impediment that was to him; and he was doing it out in the open.  Kinda circular and broken logic, is it not?  Should we just ban the guns outright?  If someone owns a legal gun, but sells it illegally then what?  Arresting that guy does nothing for the guy on the street who bought it.How about thinking of this from the other end of the spectrum.  If restricting access does such wonders as so many seem to believe, particularly Mr. A here, explain Swiss gun ownership (one of the highest in the world due to their militia conscription, among other things) but have a gun murder rate that’s about .00005%.

            I’m not denying that the culture itself has its ‘toxic’ points, but at this stage of the game it’s better to have them than not.  Tighter gun control won’t do dick unless we can completely eliminate guns in the country as a whole and somehow manage to keep them from entering the country…and then making sure no one has access to a perceivably dangerous object afterwards.

          • InvaderMig

            It’s your opinion that stricter guns laws won’t do dick, I completely disagree.  Especially with the case of people legally owning guns yet selling them illegally.  People who do that should be punished harshly.  Universal background checks should be mandatory and it’s mind boggling that such a measure is not already in place.  People like to bring up the swiss and their guns, but the US is not Switzerland.  Automatic firearms are banned as well as certain other firearms.  Concealed weapons are also banned.  Criminal and mental illness background checks are also mandatory for gun ownership in that country.  

            As I pointed out, the gun culture this country is Toxic.  There is no accountability or responsibility in many places in the country when it comes to guns.  Gun ownership for most doesn’t come from a sense of duty or protection, guns are viewed by so many are just toys.  Stricter gun laws and extremely harsh punishments for illegal distribution would most certainly deter some from spreading guns around.  Also and most importantly universal background checks.  If you are of sound mind and have no criminal record then jumping through some hoops to get a gun is a small price to pay to help keep guns out of the hands of someone who shouldn’t have them.  I can’t imagine anyone who’s sane thinking things should simply remain the same.  

            Hell I guess we could just arm everyone and let everyone try to protect themselves.  It could be the wild west all over again. 

    • http://twitter.com/dularr Dularr

      What is odd about your statement is Norway is number 11 in gun ownership. So Norway owns alot of guns.  Norway has 32 guns per 100 people.  If I understand correctly, you can own fully automatic weapons. So never understood how you can tout your gun laws. 

      • http://www.facebook.com/thelethrface Steven Opie Wallace

        Don’t think he’s gonna reply to this simply because you made a valid argument.

        • Revanhavoc

           It’s not a valid point at all. Spend literally 30 seconds doing some research about Norway gun laws and see for yourself: it’s heavily regulated, and gun violence in no where near comparable to the United States.

          • http://twitter.com/dularr Dularr

            I’m reading their laws and they are not that strict. They allow guns for hunting and sport shooting.  I would really enjoy joining a shooting club in Norway.  

            While I do feel for them with their national violence.  I did find this statement in the article about the Norway shooter:”Breivik’s manifesto says that he made use of the video game Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2 as a training aid while using World of Warcraft as a cover for his extended period of isolation. He also said that he honed his shooting skills using an in-game holographic sight similar to the one he used during the attacks.”

            Crazy is crazy the world over. 

      • Revanhavoc

         Automatic weapons are under a complete ban in Norway. Similar to Canada, Norway has many guns that are actually used for hunting, not murder.

        The reason countries like Canada and Norway can be proud of their gun regulations is that if you compare gun violence per captia with gun ownership, countries like Canada and Norway and Switzerland fall from the top of the list, but the United States remains extremely high.

        The United States is responsible for over 80% of all the gun deaths in the 23 richest countries combined, including murder and suicide. I never understand how the problem can be brushed under the rug by changing the subject to a different country that is not having the same problems.

        • http://twitter.com/dularr Dularr

          No, collectors can own fully automatic weapons.  The only people that are changing the subject are the posters making these odd clams in totally different situations. 

          Personally, I live in a peaceful part of the country that has the lowest crime rates in the country. I’m proud of my responsible gun ownership of a family shotgun, rife and a handgun for home self-defense. I do live in Texas and planning a skeet shooting trip in the fall.  

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Tye-Roberts/100000970848311 Tye Roberts

    *headdesk*

    America, you confuse me. Eat more poutine.

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Tye-Roberts/100000970848311 Tye Roberts

    Also, can we agree that we’d all like it if nobody would report on whatever Kotaku spews onto the net? Don’t feed the trolls.

  • http://www.facebook.com/Aldraran Jason Ames

    I agree, its an opion based argument, and she wasnt attcking video games, just gun bans

  • Revanhavoc

    The United States is responsible for over 80% of all the gun deaths in the 23 richest countries combined, including murder and suicide.

    The main differences between countries like the US and countries with tons of guns like Canada and Switzerland, is gun regulation and weapon training. Particularly the Swiss, who have no standing army, rather a conscription based militia that provides training around firearms.

    Let’s stop talking in cricles and defending the status quo.

    Let’s leave behind the ridiculous idea that the United States government is going to break constitutional law and confiscate legally owned firearms.

    Let’s just agree to work on restricting access to firearms from criminals, mentally ill people, and minors.

    Universal background checks, stricter enforcement of current laws. We can at least, as human beings, agree that those two small measures can have some benefit going forward.

    • http://www.facebook.com/people/Jim-Bergevin-Jr/1393526370 Jim Bergevin Jr

      All good points, but neglects one major thing – the lack of common sense and the self-centered, egotistical self-gratification that American Society had devolved into. That alone will prevent any meaningful progress of needed reforms. The sense of entitlement we have as Americans is second to none in the world, and its unfortunate that our own egoism will prevent us from stopping serious issues (like has been occurring in Greece) from happening because we think we simply are too big to fail. A great many people are in need of a wake-up call, and it looks to be coming sooner rather than later.

      • Jado Cast

        Don’t give up on us yet.  Yes it takes a crisis for Americans to react, we are like the sleeping hornets nest, but once you give us a good wack, we over-react and then common sense usually sets in until we go back to sleep.  

        Winston Churchill was so Right!
         - Americans can always be counted on to do the right thing…after they have exhausted all other possibilities. ~ Winston Churchill

    • Jado Cast

      +1

  • Jado Cast

    People who criticize the United States and our so called obsession with guns doesn’t understand our history.  It wasn’t that long ago in our young nation’s history that we had a Civil War.  Yes slavery was wrong, not arguing the cause for the war was justified, but most people in the south didn’t fight for slavery, they fought against Northern Aggression regardless of what our History Books say.  There is a mistrust deep in our genes of the federal government in the south and mid-west, so called “red states” that make us protect the 2nd Amendment. 
    Thank God we had a great President that was trying to heal our country after the war and not rip it apart even further (a republican by the way).  Truth be told the 2nd Amendment wasn’t just so we could hunt deer for food in an age long past, it was for the right to bare arms and form Militias to deter Tyranny.  If you think we are past the days of Tyranny and the 2nd Amendment is outdated, keep in mind that Democracy and Freedom is but a short period in the thousands of years mankind has been and still is ruled by dictators, monarchs, and Tyrants.  To think that’s impossible is to ignore history.  I firmly believe that its an absolute right to defend yourself and that means ownership of guns is a right held by all peoples.

    • A Pinto

      This mistrust is totally irrational and delusional, you realize that, right? It’s the same kind of mistrust that led to Timothy McVeigh blowing up the Federal building in Oklahoma City. The Civil War, despite what you *think* it was, was a war to prevent the secession of South based on immorally unjustifiable reasons (and guess what, those reasons were slavery rights).

      You can argue all you want that most of the South fought for secession, for being free from the North’s aggression, but almost all of the reason behind secession, and the North’s aggression, were based around the right to own slaves, which the North, the President, and the majority of the country, had decided was wrong and immoral at the time.

      Also, comparing the party of Lincoln to the GOP today is ludicrous. Most of the South back then was Democrat, remember? Much of it continued to be, until the Democrats supported Civil Rights in the 60s. Just because the name stayed the same doesn’t mean the nature of the parties did, the Republican party back then was the much more liberal party.

      • Jado Cast

        Pinto does a much better job defending his position even though he still resorts to calling me delusional instead of an asshat.  :)  I’m not sure what your definition of Liberal is, if you mean a party of change, I would agree with you but their party platform still believed in limited government and freedom for all, and yes that means for everyone including Blacks.  If you mean Liberal or the Democratic Party as it is today, then no, you would be wrong.  There has been several iterations of Republican in US history going back to Thomas Jefferson, and all of them had a mistrust of a Federal Government that could obtain too much power.
        -The civil war was fought over State’s Rights.  And yes the south took a very wrong position on slavery, but the average poor white southern man did not have a Slave.  In fact, Slavery was a luxury very few had.  A Northern General after a battle in Tennessee once asked a captured enlisted man “Why does a poor white man like you fight for slavery, you can’t afford a slave?”  The Private responded, “Because you’re in my back yard with a gun.”  Back then, people had more loyalty to the state in which they were from than the United States.  States Rights was important, and the War was fought on principal and for the Rich Southern Land Owners to continue to enslave Blacks so they could profit.  But the average man did not fight for that, as they had no benefit in slavery.

        -

        You both missed my point on why there is a feeling in this country that we all have a right to bare arms.  You want to fight over history or bring up psychopaths like Timothy McVeigh to make your point, but I’m just explaining the inherent feeling and mistrust that still lies dormant in many of the citizens of the United States.  There are 300 Million guns in this country.  We have a Bill of Rights that cannot be changed without another Amendment, which will never happen.  Even Demos from Red States know they will be voted out of office if they vote for strong Gun Control Measures.  

    • Deffizzle

      First off your an asshat,  2nd Republicans back then were like Democrats today, Hence his speech at Gettysburgh

      • Jado Cast

        Revisionist History where you are stating an opinion with no facts which is typical, and calling people names are what Liberals do when they can’t win an argument   I don’t debate with irrational people because no matter what they will never admit they are wrong, they just resort to calling people names.  For the record, I’m not Republican, I’m Libertarian  so if you think my comment was anything other than me stating a fact, then you are projecting your feelings and I really could care less what you think.

      • Chris Catone

        I know what you’re saying but it could be confused with the fact that the current Democratic Party was originally called Republican, then Democratic-Republican, than Democrats after Jackson.  The Republicans of Lincoln’s era were former Whigs who were former Federalists.  Now that I’ve contradicted you, I’ll get your back.  Republicans of that day were not the Republicans of today (believers in a strong federal government, champions of minorities and big suckers for big business).  The Republicans and Democrats of today are a product of the post-Civil Rights era (Kennedy and especially Johnson lost the base of the party after that…that’s why the Republicans of today are overwhelmingly “states rights” which is what the Democrats of Lincoln’s day (the South) were for.

        And on a side note, the actual character Jodo Kast was a chode-phony that Boba Fett killed for impersonating him…I’m not sure why people use that name these days.

        • Jado Cast

          Wow, and Intelligent Person on the Intranets, I’m impressed good sir.  Also, a True Star Wars Fan I see.  I’ve been using Jado Cast as a spin off of Jodo Kast for many years and you are the first person to put that together.  Jodo was the ultimate Troll because he was taking Fett’s Business.  With that said, I disagree with you on two points:

          1st, overwhelming the top 1% of earners and those Big Business Folks that the GOP supposedly fight for mostly vote Democratic.  Business can’t vote, only citizens and they are generally more liberal.  That’s something the Liberals have used for decades because class warfare works.   

          2nd, I don’t think Republicans based on their platform believe in a strong federal government (although I will agree that many of them go against their platform and expand government with national defense, patriot act etc.).  In general they believe issues like Abortion for example should be state’s right, but then many of them want an Amendment to the Constitution to Ban Gay Marriage.  A contradiction I understand, but the original platform believes in limited government and more ownership on issues belong to the states.  

          While I disagree strongly with the Republicans on Social issues, I do agree with them on limited government.

    • http://www.facebook.com/people/Jan-Lappalainen/882015623 Jan Lappalainen

       I understand what you are saying, but in a modern context – how does owning guns protect you from the tyranny of a central government? If the federal government decides to oppress you, what good are your guns against the military? Just seems like a moot point – the people are more empowered through things like the internet, or demonstrations, than owning guns.

      • Jado Cast

        When governments fear the people, there is liberty. When the people fear the government, there is tyranny. The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government.” ~ Thomas Jefferson, 
        and to answer your question, Tyranny has nothing to do with modern context.  Tyranny is ageless, and as long as the people are armed, the Government is less likely to limit or take away our civil liberties.  

        • http://www.facebook.com/people/Jan-Lappalainen/882015623 Jan Lappalainen

           ”as long as the people are armed, the government is less likely to limit or take away our civil liberties” You seriously believe that? I stick to what I said – we are more empowered through, for instance, the internet than guns. A government will fear the spread of information more than a dickhead with a gun, that is for sure.

          • Jado Cast

            Oh really?  So China doesn’t have the internet?  So middle eastern dictatorships don’t have the intranet?  Colombians doesn’t have the internet?  I agree information is powerful, but its no substitute for an armed public.  Not to mention, at least you can defend yourself against criminals or another dick head with an illegal gun trying to rob or kill you.

  • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=747067911 John Joseph Hanna

    Did we all miss the point here? She wasn’t saying anything about banning video games, she was using it as an argument for the first amendment.  She was actually defending our games by saying the Freedom of Speech and the Right to Bare Arms cannot and shall not be used to trump the other. Wake up Game Breaker, who ever posted this completely missed the point.  I still love you otherwise, but get a handle on this.

    • Monstercloud

       Um… GB didn’t say she was talking about banning games, did you even read the article? What a jump-the-gun tool.

    • http://quintlyn.com/ QuintLyn Bowers

       Going to have to agree with Monstercloud here. Go back and actually read the post.

       Although.. Monster.. Please don’t call people tools.  We do have rules against stuff like name-calling.

  • Monstercloud

    Wish there was a delete button…

  • Azzras

    Tori McGrath
    This is a game site, not a place for gun control politics.

    • lilmissy4205

      Did you read the article? You pretty much made the points that are inside the article about how Kotaku took the statement out of context, not Tori.

    • http://quintlyn.com/ QuintLyn Bowers

      Gamebreaker staff chooses what we feel are relevant topics for the site. If we decide that a politically based post is relevant, we WILL post it.

      • Azzras

         Good for you.  I’m glad that I served to enable you to do so.  Unfortunately, I may not share the same political views as you.  I come here for gaming news, nothing more.
        Now that we’ve covered this, don’t be a dick in your responses please.  Not very professional.

    • http://twitter.com/ToriMcGrath Tori McGrath

      If you read the article at all you would know that i am talking about what you’ve just said.. but thanks for backing me up eh?

  • http://twitter.com/TheTankGarage Mattias Berg

    “defiantly immediately” ?

    Even if you fix the misspelling I don’t get that syntax. I’m all for incorrect spelling as long as the idea comes across but I honestly don’t get the point of those two words together. 

    About the whole gun thing. Who cares, watching US politics as a bystander is better than any docu soap premise. Falling over yourselves trying to sound the most retarded and uninformed. In just a few years once China overtakes the US economy, you’ll have nothing of value to offer the rest of the world anymore and instead of trying to catch up to the rest of the world you’re wasting valuable time arguing about what marriage means or trying to find a solution to a gun problem that doesn’t exists.

    Fat and lazy, the American way.

    • http://twitter.com/ToriMcGrath Tori McGrath

      I think you may have missed the point, but you are right I used too many words. I meant to erase definitely and just use immediately but that’s kind of irrelevant isn’t it?

  • Deffizzle

    No way really

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Christopher-Mantia/558237378 Christopher Mantia

    I think she was using this as a comparison as to an idiot approach on on to handle the gun ban for example. “ illeagle immigrants are taking all the job, so BAN ALL IMMIGRANTS” 

    Now personally GBTV is just bringing this to our attention, however you cannot assume ALL gamers find it necessary that this level of violence belongs on a virtual platform, it defiantly requires some conscious effort on our part to say “there is the line” If not then you end up with GTA’s going from fun beating up hookers to flat out rape and psychotic saw like tortures.

    For every argument you make you must touch on the opposing idea.

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Jan-Lappalainen/882015623 Jan Lappalainen

    The problem is that with the lack of proper gun control, these mentally unstable people can get their hands on an arsenal. I have yet to hear any valid arguments on why it is so important that people have the right to keep assault rifles etc. i their homes. 

    Simply put, none of the “shooters” would have been capable of killing so many people without the guns they had access to.

    • http://www.facebook.com/Namelessdweeb Michael Metz

      Assault rifles have been illegal for the general public to own since the 1930s.

    • http://www.facebook.com/Namelessdweeb Michael Metz

      The second amendment is there as a last check on government.

  • Chris Catone

    Well, Faux News taints everything it touches…that’s no surprise.  I’d be more interested in the comments on the FoxNews website than Kotaku’s to determine what message made it to their viewers.  Watching it objectively there were definitely apples-and-oranges arguments tailored to the world view they intend to create (the Chicago gun ban comment was such an incredible abuse of logic…seriously?  More people were killed in Chicago in the 9 years before and 1 year since it was implemented than in Afghanistan? So a little over 2000?)

    Anyway, yeah.  Unless the Kotaku piece referenced comments that FoxNews viewers left on their site, it’s as manipulative as the video it referenced.

  • Chris Martin

    @5:00 Who should be on the mental health list? Well that is an easy one, starting with the whole of Fox “News.”

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Dustin-Brookens/100003510262900 Dustin Brookens

    Lol @GBTV for trying to cover a serious issue. Honestly its hard to read an article like this when everything is full of such low end content and shock value.

  • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=1653322492 Kevin J. Redmond

    I can’t believe I’m going to agree in your defense of Fox news, but I am.  I agree entirely, and I tend to agree with her reasoning about the issue.  Taking things out of context is an issue in many venues of our nation.  Kudos to you, Tori, for trying to bring a more empirical view to the table.

    • ToriMcgrath

      Well thank you :)

RECOMMENDED FOR YOU
Take a Poll

What Is Your Most Anticipated MMO?

View Results

Loading ... Loading ...
Monday
6 pst

The Republic

Star Wars The Old Republic

Tuesday
9:30 pst

After Dark

Live Call In Show

n/a

Monty's Minute

Have Questions? He Has Answers

Wednesday
3 pst

OMGLOL

League Of Legends Drama

6 pst

Guildcast

Guild Wars 2

8 pst

Klaus & Squirrel

Gameplay Duo

Thursday
8 pst

Legendary

World of WarCraft

Friday
3 pst

TWIMMO

This Week In MMO



TOP GAMES
Guild Wars 2 MMO News
Genre: MMORPG Fantasy
Developer: Arenanet
Metacritic Score: 90
The Elder Scrolls Online MMORPG News
Genre: MMORPG Fantasy
Developer: Zenimax
Metacritic Score: n/a
World of Warcraft MMO News
Genre: MMORPG Fantasy
Developer: Blizzard
Metacritic Score: 82
SWTOR MMO News
Genre: MMORPG SciFi
Developer: Bioware
Metacritic Score: 85
League of Legends News
Genre: MOBA
Developer: Riot
Metacritic Score: 78