backtop


Print 76 comment(s) - last by Boze.. on Nov 19 at 8:50 PM


There's a brewing controversy over an opening scene in Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2 that allows the player to assume control of a terrorist and gun down dozens of civilians at an airport.  (Source: Gamespot)

The scene has caused the game to be banned by censors in Russia, the home country of the game's fictional terrorist.  (Source: Gamespot)

  (Source: Gamespot)
Russia is unhappy that Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2 depicts Russians as terrorists

Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2 – available for the PC, PS3, and Xbox 360 -- has been a massive international success selling over $310M USD in software in the U.S. and UK alone.  Developed by Infinity Ward and published by Activision, the first person shooter primarily puts you in control of a soldier in a multinational commando unit known as Task Force 141, though you can also play other characters at points in the game, including a terrorist.  The story involves extremists seizing control of Russia's government and committing terrorist attacks around the world.  It is the player's job, throughout most of the game, to try to thwart or counter these attacks.

A scene from the game is stirring up international controversy.  In the scene, the player can take control of a rogue Russian villain and gun down civilians at an airport.  Activision has defended the scene's graphic content, stating, "Yes [the scene] is [in the game]. The scene establishes the depth of evil and the cold bloodedness of a rogue Russian villain and his unit. By establishing that evil, it adds to the urgency of the player’s mission to stop them."

Activision continues, "Players have the option of skipping over the scene. At the beginning of the game, there are two ‘checkpoints’ where the player is advised that some people may find an upcoming segment disturbing. These checkpoints can’t be disabled.  Modern Warfare 2 is a fantasy action game designed for intense, realistic game play that mirrors real life conflicts, much like epic, action movies. It is appropriately rated 18 for violent scenes, which means it is intended for those who are 18 and older."

While most retailers in the U.S. and Europe have tolerated the violent content, it has led some gaming sites, including Gamespot, to question whether the content pushed the envelope too far by allowing players to assume the role of murderous terrorists.

Now the Russian government has laid the smack down on Infinity Ward/Activision over the scene.  Angry about the depiction of their country, the government has temporarily banned the game, ordering its recall from all store shelves.

In trying to appease the Russians, Infinity Ward has released a patch which removes the airport level from the Russian version of the game.  It hopes to rerelease the patched game in Russian stores as soon as next month.  The new version has to first get past Russian censors, though.  Despite the game's reportedly unfavorable depiction of (some) Russians, the game has proven surprisingly popular in Russia, as it has in the rest of the world.



Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

Are you surprised?
By Hiawa23 on 11/17/2009 12:48:12 PM , Rating: 4
I thought the level was fantastic, but is anyone surprised by this? Wow, I guess in Russia, adults are not allowed to play the game if the government says no. That's the equivalent of the US government banning the game in the US because just cause there is a level where the Capital building is on fire, the Whitehouse has been taken & a nuke was set off.




RE: Are you surprised?
By really on 11/17/2009 1:33:34 PM , Rating: 5
I think you just described every episode of 24. :)


RE: Are you surprised?
By jonmcc33 on 11/17/2009 2:56:09 PM , Rating: 2
The level can be fantastic but they do not need to give the first person the "thrill" of being a terrorist and mowing people down. The concept of that makes Grand Theft Auto look like a children's game.

The game can have cut scenes and make it all a part of the game. I just think it's an entirely different monster to put someone right in the mix of it with control to do that.

It's bad enough that fanatics out there label FPS games as training the psychopaths of tomorrow. How much more desensitized to murder must we get?


RE: Are you surprised?
By SPOOFE on 11/17/2009 3:10:16 PM , Rating: 5
quote:
they do not need to give the first person the "thrill" of being a terrorist and mowing people down.

They did not need to make a game at all.

You do not need to play games.

There is very little that is "needed". Please do not conflate "need" with "want".

They chose to include the level because it was intense and amazing and very, very different. And you can choose not to play it. Hooray for choice!


RE: Are you surprised?
By Iaiken on 11/17/2009 3:55:35 PM , Rating: 3
You don't even need to shoot people in that level.

I just walked along behind them and took cover while they mowed people down.

Having beat the game on hard in under 9 hours, I am damned glad I just rented it instead of bought it.

Multiplayer and co-op play was ok, but an FPS on a console is still just an FPS on a console... What a ripoff.


RE: Are you surprised?
By Hiawa23 on 11/17/09, Rating: 0
RE: Are you surprised?
By Iaiken on 11/17/2009 5:42:06 PM , Rating: 1
l2english


RE: Are you surprised?
By jonmcc33 on 11/17/2009 4:32:55 PM , Rating: 1
What a way to twist the use of a single word around yet quote an entire sentence.

It wasn't about need or want. It was about the necessity to put in a level where you are an active terrorist and participate in mowing people down. That was entirely uncessary, even as an option. If they want to put in a 3D cut scene where you watch it then that's understandable. I think we've all seen terrorists at their worst (9/11, Moscow theater attack in 2002, etc).

This is just more cannon fodder for the activists that show FPS gaming to breed psychos that go on killing sprees (Virginia Tech massacre, etc).


RE: Are you surprised?
By SPOOFE on 11/17/2009 5:24:31 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
It wasn't about need or want. It was about the necessity

Bolding mine. I think that speaks for itself.

Anyway, you accuse me of ignoring parts of the statement, but you completely ignored mine: There is nothing about NEED. It's about CHOICE. In this case, that's how they chose to present their story, and personally, I found it a terribly compelling choice.


RE: Are you surprised?
By CrazyBernie on 11/17/2009 11:32:55 PM , Rating: 1
Just in case people need further clarification...

Direct from thesaurus.com:

Main Entry: necessity
Part of Speech: noun
Definition: need , essentiality
Antonyms: desire, want


RE: Are you surprised?
By Hiawa23 on 11/17/2009 4:24:30 PM , Rating: 2
The game can have cut scenes and make it all a part of the game. I just think it's an entirely different monster to put someone right in the mix of it with control to do that.

It's bad enough that fanatics out there label FPS games as training the psychopaths of tomorrow. How much more desensitized to murder must we get?


All I am saying is I like to be able to decide for myself what content I want to play, & I am fine with the game as it is. It has the proper rating, & it's up to parents to make the right decision for their children. I don't want game makers censored. What the fanatics label games as, I could care less, as I don't believe games make killers, music or anything else. It's human nature to want to blame societal ills on something. The game is about the attrocites of terrorism, & I would rather be put right into the mix than watching a clip, if I want that I can watch a movie, this is a videogame not for kids. Get over it..

I bet many of these psychopaths probably never even picked up a controller & a psychopath is just that a psycho whether he picks up a controller or not.


RE: Are you surprised?
By jonmcc33 on 11/17/09, Rating: -1
RE: Are you surprised?
By LRonaldHubbs on 11/17/2009 5:15:29 PM , Rating: 3
So you're going with the classic, flawed conclusion that because some people can't handle it nobody should? Then I am thankful that it isn't your decision to make.


RE: Are you surprised?
By FlyTexas on 11/18/2009 3:59:16 AM , Rating: 1
How exactly will that 10 year old play the game?

My kids don't do anything on the computer at my house that I don't see, the family computers are in the family room, no hiding what they are doing.

Now, I can't control idiot parents, but God help us if we all have to be limited by what idiots can handle. Nanny state, here we come...


RE: Are you surprised?
By Nik00117 on 11/18/2009 6:04:43 AM , Rating: 3
IW won't care one bit about this. Why? Have you been to Russia? 80% of the population earns what $300 a month? However 10% earn more average incomes such as $2,000 to $2,500 then you got the ultra rich taking up the remaining billions.

80% of Russia wouldn't consider buying it cause they can't afford it.

Leaving 20% of the Russia population divided up, many of whom don't play PC games.

Let Russia ban the game! IW didn't care about loosing $28,000,000 because of dedicated servers what makes you think IW will care about loosing another $10,000,000-$20,000,000 off the Russians.


lets see
By meepstone on 11/17/2009 12:53:16 PM , Rating: 5
American game developer isnt going to make americans the terrorists, so we had to pick someone. They should get a grip, its just a game.




RE: lets see
By Omega215D on 11/17/2009 1:18:28 PM , Rating: 5
Actually anyone can be considered a terrorist or criminal in this game. The Russian Ultranationalists started off the chain of events and blamed it on an American that was outed by the leader at the end of the level.

An American General orders the murder of UK soldiers to help further his agenda on being a global hero. Then as a Brit you kill both Americans and Russians.

Basically this game blurs the line of morality and duty.


RE: lets see
By eddieroolz on 11/17/2009 1:24:55 PM , Rating: 3
Damn you beat me to it about the "terrorist" being a CIA operative.


RE: lets see
By Lord 666 on 11/17/2009 2:24:58 PM , Rating: 2
Dude, its not just a game... its a addictive cult. Since getting MW2, I do my daily service and play for several hours with other fellow followers.

It also predicts the destruction of the ISS and the White House ;)


RE: lets see
By Sylar on 11/17/2009 4:04:29 PM , Rating: 2
*spoilers*

Last I checked the latter half of the game pretty much focuses on Shepard and his secret American goons as the main baddies chasing you down. He's the bigger terrorist than Makarov.


RE: lets see
By walk2k on 11/17/09, Rating: 0
RE: lets see
By Noya on 11/17/2009 7:53:22 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
Yeah, the entire script is stupid anyway


Yep. It felt like I was in a retarded soap opera! CoD4 was much better.


RE: lets see
By nuarbnellaffej on 11/18/2009 1:11:01 AM , Rating: 2
Haha its a "soap" Oprah...


I apologize...
By Yawgm0th on 11/17/2009 1:09:27 PM , Rating: 1
...In Soviet Russia, game bans you!




RE: I apologize...
By Esquire on 11/17/2009 1:58:46 PM , Rating: 3
lol funny stuff

CAPper
Me playing MW2 with my face...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G--u63Gka_0


RE: I apologize...
By dtm4trix on 11/17/2009 4:03:04 PM , Rating: 2
Is this the famous Yawgm0th from COH? I know you.


RE: I apologize...
By Yawgm0th on 11/17/2009 4:04:15 PM , Rating: 2
I'm... famous? I don't recall playing CoH online extensively. Great game, and I'd like to see the RTS genre head in that direction, but I'm pretty sure I'm not famous in this regard.


RE: I apologize...
By dtm4trix on 11/17/2009 5:48:52 PM , Rating: 2
my bad.....I have a friend who plays City of Heroes not Company of Heroes....with that user name.....lol


RE: I apologize...
By Treckin on 11/17/2009 4:18:45 PM , Rating: 2
I have a perf. CoH on USWest if anyone is interested. Its currently on my 98 Enchant Sorc.

/stoned


RE: I apologize...
By driver01z on 11/18/2009 3:34:53 PM , Rating: 2
Well done good sir, you beat me to it.


To Lay the Smack Down
By GaryJohnson on 11/17/2009 12:47:41 PM , Rating: 5
quote:
Now the Russian government has laid the smack down on Infinity Ward/Activision over the scene.

I think you just laid the smack down on professional writing.




RE: To Lay the Smack Down
By kattanna on 11/17/2009 1:39:38 PM , Rating: 2
actually, by banning the game, all the russian gov has done is give the game more free press then the company could have afforded to buy on their own.

im sure they are laughing all the way to the bank


RE: To Lay the Smack Down
By messyunkempt on 11/18/2009 8:02:20 AM , Rating: 2
And what money will they be taking to said bank if its banned?


RE: To Lay the Smack Down
By Zoomer on 11/18/2009 11:04:08 AM , Rating: 2
It's called sales on the black market. Would you prefer the german, uk, or american release?


By ghost101 on 11/17/2009 2:51:20 PM , Rating: 2
In a country where you have had past incidents where terrorists/rebels have literally gunned many people down (see Beslan 2004 etc.).

The equivalent for the US, would be a game where you commit something similar to 9/11 in a game. Can guarantee there would be a backlash in the states were that to happen in a game. What would people related to people who died in 9/11 think?

I think the comparison to TV and films is also very limited. Films aren't simulators like games are.

The problem obviously isn't the depiction of Russians as evil given the number of games that do it.

I personally don't see it as a problem, but the moment I played the scene it was obvious what was going to happen. The scene in particular was even briefly talked about in Parliament in London.




By Keeir on 11/17/2009 4:08:04 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
In a country where you have had past incidents where terrorists/rebels have literally gunned many people down (see Beslan 2004 etc.).

The equivalent for the US, would be a game where you commit something similar to 9/11 in a game. Can guarantee there would be a backlash in the states were that to happen in a game. What would people related to people who died in 9/11 think?


I get your point, but I think people have a problem with Scope. I am not trying to say that the Beslan incident was small, but to make a comparison between that incident and 9/11 is ... laughable as the events were of entirely different orders of magnitude, both in terms of life loss, property damage, "surprize factor", and even seriousness. (You are comparing a botched hostage situation to an direct assult on military and financial captials. You are comparing someone with nearly no apparently motivation to those who who rightly or wrong fought a way in which 50,000+ of thier own civilians died. I could go on and on.)


By Netscorer on 11/18/2009 12:24:01 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
I could go on and on


Please don't. You already have proven the utter stupidity of your post, so spare us. The original poster was not comparing Beslan to 9/11 directly. You did. And in your polemic you went as far as to denigrate the entire Beslan episode just to prove your point. 9/11 was a national tragedy for US. Beslan was a national tragedy for Russia. Enough said.


By jonmcc33 on 11/17/2009 4:44:41 PM , Rating: 2
I agree entirely. Wasn't there a flight sim game that mentioned something about flying a plane into a building and then after 9/11 the game was patched to remove that part?

Sensitivity people. Really.


this is no different from...
By inperfectdarkness on 11/17/2009 1:00:58 PM , Rating: 3
germany banning wolfenstein 3d.




RE: this is no different from...
By Keeir on 11/17/2009 3:48:40 PM , Rating: 2
Ummm...

The Laws banning Nazi symbols in Germany has been in existence a long long time. Although I might disagree with the law, it has had the support of the German people for a long time. For a reason, in the 1990s, many hate crimes were commited by Neo Nazis.

This game appears to be banned for "insulting" Russia. I don't speak or read Russian, so I can't know for sure.

Crossing a vague line is alot different that going against clear and pre-existing anti-hate laws.


By gevorg on 11/17/2009 10:18:06 PM , Rating: 4
If this game would let people fly some Boeing into NY twin towers, the public would be outraged like there is no tomorrow (checkout Microsoft Flight Simulator's "patch" that disabled this possibility). But this is Russia we're talking about here, applying double standards against them is common even in computer games.




Goodwill vs Badwill
By JS on 11/17/2009 1:09:23 PM , Rating: 3
This is one of those typical scenarios when someone tries to avoid bad publicity but ends up looking even more clueless and stupid.

Kazakhstan getting all upset over Borat (what a PR service Sacha Baron Cohen did them, now at least a billion people know their country exists at all), the mayor of Rio de Janeiro trying to sue the makers of the Simpsons (because, you know, the Simpsons depict Americans so nicely but not Brazilians)... The list goes on.

I quote Ivan Drago's epic words to Apollo Creed: "You will lose".




Game ratings are crazy...
By mapesdhs on 11/17/2009 6:54:27 PM , Rating: 3
Never ceases to amaze me that a game can be rated
18 for what is, at the end of the day, a pretty
low-detail depiction of some event, yet a film
like District 9 with its oodles of gore only gets
a 15. Totally nuts. Movies show far worse violence
than *any* game, yet the media always goes whacko
over the games. Funny how the same media doesn't
say a word about Saw VI, etc.

It's a topsy turvy world. I'm not allowed to see
a woman's breasts on TV during the day (evil! Nasty!
Poisons the mind! Must pixelate!) but it's perfectly
ok to switch to CNN or whatever and see scenes of
destruction from suicide bombings, real blood flowing
on the ground, etc. The censors really do have their
heads shoved up their butts when it comes to the
logic of all this.

As for Russia, how ironic that their govt. goes ape
over the airport scene in a fictional game, yet it
was apparently ok for them to gas that Russian
theatre for real and kill dozens of their own
citizens & then try and cover it up.

Ian.




GTA
By Sh33han on 11/17/2009 8:47:15 PM , Rating: 1
wow, I love how that a game finally decides to show what is actually happening out there in the world by playing that scene at the airport, and everyone seems to have a problem with it. But yet not one person says anything about GTA, or any other game like that where you just kill anyone you want to but without a purpose, blow up shit, whatever. Call of duty is a great game, and it actually shows what is happening, if you dont want to play it then dont. Or otherwise shut the fuck up




RE: GTA
By cerx on 11/18/2009 3:18:11 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
But yet not one person says anything about GTA


Are you serious?!


By Motoman on 11/17/2009 1:18:48 PM , Rating: 2
...C&C Red Alert/2?

...or any of the probably nearly innumerable games made by American companies that showed Russians as the bad guys?

Did they try to ban "Red Dawn?"

...they did ban Monopoly though, at least during the Soviet era. Not sure if it got unbanned after the breakup.




An over reaction at best
By acidragnarok on 11/17/2009 1:23:12 PM , Rating: 2
Some of the facts about that level and about the game are false in this article but they are minor details.

The Russian gov't is tricked by a terrorist into acting against America not taken over by terrorist.The equilivant would be Osama having a grudge against Iraq so he had Iraqis take over the 9/11 plans so that we would go to war with Iraq.

Also the player assumes the role of a 141 member trying to infiltrate the group.

Another tidbit is that Russia has also overlooked is that the player does not actually have to fire the weapon at all during the entire level. Infact I the only the NPCs asks for you to fire is when armed guards arrive and try to shoot you.




By Bigginz on 11/17/2009 2:09:36 PM , Rating: 2
Activision has released an official statement that COD: MW2 is not banned in Russia. Check your sources!

http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2355983,00.as...

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/video-games/...




Airport Scene
By Azsen on 11/17/2009 3:19:53 PM , Rating: 2
I thought the scene was a bit disturbing but yeah you didn't need to fire on the civilians if you didn't want to. You couldn't stop the terrorist either though. Tried to shoot him and they gun you down really quickly.




Goes without saying
By Freezebyte on 11/17/2009 3:35:21 PM , Rating: 2
In Soviet Russia, ban censors you!




Option couldve been better
By NA1NSXR on 11/17/2009 7:20:07 PM , Rating: 2
I already knew about the scene before getting to it so I skipped it, but unfortunately they just moved on with the game and I could only guess what plot details I missed. I think the sequence would've been better served as a cutscene for those who didn't wish to play through it.




A symbolic measure
By Gideonic on 11/18/2009 1:47:57 PM , Rating: 2
Due to the relative expensiveness of games compared to salarys, most Russian players pirate their games anyway, therefore it is more a symbolic measure than an effective ban




well
By jrollins on 11/19/2009 8:55:41 AM , Rating: 2
To quote a recent battle between the two major wireless companies.
quote:
The truth hurts
.

You dont see us (Americans) throwing a hissy fit because, in the game, Russia attacked us for something terrorist groups in their country did. This is just another way for them to get their wants. Im probably gonna get rated down, but you know, this isnt that big of deal.




rather not see it
By andrinoaa on 11/17/09, Rating: -1
RE: rather not see it
By dtm4trix on 11/17/09, Rating: 0
RE: rather not see it
By StevoLincolnite on 11/17/2009 8:56:52 PM , Rating: 2
Guns are banned here. - And because of that, generally criminals have to improvise with other weapons (Knives, baseball bats etc'). - That only works here because this is an island, and border control is massively easier, so smuggling weapons is extremely difficult.


RE: rather not see it
By rcc on 11/18/2009 6:44:43 PM , Rating: 2
And so you've made it impossible for the 100# woman to defend herself against the 200# man. Good choices there. But let me guess, you have no violent crime.

To each his or her own. Sheep, shepherd, or wolf. The world in general seems determined to breed more of the former and the latter. We could use a few more in the middle, but it's their choice to make.


RE: rather not see it
By andrinoaa on 11/19/2009 4:34:23 AM , Rating: 2
Are you serious? Do you really think that the rest of the world has "crime statistics" like america?


RE: rather not see it
By rcc on 11/19/2009 1:49:26 PM , Rating: 2
Don't let the fact that we publish the numbers and make movies about it fool you. Yes I realize there are places with lower crime rate. But the world in general is no better.

Even categorizing "America" is pretty silly since the "statistics" between the worst of the inner city areas and other areas vary in the extreme.


RE: rather not see it
By dtm4trix on 11/17/09, Rating: 0
RE: rather not see it
By walk2k on 11/17/2009 6:38:07 PM , Rating: 3
There's absolutely zero evidence to suggest what you say is true. NONE. There's a lot more evidence that suggests killing people in a video game can be a cathartic exercise.

I know I've played every kind of violent video game you can imagine since I was about 7 years old and I've never shot up a school... I don't even own a gun nor have any desire to (I don't need to compensate...)


RE: rather not see it
By ClownPuncher on 11/17/2009 6:51:07 PM , Rating: 3
Ok, now what is wrong with owning guns? I'm glad to see you're above censorship, but why hate on gun owners?

I own several guns, and yet, I don't feel I am compensating for anything. I hunt (blackpowder usually) and I sport shoot. It is just an interest, a hobby. I don't hate on stamp collectors or RC enthusiasts.

Not all of us gun owners (actually very few) are anything like Ted Nugent. I don't own guns JUST because it is my right, I own them because they are a part of how I grew up and how I live my life now. With the proper education, guns are no more dangerous than anything else.


RE: rather not see it
By PrinceGaz on 11/17/09, Rating: -1
RE: rather not see it
By FlyTexas on 11/18/2009 4:02:26 AM , Rating: 2
If you don't understand, it would be pretty hard to explain.


RE: rather not see it
By Boze on 11/18/2009 11:53:29 AM , Rating: 1
Its really easy to explain this actually.

The reason normal citizens need to own guns in America is because the Founding Fathers remembered what a major pain in the ass it was to try to fight a war without enough weapons.

They also recognized that in the event the American government ever became too corrupt, the citizens would have at least some weaponry they could use to overthrow the government and reestablish the democracy.

In other words, one of the most patriotic things any American can do is own a gun. Never in our Constitution does it say you need to own one, or that you even need to use one if you do own it. But by owning one, if our government ever becomes so jacked up that there's no way to salvage it short of revolution, if every single citizen in America owned a gun, they could pass those guns on to the revolutionists who could then use them to arm the revolutionaries and then resecure the republic and restore the democracy.


RE: rather not see it
By andrinoaa on 11/19/2009 4:20:53 AM , Rating: 2
Man what twisted logic. You are sick in the head.


RE: rather not see it
By Boze on 11/19/2009 8:50:19 PM , Rating: 2
Uh, I'm not sure where you get off saying our Founding Fathers were sick in the head, but you can kindly go straight to Hell.


RE: rather not see it
By ClownPuncher on 11/18/2009 2:53:40 PM , Rating: 1
It is a good question, one that sometimes can be hard to answer.

First, I see you're from the UK, and gun control might make sense there. The USA is a far far larger country, and I live in Washington state. There are many areas people live that literally right out their back door is a mountain range, or a massive forest.

These environments can be vital to the ecology of humans as well as wildlife. What this means is...yes there have been black bears, elk, mountain lions, deer, coyote, and pissed off raccoons not 10 feet from my home. With the amount of natural flora, which feeds the herbivores, herbivores that have very few predators, (bears eat berries, roots and carrion) which means populations can spiral out of control.

We have had years where not enough deer tags have been sold (a deer tag allows you to hunt specific kinds of deer, certain age groups etc) then the deer will clear all of their feeding areas, many of which will starve, or move to more urban locales. Hunting reduces populations to acceptable levels where deer can sustain their habitats and not need to move to neighborhoods or starve to death.

That is only the hunting aspect. I hunt with black powder rifles, meaning octagonal barrel muskets. I am not out there gunning down squirrels with an M249.

Secondly, self defense. It is up to me to defend myself and my family from those that would do us harm.

Third, making guns illegal just means the "bad guys" can get guns, but you cant.

Fourth, my government says that it is one of my basic rights.

I never ever want to have to use a weapon on someone, but if it comes down to kill or be killed, I will do my best to survive.


RE: rather not see it
By andrinoaa on 11/19/2009 4:29:13 AM , Rating: 2
I feel sorry for you. I don't have a gun and have no compulsion to "defend" myself with a gun. Guns are banned in australia and yes , some , crooks do have guns. Their numbers are so low as to be statistically irrelevant. Its a pretty base idea that its up to you to kill or be killed. Do you live in a civil society? Are you so primal that the gun lobby has pushed all your buttons? You don't feel used at all? From my perspective, you have been brutalised and guns are just a symptom. Honestly, I can't get to grips with your logic. Do you not see the other side of the arguement?


RE: rather not see it
By ClownPuncher on 11/19/2009 12:32:09 PM , Rating: 2
Your side of the argument is that you would like to take something away from me. My side of it wants to take nothing away from anyone. Because I own guns, I am more dangerous than someone who does not?

What do you mean by "brutalised"? I have no desire to harm people. As for the gun lobby, I really don't listen to what they say. It is my choice, I have not been "used" by anyone, I am not paranoid or cowering in fear, I have not been tricked.

Why do you feel sorry for my rights and freedoms? There is nothing wrong with responsible adults making responsible descisions about how they want to live their lives. Why would I want laws, governments, or other people trying to force me to live my life their way rather than my own?


RE: rather not see it
By KCjoker on 11/17/2009 6:43:49 PM , Rating: 2
We can't keep drugs out, we can't keep 10 million illegal immigrants out yet you think we can ban guns and keep them out? hilarious


RE: rather not see it
By andrinoaa on 11/18/2009 2:09:06 AM , Rating: 1
To keep guns out, dickhead, you first have to stop making them. This is very hard when the very essence of America is the war machine. It would take decades to eradicate if you started now.
Back to my premise about guns. Lets see, what are the statistics on gun aquired injuries in America and what are they in the rest of the world where guns are banned?
Just this thought should make anyone with half a brain think twice about the ready availability of guns. It CLEARLY shows that everyone having a gun DOESN'T make you safer!!


RE: rather not see it
By Anoxanmore on 11/18/2009 1:53:07 PM , Rating: 2
In an extensive series of studies of large, nationally representative samples of crime incidents, criminologist Gary Kleck found that crime victims who defend themselves with guns are less likely to be injured or lose property than victims who either did not resist, or resisted without guns. This was so, even though the victims using guns typically faced more dangerous circumstances than other victims. The findings applied to both robberies and assaults. Thus, defensive gun use by victims is both effective and, relative to criminal uses, frequent. (Quoted from Wiki)

I'm sorry, but you are wrong. I realize in the world across the ocean it may be different due to how much you have enjoyed thousands of years of killing each other, but we prefer not to, nor get to that level.

I also don't own a gun nor intend to, but I have been hunting, its too darn cold for water fowl. (In my experience)


RE: rather not see it
By andrinoaa on 11/19/2009 4:16:53 AM , Rating: 2
70,000 odd people had gun related injuries in america in 1998 ( where the stats come from ) but only less than 500 in australia. I think this kills your logic!?!? no?? Says a lot about your stupid study. It misses the point/the elephant in the room, lol


RE: rather not see it
By Anoxanmore on 11/19/2009 11:22:45 AM , Rating: 2
*Sigh* Using over 10 year old statistics is a logical fallacy, at least use something up to date, I did. Fine if you want to argue injuries in the US, lets go with that and ignore the whole fact that just having the ability to own them prevents crime and if a crime is commited less injuries and fatalities are a result of that.

As I stated in my original post, I used an article from wiki, granted not the best source of be-all, end-all, but works for quick reference.

In 1999, alone, there were under 30,000 injuries in the US. My stats are from ATF website, yours are from where? Also lets compare two countries that actually fought for independence, Australia didn't. In fact prior to 1927, they were still under England's rule, which didn't allow firearms. You win for spinning tales to suit your needs.

Brazil also fought for indepedence.
From : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_politics_in_Brazi...
Although Brazil has 100 million fewer citizens than the United States, and more restrictive gun laws, there are 25 percent more gun deaths;[6] other sources indicate that homicide rates due to guns are approximately four times higher than the rate in the United States.[7] Brazil has the second largest arms industry in the Western Hemisphere

Again, I'm sorry that on the other side of the ocean you don't like firearms, but thankfully your opinions will never take hold here. So we shall do our own thing here, and you can do your own thing there, and life shall go on as it has for the past 200+ years now.


Who else
By Uncle on 11/17/09, Rating: -1
"I'd be pissed too, but you didn't have to go all Minority Report on his ass!" -- Jon Stewart on police raiding Gizmodo editor Jason Chen's home














botimage
Copyright 2012 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki