Trump to meet US video game industry heads on Thursday

[MrJim]

The piecemeal measures Trump has taken against gun control following the Florida school shooting are a joke. Banning devices like bump stocks and echo triggers will have absolutely no effect on the potential for loss of life resulting from the availability of assault rifles. With practice, it's possible to fire a semi-auto rifle at full auto speeds anyway.

[MrJim]

Rate is number per capita.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/20...ow-many-so-far

[Corky34]

It seems the baseball bats kill more people than guns is another myth. According to the FBI total murder victims by weapon type in 2016: Firearms = 11,004 while blunt objects (clubs, hammers, etc.) = 472 (even if we're generous and include other weapons or weapons not stated (903) it would still only be 1,375.

[Spreadie]

While blaming video games is nonsense, so is blaming 'Assault Rifles'. There is no such thing. More people are killed with Baseball Bats than rifles of any kind.

The high Murder rate in the US is a product of Gang Violence and the War on Drugs.

Worried about the media and their hype over spree killers? Last year the death rate from spree killers was higher in the UK than the US. Don't believe the anti-gun silliness.

This is what astounds me about Americans and their guns.

TeePee, on a wide variety of subjects I've seen on these forums, I've always thought your input is fairly well measured. However, the moment someone mentions guns, your reasoning goes straight out of the window - blurting out patently false facts and levying false equivalence on baseball bats!?

If someone burst into my school/workplace with a baseball bat swinging it with the intent to kill, I'd grab a chair and take my chances. Now, substitute baseball bat with assault rifle (or any gun) and tell me you cannot see the difference?

Still waiting for your citations on your claimed "facts" too btw.

[Iota]

Why aren't all murders important? Why only a fraction of a tenth of one percent? And why does anyone think banning guns will reduce spree killings, when the rate is (at least last year) higher in the UK than the US.

My Google-fu isn't working today, I'd love to see the statistics that provide evidence of that claim in bold. I mean the last study I saw showed that someone living in the US is far more likely to be killed by a gun related incident than other developed countries (http://www.amjmed.com/article/S0002-...030-X/fulltext).

Also, considering the amount of mass shootings the US has compared to elsewhere in the world, I'd say the US is historically somewhere up near the top end of the scale. Maybe it has something to do with the amount of guns the Americans own compared to other countries with stricter gun control laws....

[TeePee]

Given that the UK saw several spree killings in 2017, being the Manchester bombing and numerous vehicle and knife attacks, combined with the smaller population, I'm not sure why you find that fact surprising.

The US Federal Government defines mass killings as those with greater than four fatalities. According to this source 'https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/0/one-mass-shooting-every-day-seven-facts-gun-violence-america/' there were 346 victims in 2017 among a population of 323M, gives a rate of 1.07/Million. Again, these are mostly gang related. No one tracks murders in the UK by number, because no one wants to blame guns, and I'm not going to put any effort in to it. The Manchester Bombing and London vehicle attacks account for 35, with a 63 Million population, that's more than half way there on those incidents alone. I recall an Arson attack which killed some children, so there are more.

You can't blame guns and claim to live in a gun free paradise with numbers even remotely close. This is, of course, why so many people specify 'Shootings' rather than 'killings'. Who cares what the method is? This argument was invalidated after the truck attack in Nice. 86 victims dwarfs the worst mass shootings in the US by a mile. The only mass killings that have exceeded this in the US used Bombs or Airplanes.

[Xlucine]

It seems the baseball bats kill more people than guns is another myth. According to the FBI total murder victims by weapon type in 2016: Firearms = 11,004 while blunt objects (clubs, hammers, etc.) = 472 (even if we're generous and include other weapons or weapons not stated (903) it would still only be 1,375.

Your own link proves TeePee right:

While blaming video games is nonsense, so is blaming 'Assault Rifles'. There is no such thing. More people are killed with Baseball Bats than rifles of any kind.

In 2016, 374 people were killed by rifles. The other few thousand murders will be completely unaffected by any ban on "assault rifles"

[TeePee]

And the reason banning, not that's what people are talking about, would reduce killing sprees is probably the same logic that applies to drugs or any number of other things that have controls placed on them.

Banning Drugs has worked so well?

[TeePee]

https://www.theguardian.com/world/20...ow-many-so-far

The worst school attack in the US was with a bomb.

[Iota]

This argument was invalidated

I mean you can argue all you like about terrorist incidents as much as you like, and provide as much evidence (you really don't need to out of respect to those involved, thanks) as you want. That doesn't gel with the point about mass murders involving gun crimes being higher in the US than the UK.

If you can't provide the evidence to back up that, it's absolutely fine. Most people in developed countries can see the correlation between the gun laws and the rights provided to Americans, with the end result. No-one is saying those rights should be diminished, just perhaps maybe thinking outside the box may well stop these events happening so frequently. Does the game industry have a role to play in this? Perhaps, but it isn't going to be the be all and end all magic pill, as bitter as that may be for any American to swallow.

[Xlucine]

I mean you can argue all you like about terrorist incidents as much as you like, and provide as much evidence (you really don't need to out of respect to those involved, thanks) as you want. That doesn't gel with the point about mass murders involving gun crimes being higher in the US than the UK.

If you can't provide the evidence to back up that, it's absolutely fine. Most people in developed countries can see the correlation between the gun laws and the rights provided to Americans, with the end result. No-one is saying those rights should be diminished, just perhaps maybe thinking outside the box may well stop these events happening so frequently. Does the game industry have a role to play in this? Perhaps, but it isn't going to be the be all and end all magic pill, as bitter as that may be for any American to swallow.

So let me get this straight:
1) You're admitting that TeePee has provided evidence
2) in the next breath, you're claiming that he can't provide evidence
3) And you start concern trolling, since you've already been proven wrong but can't stand to admit it?

The important factor is the overall murder rate (or mass murder rate, or suicide rate) - because if the murder rate is the same through other means, then guns have not made the country any more dangerous and banning them will accomplish nothing. No-one is claiming that mass-murders involving guns occur more often in the UK - however, it is also a fact that people are more likely to die in mass murder in the UK than they are in the US. Again, no-one's claiming that banning guns = more mass murders, but it's evidence that banning guns will not reduce the incidence of mass murders

[TeePee]

I'm also not claiming the Murder rate is higher in the UK - It isn't. Only incidences of mass murder. In fact, it may not be every year. The point is that the incidence of mass murder in the UK is not so massively different from that in the US, as to say that it's a problem which only affects the US and that guns are to blame. We've seen abundant evidence over the last few years to see that if someone is set on killing as many people as possible, they will do so using one tool or another.

One thing that also happens everywhere is that mass killings are stopped by citizens. Private individuals standing up for and protecting others is a common theme, and there are many examples of mass killings stopped or prevented by bystanders.

Which brings us to the failure of laws restricting firearms ownership. The majority of mass shootings in the US are committed by people who have obtained the firearms illegally. What the gun control laws actually achieve is to prevent people from being able to defend themselves.

[LeetyMcLeet]

Long before the dawn of violent video games, TV and cinema, there were exactly zero murders (mass, or otherwise)? No.

Playing Duke Nukem as a child hasn't turned me into a murderer Maybe Hitler was playing an early beta as a child?

[Corky34]

Given that the UK saw several spree killings in 2017, being the Manchester bombing and numerous vehicle and knife attacks, combined with the smaller population, I'm not sure why you find that fact surprising.

Because you've yet to substantiate it as a fact.

The US Federal Government defines mass killings as those with greater than four fatalities. According to this source 'https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/0/one-mass-shooting-every-day-seven-facts-gun-violence-america/' there were 346 victims in 2017 among a population of 323M, gives a rate of 1.07/Million. Again, these are mostly gang related. No one tracks murders in the UK by number, because no one wants to blame guns, and I'm not going to put any effort in to it. The Manchester Bombing and London vehicle attacks account for 35, with a 63 Million population, that's more than half way there on those incidents alone. I recall an Arson attack which killed some children, so there are more.

If you're going to make unsubstantiated claims at least do people the courtesy of providing some evidence, otherwise you come across as being dishonest.

Banning Drugs has worked so well?

Whether its worked or not is something that's certainly debatable but we're not talking about how effective Americas drug policy is, we're talking about the American president wanting heavier regulation of Movies, Video games, and the Internet because he believes their to blame and not the massive proliferation of firearms.

Your own link proves TeePee right:

In 2016, 374 people were killed by rifles. The other few thousand murders will be completely unaffected by any ban on "assault rifles"

Not really as the FBI doesn't record murderers by baseball bats, the closets they come is Blunt objects (clubs, hammers, etc.) which i assume contains baseball bats.

Given that TeePee was ignoring requests to provide citations i thought I'd take a stab at provide one.

however, it is also a fact that people are more likely to die in mass murder in the UK than they are in the US. Again, no-one's claiming that banning guns = more mass murders, but it's evidence that banning guns will not reduce the incidence of mass murders

Again with the unsubstantiated claims, is anyone going to provide evidence?

[adidan]

If people can't handle facts I really don't think they should be allowed to handle firearms.

As for video games, parents could start by using age ratings as a guide. I know plenty who buy 18 rated games for their kids.

[Ironbuket]

Trump said at the conference that he doesn’t have time for computer games since he has become president, but when he does play he is the best computer game player in the world. He claimed to have reached level 3 is Ms Pacman in 1982 and says that is something that Kim Jong-un would never be able to do