Close
Are you sure? Are you sure you want to report this comment? I understand, report it. Cancel

EA drops all weapon ads associated with MoH

EA drops all weapon ads associated with MoH

Thu 16 Aug 2012 7:27am GMT / 3:27am EDT / 12:27am PDT
Publishing

Eurogamer article causes publisher to pull links to real-life guns and blades

Electronic Arts has pulled all of the advertisements and links associated with real-world weaponry from its Medal of Honor website, in response to articles posted about the offers on Eurogamer and The Gameological Society.

Previously, ads and blog posts on the game's website had linked to 'sponsors' selling weapons and equipment featured in Medal of Honor - including a custom-built Tomahawk and a tactical sniper rifle kit. Also linked were several blogs detailing the equipment on offer - such as silencers, muzzle brakes and clothing - with videos of executive producer Greg Goodrich testing them.

When Gameological wrote an editorial about the offers, calling into question the wisdom of selling weapons to people who'd been practising using them to kill people competitively, the program was already in full swing, having been announced in June. Then, however, the story had been given a different gloss by EA PR, with press releases focused on the cut of the profits which would be going to help armed forces veterans.

Eurogamer's piece, by ex-editor and current operations director Tom Bramwell, added an even more bemused European angle to the criticism.

Yesterday, speaking to Eurogamer's Martin Robinson at Gamescom, Goodrich said that the links had been removed in response the outcry.

"The Voodoo Tomahawk has since been removed from our website because of the article," said Goodrich, referring to Bramwell's editorial.

"That was an effort to raise a lot of money for charity, and we were well on our way to raising a lot of money with that tomahawk, but I don't know what will happen with that now," he added. "That whole effort, we've been working with those partners because we wanted to be authentic, and we wanted to give back to the communities. Every one of those partners, none of them paid a dime for product placement - all the money generated went to Project Honor."

Goodrich was also keen to point out that, usually, gaming press are fully in favour of emphasising the disconnect between fantasy and reality when it comes to play causing violent behaviour.

"It's an experience, and it's a video game, and they're going on that journey and learning about these group of people. It doesn't mean that they have any less respect for these. Maybe it's a cultural thing.

"If I played Need for Speed, and I'm handed the key to a Porsche, does that make me want to get in it and drive like a maniac and run people over? No, I played a game, and now I'm drivng a car in real life but I'm not going to go crazy with it because I played a video game.

"In a first-person shooter we're not teaching someone how to shoot better or be a better operator just by playing a game. It doesn't compute, just like when I play John Madden football I can't expect win the Super Bowl just because I played a video game."

39 Comments

John Bye
Senior Game Designer

480 451 0.9
So basically he's trying to blame Eurogamer and Gameological for taking money from veterans by pointing out how crass this promotion was? Classy.

Posted:2 years ago

#1

Sandy Lobban
Founder and Creative Director

314 206 0.7
In my own personal opinion....

I'm sure the fundamental intentions of helping some one were good, but I cant actually believe anyone considered that as an acceptable way to raise money for people that have been injured with real weapons. Some one got hurt in a real war, so lets promote the proliferation of more weapons, in the real world?. Very strange. At what point does that become sensible a charitable idea, a marketing idea for the franchise and for the games industry as a whole. Not surprised some one has seen sense.

Posted:2 years ago

#2

Dan Howdle
Head of Content

280 810 2.9
Popular Comment
It's like selling cigarettes to raise money for lung cancer sufferers.

It's okay, when logic and anti-logic meet, annihilation occurs, as it has in this case.

Edited 1 times. Last edit by Dan Howdle on 16th August 2012 12:51pm

Posted:2 years ago

#3

Adam Yau
Game Programmer

23 10 0.4
@Dan "It's like selling cigarettes to raise money for lung cancer sufferers"
I love this comparison lol

Posted:2 years ago

#4

Greg Knight
Freelance Developer

56 49 0.9
Whatever happened to baseball caps and t-shirts? Selling weapons!? You've got to worry about some people in this business.

Posted:2 years ago

#5

Sam Brown
Programmer

235 164 0.7
@Dan: I remember these from my university days. They did indeed donate 10% of their profits to cancer research. :)

Posted:2 years ago

#6

Joshua Rose
Executive Producer / Lead Designer

191 81 0.4
From the sound of the comments, I guess I was the only one that actually clicked on the links to see if the deals were actually worth the money they wanted.

I've always wanted a modernized tomahawk... and McMillan makes damn fine rifles hands down.

Raising money for wounded vets by selling weapons is a bit ironic, I completely agree. But think about how many games nowdays feature 'real world' technology. Before MW2, I didn't even know what the Bushmaster ACR was... Now I want one. Think about all the other brand name weapons that appear in videogames today... Just to name a few: Trijicon, Magpul, Bushmaster, Colt, Remington, Barrett, McMillan, Enfield, FN, H&K, EoTech, Bushnell, Zeiss, Nikon, Luipold, Springfield, IMI, CheyTac, Accuracy International, Walther, Armalite... The list goes on and on... and all of these have had appearances in games like Medal of Honor, Modern Warfare, Battlefield, etc..

It's okay when a clothing manufacturer makes a deal with a game publisher to manufacture merchandise for a videogame that has weapons in it, but when the weapon manufacturers that have their products appear in the games want to market on that, it's wrong? Now, going back to the charity money for wounded soldiers with weapons thing, that is a different case because the irony is a little bit too crass even in my opinion. But why is it wrong for a Weapon's Manufacturer to capitalize on the popularity of a video game that features their products, but it's okay when a clothing company makes merchandise for a game? Is it because one of them shoots bullets?
In a first-person shooter we're not teaching someone how to shoot better or be a better operator just by playing a game. It doesn't compute, just like when I play John Madden football I can't expect win the Super Bowl just because I played a video game.
This says it all right here... People said all the same things about Grand Theft Auto III when it came out... But you didn't see people driving around in buses picking up prostitutes trying to get as many as they can in one vehicle only to kill them all and collect the money. If somebody wants to become a gun enthusiast after playing a video game, that is well within their right. As long as they do it in a safe and respectful way, there's no harm in it.

Posted:2 years ago

#7

Morville O'Driscoll
Games Blogger & Journalist

1,521 1,317 0.9
Popular Comment
But why is it wrong for a Weapon's Manufacturer to capitalize on the popularity of a video game that features their products
Perhaps because making money out of objects that kill people is distasteful at best, and morally wrong at worst?
In a first-person shooter we're not teaching someone how to shoot better or be a better operator just by playing a game. It doesn't compute, just like when I play John Madden football I can't expect win the Super Bowl just because I played a video game.
This is disingenuous. We're all grown-ups, and very-few people are actually going to think that there's going to be a link between gaming violence and real-life violence. But framing the argument like this allows Goodrich to circumvent the broader argument - that EA's partnership with a weapons manufacturer is in shockingly bad taste to anyone with half-a-brain who isn't American. America's love of guns is something that cannot be comprehended by people outside of the USA, and the amount of hatred that follows weapons manufacturers and legitimate arms dealers in the rest of the world should not be under-estimated. This is a shockingly poor idea from a multi-national company.

Posted:2 years ago

#8

Joshua Rose
Executive Producer / Lead Designer

191 81 0.4
EA is based in the US, many weapons manufacturers are also based in the US.

There are A LOT of red tape laws when it comes to exporting weapons to other countries from within the united states. For example, I buy PMAGs from Magpul. They have a completely different magazine they sell for export purposes, because the PMAG can't be distributed outside of the US. EoTech holographic sights, made in the USA. Also illegal for export.

As far as America's love of guns not being comprehended to people outside the USA, I refer you to the following article from the Wall Street Journal Europe from 1999.

http://www.theblessingsofliberty.com/articles/article11.html

Switzerland (very very far outside the USA), issues assault rifles to all 'of age' males for militia service. But arguging about gun laws in various countries is a digression from the current topic, so i'll refrain.

My main point however, is that a partnership with a weapons manufacturer based in the USA, will most likely only benefit the USA, due to very strict export laws on firearms, and firearm related products. That's not to say people won't find a way around it, but any partnership in such a manner is usually going to be country specific, due to international trade laws regarding the importation and exportation of firearms.

So the fact that it's a multi-national company, is more or less a moot point when it comes to partnerships with a United States based weapons manufacturer.

Posted:2 years ago

#9

Matthieu Mandeville
Technical Game Analyst

5 4 0.8
I see your point(s) but I have a very different opinion. A gun is tool and what matters is the hands it's in.

Yes many veterans were injured by gunfire and yet they continue to enjoy the shooting sports.
Unlike cigarettes I'm not hurting myself by using my guns and I'm not giving secondary smoke to others.

McMillan was generously donating money but just like with their credit card processor some people just can't make the difference between objects and their owners.

Guns are a means to an end, hopefully it's scoring 100 in a IPSC match, hitting a 12 inch gong at 500 meters or bringing food for your family.


-A Canadian gun owner ;)

Posted:2 years ago

#10

Greg Wilcox
Creator, Destroy All Fanboys!

2,158 1,078 0.5
I live here and I'm sick of the endless news about shootings the fact that too many stupid people own guns (we need to adopt Japanese gun laws, I say) and more are sold AFTER shootings because more of those dopes think more guns means more protection. That and somehow, a black man who happens to be president is trying to stop them from getting those guns (that's from some of the middle to far-right web sites which are totally bat-shit certifiable). And blah, and blah and blah.

Of course, as soon as a new FPS comes out (and there's a new totally unrelated shooting), it might get blamed for a hot minute (as usual) before people buy MORE guns because they think that trip to the mall, church or bar will make them a big hero in that gunfight they so desperately want to get into with a would-be criminal. Mad Max, meet Mad Maxine. Welcome to America. Now go home.

Of course, try and call for some common sense and you get shot down (well, not quite literally, but it's close to it from the second amendment crowd that doesn't grasp that that rule refers to a WELL-REGULATED militia, not a disorganized unstable paranoid populace with too easy access to firearms and a burning fear of anything not quite the same as they are). I guess when you basically steal an entire country and kill off enough people to keep it (after having a good chunk of them build it), you're allowed to be a tiny bit crazy...

Posted:2 years ago

#11

Morville O'Driscoll
Games Blogger & Journalist

1,521 1,317 0.9
@ Joshua
So the fact that it's a multi-national company, is more or less a moot point when it comes to partnerships with a United States based weapons manufacturer.
Except for public relations. And except for how consumers outside the US perceive EA because of this.

I'm not saying all the criticisms are grounded in reality (they're not), I'm saying this is a PR failure, because anything related to guns or arms of any kind has to be tackled carefully. As an analogy, how would a new Theme Hospital fare if EA announced a tie-in with Planned Parenthood which benefitted that organisation? It's (in my opinion) a worthy organisation, but the political and social fall-out from it would be shocking, right?

Edited 2 times. Last edit by Morville O'Driscoll on 16th August 2012 4:42pm

Posted:2 years ago

#12
Popular Comment
"If I played Need for Speed, and I'm handed the key to a Porsche, does that make me want to get in it and drive like a maniac and run people over? No, I played a game, and now I'm drivng a car in real life but I'm not going to go crazy with it because I played a video game."

My God, the man works for EA, has he ever played NFS ? You CAN'T run people over in any of the games. How can this guy speak for anything if he doesn't even know their product range ?

Posted:2 years ago

#13

Joshua Rose
Executive Producer / Lead Designer

191 81 0.4
@Matthieu:
A gun is tool and what matters is the hands it's in.
Could not have said it better myself. A shovel is a tool, an axe is a tool, a chainsaw is a tool, a machate is a tool... All of which are MUCH EASIER to buy than a gun. Some of these 'tools' can be more deadly than a firearm. Somebody could go into a mall with any one of these tools and create just as much chaos as a gun. But do you see anybody calling for the immediate banning of anything and everything in a hardware store? Hell, even a teacup can be used to kill somebody (I refer you to the Chronicles of Riddick).

@Greg:
WELL-REGULATED militia, not a disorganized unstable paranoid populace with too easy access to firearms and a burning fear of anything not quite the same as they are
Access to firearms differs from state to state, and regardless every firearm is registered with the BATFE (Bureau of Alcohol Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives). It's very unfair (and sounds incredibly biased) to call it a 'disorganized unstable paranoid populace', just because a small handful of people over the last 10 years out of a couple hundred million in the whole country, went crazy and decided to shoot people. Norway (I believe it's Norway), has a complete outright ban on firearms, and yet it was the location of one of the worst massacres within the past decade.

'... too easy access to firearms and a burning fear of anything not quite the same as they are.) Very wrong indeed. I don't (nor do most gun owners in america) have a burning fear of anything different than us... We have a burning fear of the robber that's going to come into our homes and threaten our families... We have a burning fear of the mugger on the streets with a knife that will probably injure you regardless of whether or not you give them your wallet... We have a burning fear of gangs of people that want to pick a fight with me because IM the one that's different. Gun owners are realists. If one person had a concealed handgun in that Colorado movie theater, the gunman would have only been able to inflict a fraction of the casualties he did. If he knew it was possible that SEVERAL people in that movie theater had a concealed handgun, he probably would have reconsidered doing it at all. Even with body armor on, a single .45 ACP bullet to the chest is going to knock you flat on your ass in two seconds, giving more than enough time for a follow up shot.

If you want to bring valid points to an argument, I welcome them by all means regardless of your opinion. But making outrageous statements like "dopes think more guns means more protection" or "that's from some of the middle to far-right web sites which are totally bat-shit certifiable", or calling people "disorganized unstable paranoid populace"; this is not constructive and valid points being brought to an argument. These are baseless accusations, blatantly meant to be offensive in nature, and biased rhetoric. You're not aiding in the conversation, you're trying to start a flame war. Be courteous, be respectful, and be constructive, or don't comment at all.

Posted:2 years ago

#14

Joshua Rose
Executive Producer / Lead Designer

191 81 0.4
@ Morville:

I partially agree, it is a PR failure. They could have handled it differently. But I also think something like this isn't something just to be shunned and looked down upon simply because it's an arms manufacturer.

Walmart sells guns too, they also sell games made by EA. Dicks Sporting Goods sells guns as well, the also sell things like FIFA and Nike shoes. Should we have distaste for those companies because they sell guns and video games in the same store?

Something like this, there's no really good way to go about marketing it, but the business opportunity is there. And if you really think about it... c'mon... it's EA... do you REALLY think they're going to pass up an opportunity to make money? =P

Posted:2 years ago

#15

Sandy Lobban
Founder and Creative Director

314 206 0.7
In my own personal opinion......

@Joshua Have you ever fired a gun? If you have then you should realise how ridiculous it is to compare them to the product placement of clothes. If not then you should give it a go, then you will realise how easy it is for someone to lose their life directly or indirectly when around one. Trust me, the ones I fired at a firing range, there was a moment of "where the hell did that end up" on each and every shot as the shockwave hits you in the face. There's is a tremendous gulf between firing a gun in a game and the reality of firing one for real, knowing it can kill in an instant. That gulf should always remain so in my opinion. The two just don't go together as a way to have fun. To promote the real deal in a game is nothing less than retarded, and I'm glad it was pulled. I'm pretty sure none of them who had the idea have kids. Well I hope not.

Posted:2 years ago

#16
Walmart sells guns too, they also sell games made by EA. Dicks Sporting Goods sells guns as well, the also sell things like FIFA and Nike shoes. Should we have distaste for those companies because they sell guns and video games in the same store?
I'm sure some folk might argue that a company that sells assault rifles right next to squash rackets is a company that deserves a certain amount of distaste. Who knows...

Posted:2 years ago

#17

Morville O'Driscoll
Games Blogger & Journalist

1,521 1,317 0.9
And if you really think about it... c'mon... it's EA... do you REALLY think they're going to pass up an opportunity to make money? =P
So I wasn't the only one thinking that, huh? :D

The business opportunity is there, you're right. But... I don't know if it should be pursued.

*shrugs* Ah well. :)

Posted:2 years ago

#18

Dan Howdle
Head of Content

280 810 2.9
Popular Comment
I cannot believe how many posts there are here defending the proliferation of firearms.

All this 'it's not the gun it's the people' bollocks makes me sick to my stomach.

Here's an idea: How about we give nukes to all the countries that don't have them. You know, we could make them wait a couple of weeks while we check they don't have a criminal record, then we'd be good to go. You know, because, like, nukes don't kill people, people kill people. The thermonuclear bomb is just a tool man, it's just a tool. Man.

It's just a tool.

It's just a tool.

What does escalation mean again? Is that, like, those moving stair things?

Posted:2 years ago

#19

Joshua Rose
Executive Producer / Lead Designer

191 81 0.4
@Sandy: Yes i've fired many guns. I am a collector and owner of several. I realize the seriousness off a gun and how easy it is to 'kill in an instant'. I also know the difference between a game and reality. I go shooting every weekend, so i know them very well. It is very fun for me, and very relaxing (as odd as that sounds). Shooting is a great stress relief. Having a 'real deal' gun in a game is not the same as promoting it in the game. That's usually more of an authenticity thing than a promotion thing.

I do not have kids (yet), but when I do, they will be raised around guns, so they will have full appreciation and respect for guns from the time they were old enough to pull the trigger. There are many people that have grown up this way (more than you'd think), and every one of them I've met has been a level headed, down to earth person.

Posted:2 years ago

#20

Greg Wilcox
Creator, Destroy All Fanboys!

2,158 1,078 0.5
Sorry, but as a responsible gun owner, you can't just ignore the fact they there ARE people who (despite the 2nd Amendment) should NOT own a gun under any circumstances. I should have clarified that I'm not against EVERYONE owning a gun. Just unstable people including those who see me and my black skin as a threat. I've "only" been shot at once in my life and it wasn't something I'd care to have happen again. Thank goodness some drunk drivers also have bad aim is all I'll say. For my own purposes, I wasted a good chunk of time over the past few months poking around a bunch of not so nice sites reading screed (most of it quite dangerous and much more so that my little exercise in free speech). Well, it wasn't a total waste, as I learned a lot more about some people I didn't know about who want to raise a lot more hell than lighting up a little forum.

I live in an area that's had an uptick in shootings, which according to the cops I speak to, are mostly gang-related with illegal firearms. There were NONE about ten years ago (save for a few suicides and a failed bank robbery where no one was injured and the thief apprehended). I don't know about you, but hearing gunfire every night or every other night and then choppers flying overhead a few minutes later isn't actually something I'll get used to.

As for the tools comment I always here, sure- provided you're a hunter, sportsman, target shooter, and so forth and so on. I don't see criminals filing their guns (legal or illegal) as deductions on tax returns noting "Yeah, I use my .38 to hammer nails all day and it'll still shoot straight on the mark" (or however that line goes). Guns aren't apples that fall from trees or grow from the ground, so we need to stop thinking that everyone who has access to them can use them properly. Like owning and driving a car, I think gun ownership needs to be something learned and earned. As one of the officers I chatted with told me, arming everyone against crime isn't a good idea because you're automatically thinking they can guess with 100% accuracy who's a criminal in a given situation. That's not the process of elimination I'd like to be a part of, by the way.

As noted, I'm for RESPONSIBLE ownership of guns. I'm not against hunting, target shooting, collectors and anyone with REASONABLE intent (as I know a few folks in each category). But there's No getting around it, we have to grow up and get past something that needs to be fixed. I have not a clue as to what that is, but there's a lot that's wrong and you can't disagree with that at all.

As for Colorado. let's not even go there, man. You shouldn't have to be armed to go to the movies, ballet, or taking a wife or girlfriend to Planned Parenthood for a pap smear. That's just surrendering to something instead of solving a more real problem.

Posted:2 years ago

#21

Joshua Rose
Executive Producer / Lead Designer

191 81 0.4
Laws that forbid the carrying of arms... disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes... Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man. - Thomas Jefferson's
I agree that there are some people who have no business owning a gun, but there's no rational way to prevent such a thing. And any gun laws stopping the legal ownership of guns will only cause the market of illegal guns to grow rapidly. Criminals that are going to use guns, are going to get guns regardless of laws. That's the hard truth.

I am a hunter, sportsman, target shooter, etc. So I like to think I fall in the category of 'responsible' gun owner. I don't know how guns are tax deductible, but i'd like to find out =P
I wasted a good chunk of time over the past few months poking around a bunch of not so nice sites reading screed (most of it quite dangerous and much more so that my little exercise in free speech).
Not sure what you're referring to. Are you talking about a bunch of conspiracy sites? (serious question)

You're probably on a list somewhere for even having read the sites lol. And I'm probably on a list somewhere for having mentioned you reading it haha.

Crimes with illegal guns are a reality that we must face regardless of gun control laws. In Virginia (where I'm from), any crime committed with an illegal gun, automatically doubles the sentence. When this law was enacted (I don't remember when or by whom), the number of crimes committed with illegal guns fell quite rapidly. So there IS something that can be done about it, but it will never be completely gotten rid of.

Posted:2 years ago

#22

Dan Howdle
Head of Content

280 810 2.9
Popular Comment
In Virginia (where I'm from), any crime committed with an illegal gun, automatically doubles the sentence.
Or if the gun was legal the murderer gets half the sentence. Because, you know, it makes it more okay. He went through the proper channels.

Ah, here's an idea: NO GUNS.
When this law was enacted (I don't remember when or by whom), the number of crimes committed with illegal guns fell quite rapidly.
But not the ones involving legal guns. You know, the ones that could have been prevented. Illegal gun crime will always exist, but that's not the type that it's easy to do something about, is it?

You like firing guns, and even though that serves no societorial function besides your own personal amusement, the deaths of some people you've never met is a fair price to pay.

I get it.

Edited 2 times. Last edit by Dan Howdle on 16th August 2012 8:27pm

Posted:2 years ago

#23

Tim Carter
Designer - Writer - Producer

556 293 0.5
(Shall I get in on this...? Hmmm...)

Posted:2 years ago

#24

Sandy Lobban
Founder and Creative Director

314 206 0.7
In my own personal opinion.......

@Joshua You know its not the same things as product placement of clothing then :). I am not bothered about arguing about the pros and cons of gun ownership. It doesn't matter to me being from the UK. We simply don't feel the fear of not having one. I recognise that target shooting is fun though, but we prefer to play darts whilst having a pint of beer and some banter instead. :)

Posted:2 years ago

#25

Matthieu Mandeville
Technical Game Analyst

5 4 0.8
Well that escalated quickly...

Posted:2 years ago

#26

Roland Austinat
roland austinat media productions|consulting

125 62 0.5
@Morville:

"We're all grown-ups, and very-few people are actually going to think that there's going to be a link between gaming violence and real-life violence."

Then I'd encourage you to look around among your friends - how old are the non-industry friends that are playing video games? Are their parents getting them games that they could not buy themselves in a store due to age restrictions? Are those violent games been advertised to adults or to adolescents? I think we are living in a reality distortion field of Jobsian proportions if we believe that everybody who is buying CoD or BF is actually as old as the rating requires him/her to be.

Also, I'm very tired of the "guns don't kill people" mantra. And the fact that everybody always states that the only games that have an effect on people are the ones that have good messages/constructive gameplay/etc. How convenient.

Sure, I grew up playing games myself and still do, but I was also blessed to have parents who were involved in all that - in fact, my dad owned a console before I did. Take that "good home" away and replace it with unstable family surroundings and violent media of any shape or fashion - that would be a study I'd love to read.

Posted:2 years ago

#27

David Amirian
Writer

59 3 0.1
i cant believe they would sell guns to people, i mean seriously

oh wait, its legal. the connection between games and guns provides a marketing opportunity. i dont know if any sane person can really say that Medal of Honor trains you to use those weapons. I mean, really? I would never be able to operate a sniper rifle kit, and ive played many-a-game with sniper rifles in there.

spray bottles teach you how to use guns more than games.

Posted:2 years ago

#28

Morville O'Driscoll
Games Blogger & Journalist

1,521 1,317 0.9
@ Roland
I think we are living in a reality distortion field of Jobsian proportions if we believe that everybody who is buying CoD or BF is actually as old as the rating requires him/her to be.
Oh, I don't doubt that kids who aren't supposed to be playing violent games are indeed playing them. What I meant by my "We're all grown-ups" remark was more that we shouldn't leap on this as an excuse to pander the religious morality who say violence in games (will always) lead to violence in reality. There will be some people who play violent games and are violent, but in the same way that there will always be children who decide to kill an animal to see what it feels like.
Are those violent games been advertised to adults or to adolescents?
This is something that industry really does need to work on, no doubt. It's quite clear that kids under the age-rating are being marketed to (as they always have been, though that's not an excuse)

Edited 2 times. Last edit by Morville O'Driscoll on 17th August 2012 9:01am

Posted:2 years ago

#29

Nick Gunn
3D Artist

12 0 0.0
Great comments Dan Howdle. Funny too.

Posted:2 years ago

#30

Joshua Rose
Executive Producer / Lead Designer

191 81 0.4
@Dan:
You like firing guns, and even though that serves no societorial function besides your own personal amusement, the deaths of some people you've never met is a fair price to pay.
How does my ability to own a gun cause the deaths of people i've never met? Because it's legal for us to own guns? The accusation that MY right to own a gun causes the deaths of people I've never met, is probably the lowest blow I've heard thus far in this whole conversation. You have no right to say it's my fault that somebody halfway across the country got killed because I like to go shooting on sundays. That is insulting to me, and by making this comment you cheapen those lives lost, simply so you can add fuel to a fire. I was not the one there pulling the trigger. I was not the one there that had something snap in my brain to want to do something like that. I was not the one that walked into a public place and started shooting people. So please tell me how it's MY fault that these things happened? The US has a very bad habit of making legislation that inconveniences the majority due to the actions of a few.

And No Guns as a solution?

EDIT: link removed because it was a dumb link lol, but Thomas Jefferson says it all.

As I previously quoted from Thomas Jefferson:
Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man.
Here's another quote for you I saw once on the back of a shirt:
Gun Control: The theory that a woman found dead in an alley, raped and strangled with her own pantyhose, is somehow morally superior to a woman explaining to police how her attacker got that fatal bullet wound.
If you don't believe stuff like this happens all the time, then you have a very brainwashed, diluted, and optimistic view of the world, and im sorry for that. Meanwhile, I will continue to protect myself and my family, from the people who neither follow nor care about gun laws or morality, who would not hesitate to shoot me if the opportunity outweighed the risk.

Edited 1 times. Last edit by Joshua Rose on 20th August 2012 5:34pm

Posted:2 years ago

#31

Darren Adams
Managing Director

231 414 1.8
I will continue to protect myself and my family, from the people who neither follow nor care about gun laws or morality, who would not hesitate to shoot me if the opportunity outweighed the risk.
Your last sentence pretty much sums it all up. Guns have 1 purpose and 1 purpose only; to kill.....

Guns are not a defence item, they do not deter violence against you and are just a means to kill people, period. If you have to own guns to 'protect yourself from other people with guns' then by your own admission the idea of owning guns and justifying them is completely insane.

But then again each to their own; if you want guns to feel safe then go ahead, but justifying their use is about as retarded as the EA stunt this whole page is about. Guns are not good in any shape or form. It is like saying genocide is fine in certain situations...

Edited 2 times. Last edit by Darren Adams on 17th August 2012 3:18pm

Posted:2 years ago

#32

Joshua Rose
Executive Producer / Lead Designer

191 81 0.4
I never said guns didn't kill... As a matter of fact, I stated quite clearly that I am fully aware and fully respectful of the killing power of any gun.

It's interesting how people will take one line of what I say out of context entirely, and then exploit it as necessary. =P

But alas, tis the way of debate. As far as feeling safe; If I learned anything from the years of playing EVE Online, nobody is ever truly safe. All you can do is deter potential problems.

Like the boy scout code: Be Prepared. Which means it's better to have it and not need it, than to not have it when you need it.

All this being said, I honestly and truthfully wish that I, nor anybody here (or anybody anywhere for that matter), ever have the unfortunate chance of being in a situation where a gun is necessary for defense. But I'm not going to leave my chances of survival to society.

Besides... When the zombie apocalypse happens... you won't see me walking around aimlessly craving brains... cause i'll be shooting zombies instead of being one.

=)

Posted:2 years ago

#33

Terence Gage
Freelance writer

1,288 120 0.1
Both sides of the debate are interesting, but I am inclined to agree with Dan's points. My dad had a rifle when I was growing up, as he hunts vermin on a friend's farm. He had to keep it locked up at all times it was not in use and the bullets had to be kept locked in a separate location. Despite going shooting with him once and shooting his air rifle quite a few times I never really saw the appeal. To justify owning a gun as self-defence just seems so wrong to me; like Dan said in comment 19, escalation then comes into it. But, as I understand it firearms are very tightly tied into American society (and please correct me if I have this wrong) and as a Briton I cannot really equate our society to that line of thought.
"Gun Control: The theory that a woman found dead in an alley, raped and strangled with her own pantyhose, is somehow morally superior to a woman explaining to police how her attacker got that fatal bullet wound."
Do you have a genuine link Joshua citing an example where this has actually happened?

EDIT:
Could not have said it better myself. A shovel is a tool, an axe is a tool, a chainsaw is a tool, a machate is a tool... All of which are MUCH EASIER to buy than a gun. Some of these 'tools' can be more deadly than a firearm.
Again Joshua, do you have an example of a time someone has, for example, gone into a cinema or a school and killed and/or injured dozens of people with an axe or chainsaw or crowbar? Suggesting that tools like this can be more deadly than a firearm seems absurd. A quick Google of the Colorado shooting and the BBC tells me that at least 12 people were killed and 59 wounded. Fifty-nine! There's no way you could cause that kind of damage with anything but a gun (or several, in this instance).

And a few gun facts the BBC has listed - I'm assuming they've done their homework and this is all correct:
- There are no limits to how many guns can be bought a month, and the state permits sale of automatic weapons
- No waiting period for buying a handgun, both state and federal state law requires criminal background checks
- Since 1998 Columbine massacre, 20 miles from scene of Friday's shooting, it has become easier to buy guns in US - a national ban on assault weapons sale expired in 2004

Edited 1 times. Last edit by Terence Gage on 17th August 2012 4:52pm

Posted:2 years ago

#34

David Vink
Freelance

19 16 0.8
Hey Joshua, with regards to this link you posted: http://offgridsurvival.com/violentcrimeantiguncitiesamerica/ the comments section underneath that article is filled with blatant racism from several different members which pretty much all of the members of that particular community seem to be fine with (no one is objecting). Is this your kind of online hang-out?

I'm not one for personal attacks but if you post a link to a website like that as a means to back up your arguments I am unable to take anything you say seriously anymore.

Oh, and slightly more on topic: Call me cynical but I believe the folks at EA are probably quite content with all the attention this whole episode has gotten them.

Edited 2 times. Last edit by David Vink on 18th August 2012 12:09am

Posted:2 years ago

#36

Joshua Rose
Executive Producer / Lead Designer

191 81 0.4
I was not in any way posting for the comments.... I was posting for the article itself...

Thanks again for being like everybody else and taking one thing I say (in this case I didn't even say it), and taking it entirely out of context.

That link was one single link out of SEVERAL... please see every single other link that I posted before you begin to say you don't take anything I say seriously.

All I did was google 'woman kills would be racist with gun' and took a quick look at each article in the link. I do not take any responsibility for the comments on ANY of these articles. Nor should you claim that my entire point is invalid due to comments not made by me, on sites that I do not frequent.

Had I actually paid attention to the comments on that particular site, I would not have used it in my argument. However, because I did not anticipate somebody would try to invalidate my argument based on comments made on the articles in question. So if you don't mind... Please reconsider the rest of my perfectly valid argument, and do not insinuate I am racist.
... filled with blatant racism from several different members which pretty much all of the members of that particular community seem to be fine with (no one is objecting).
Again, I do not take responsibility for, nor do I condone the actions and comments of the people of that community. I merely posted the article for it's content, not its comment.

Posted:2 years ago

#37

David Vink
Freelance

19 16 0.8
Joshua, I did not mean to insinuate you are a racist, my apologies. I was reacting like that because I was a little shocked by what I read after clicking a link you provided.
I was not in any way posting for the comments.... I was posting for the article itself...
The article itself makes several claims about how places with active gun control laws have more homocides than places that dont, but no sources for any of the figures are provided. What is the point of posting it then (in the context of this discussion)?

Posted:2 years ago

#38

Joshua Rose
Executive Producer / Lead Designer

191 81 0.4
Sorry for the delay in replying. Weekend and all.

My purpose for the link was to show that many times (in the US at least), in many cases, gun control legislation doesn't always work like people expect it to. In hindsight I should have chosen a more credible article lol. It was posted in response to the idea of having no guns at all being a solution to the problem.

I could debate gun control legislation all day long. But I think we might all be better off just agreeing to disagree.

America is most definately a different culture from anything else around the world, so it would stand to reason that there would be internationally conflicting opinions on the subject.

Zombie Apocalypse, nuff said =P

Posted:2 years ago

#39

Login or register to post

Take part in the GamesIndustry community

Register now