Sorry your browser is not supported!

Megs - You just admitted to enjoying a particular martial arts, which probably originated as a way for self defense and/or to harm.



So you're saying a kid with a katana is less likely to harm someone than a kid with a gun? Please. You're buying into this liberal anti-gun crap that's founded on lies.

You're Canadian so you must be aware of our supposed "gun registry" that was estimated for 2 million and ended up costing 2 billion. Do you feel any safer now in Canada than a few years back? Probably not--- maybe even less safe. That's because the registry did absolutely *nothing* and was scrapped. Then Paul Martin said he's going to ban hand guns--- puleeeze. But when I turn on the news everyday most of the crime I hear about deals with crack addicts and knives, not some confused teen with a gun.

Simple point--- my kids are going to take some self-defense martial arts, like jiujitsu or the like, *and* they're going to know how to shoot a gun. My entire family grew up with guns, either for target practice or hunting (for a living), and it's fun. Obviously if you've shot a gun before you'd know how fun they are to shoot a few rounds.

Why do they teach archery in PE class? What's the point of letting a kid shoot a crossbow? There's no difference.

Have to disagree there, the majority of the time a gun need not be fired to protect someone, its a deterrant. After I read this post I made a call to a freind of mine who is a police officer in the next city over. He told me that so far during his career he has had to pull his weapon on three occasions and never had to fire it even in one instance where the other person was also wielding a firearm, once the suspect had a weapon drawn on him he was convinced to relinquish the weapon. Why do you think he would, because a) my friend is a great conversationalist or b) the person thought that even though he had a weapon there was a darn good chance he would get killed, my guess is B.

If you were a criminal and had to choose between convience store 1 where the owner has a sign in the window that says "Try to rob me I shoot you" or store B "Hippie no gun land" which do you think you would try to rob, if its store A then you are likely a criminal that forgot to take his medication. Similar to Nuclear weapons, arguably the most dangerous weapons on the planet and we have never had to use them. Why? no one wants to get nuked. The threat alone of a handgun etc can easily protect someone.

^^^^ Agreed. There's this whole negative stigma associated with guns--- just ludicrous and spread by people who have never touched one.

It's the same thing with violent video games. Most of us know it's silly to blame the game for causing a kid to run people over like in GTA. Then why do people think it's ok to blame the gun in a gun-crime? It's just not logical.

I'm referring to people who train legitamently with one, not the $50 collectors. There's alot of ethics involving a martial art like that, including proper sword etiquette and guidelines. Swords may not be as popular among youth as guns, but you gotta admit that less of them go out and cut heads off then folks who go out and shoot people.

Martin's handgun ban was just a goody-shoes thing for the parents. Did people like you and I actually think it was gonna work? Probably not.



That's exactly what I said in my first post - why can't you just say you're defending guns because you "love your guns"? Nothing wrong with it. Nothing wrong with kids growing up without shooting guns either.

But whatever, I'm getting way off-topic here. I'm not really that interested in debating gun laws.

P.S
I wish we had archery at my school.

Well, if you robbed a corner store, would you rather do it with a sword or a pistol? I'd pick a pistol any day since I can use it at any range, and it's a bit harder to defend yourself against. I'm not saying though if I saw a well-trained individual with a sword it wouldn't worry me. But a gun gets the message across better, I think.

Yeah, I guess you can't really compare the two. I can't think of any examples really.

Or you can do it the old fashioned way.

games dont make people more violent.well,i think for most people.i guess weak minded people,it might.

anyway,ive watched alot of movies & games of people being killed & i never once had an urge to go out & kill someone.only someone who already has that thought would do it.

Thanks Hobgoblin!

Megaton I liked your old name!

CHANGE IT BACK I COMMAND YOU!

the level of violence portrayed in games is propertional to the power of the technology driving the game, as the games become more 'simulation' orientated they will naturally become more realistic, till we reach the point where a virtual rape on screen could be almost as graphic as the real thing on film. Back in the day game characters were non convincing looking blobs of cartoony coloured pixels that could not even be remotley compared to real life. As the technology progresses the level of relism will follow. its as simple as that, anything a depraived mind can come up with, will at some point in the future become a video game. the further into the future you look the more graphically and physically accurate the simulation of characters and events will become, this is an unstoppable force and is a direct result of the evolution of technology, and what it makes possible to do on screen.

I suppose if i was asked to work on some uber violent game that involved graphically human on human violence, I would have to accept it. It's the natural progression of video games, however the word game is actually becoming more and more irrelevant as the games dive deeper into simulation territtory.

We will soon reach a point where the moral masses will freak out at what the technology is capable of, but we have to protect ourselves from ourselves to a certain degree by limiting the availibility of these games to younger more easily influenced people, we especially have to look out for kids who have social issues and start to live the game. take a look at the role playing that goes on with TV shows and their nutjob fans that dress the same as their on screen heroes, and even adopt manerrisms and other charater traits. the more realistic the character becomes the greater the influence it can have on a mentaly sensative person. We assume that people over the legal age are mostly sensible, but that's just not the case. take a look at the amount of people with social and mental issues who can also immerse themselves in the virtual worlds of violence the new tech makes possible, its reasonable to assume that a number of these individuals will be affected by the game content and events, mabey to the point of living out their fantasy.

For the vast majority of us, violence in games will have no real impact on our lives, its keeping this technology (which is also aimed at kids on a different level) out of their reach and the reach of people who it's likley to effect.

Would it be unreasonable to restrict what a consumer can buy or play on the grounds of their mental state and wether they are likley to develop some form of psycosis, or sociopathic tendancies in the future, can we be 'graded' this way?

This subject is far bigger than right, wrong and moral issues. its a subject of mental health and stability in a world thats headed for simulation induced sensory overload.

None of my games have featured human characters or violence of that nature, for me video games are fast action arcade fun games. the new so called games are anything but games, they are in fact simulations of real stuff in real scenarios, a far cry from the pixel blasting of the early 80's. once you cant tell the difference between film and realtime simulation, we'll be at a very strange place morally speaking.

PS i admit to actually enjoying a bit of head smashing in a simulation style game like GTA. these games in the hands of responsible people are quite safe......now where's the chainsaw, i'm going shopping.

guns don't kill people - I kill people !!!

I think that was the slogan on the shirt of the big moonraker guy in the movie Happy Gilmore with Adam Sandler....

Society in general just needs to accept that there always have been and always will be wackos out there.. Blaming, Video Games, Ozzy & Judas Priest etc.., and Movies for atrocious actions is something that is always going to happen by the people in high places (govt, church, etc..) until we wake up and accept the truth...

Truth -> " Mean People Suck " and the herd needs to be thinned...