backtop


Print 45 comment(s) - last by MZperX.. on Jan 2 at 12:33 PM


  (Source: EA)
Recent shootings were the cause for removing the links

Electronic Arts, better known as EA, has pulled the links to real weapon sales sites from its "Medal of Honor" Web page. EA's "Medal of Honor" site has traditionally partnered with weapons companies, since the game features these real weapons available for purchase.

The reason behind this is pretty obvious if you've heard about recent shootings in the U.S. The most recent occurred in a Newtown, Connecticut elementary school where 26 children and school staff were killed by gunfire. Before that, a man shot and killed many people in an Aurora, Colorado theater.

Due to these recent tragedies, the National Rifle Association pointed the finger at movies and video games for adding to the culture of violence in the U.S.

"There exists in this country, sadly, a callous, corrupt and corrupting shadow industry that sells and stows violence against its own people," said NRA vice president Wayne LaPierre.

"Medal of Honor" was originally published by EA Games in 1999, where much of the series takes place in World War II. The newer versions mainly focus on modern warfare.

Back in 2010, the "Medal of Honor" was banned from the military due to multiplayer Taliban characters featured in the game. Just last month, seven Navy SEALs were charged and punished for releasing confidential information to EA during the making of "Medal of Honor: Warfighter." The seven Navy SEALs consist of two Senior Chief Special Operators and five Chief Special Operators, which all received letters of reprimand and a cut of half their pay for two months.

Sources: BBC News, SeattlePI



Comments     Threshold


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

Not a smart move
By Beenthere on 12/27/2012 1:25:17 PM , Rating: 2
It was never a smart move to have links to gun stores in a video game but many video game makers aren't exactly rocket scientists nor scrupulous.

That being said I suspect that eventually people will come to understand that violent video games do have a negative effect on people with mental issues. If nothing else it may desensitize them to violence and make it appear in their minds to be an acceptable solution to an issue.

The knee-jerk reaction to guns and the NRA's proper recommendation of armed security in all schools, illustrates how clueless many in the media and the general public are regarding violence and guns. Until legislators and the general public buy a clue about violence, nothing positive will happen. You could outlaw all guns and they'd still be readily available to most anyone who wanted one.




RE: Not a smart move
By kyuuketsuki on 12/27/2012 3:56:44 PM , Rating: 2
So you claim videogames have a negative affect on people with "mental issues", then go on to talk about a "knee-jerk" reaction to guns? So someone with "mental issues" being in possession of a gun is cool, but some fantasy violence isn't? Gimme a break.

I'm not for banning guns or any such nonsense, by the by, but the NRA is full of idiots as demonstrated by the vice-president trying to deflect criticism aimed at his organization toward another convenient scape-goat instead of making a reasoned defense. And the proposal for armed volunteers at schools will go over great... until one of them with an itchy trigger-finger blows some kid's head-off, or has a beef with some students who give him crap and is the one to go on a rampage.


RE: Not a smart move
By Rukkian on 12/27/2012 5:04:24 PM , Rating: 2
Or until you know somebody has to actually pay for all of those armed guards!

As for the banning of assault weapons, I have no problem banning them, as I do not feel there really is a need to have them, but I also do not think that would make any difference in this type of situation. Somebody with 2 semi-auto 9mm handguns with extra clips could do just as much if they wanted.


RE: Not a smart move
By MZperX on 1/2/2013 12:24:45 PM , Rating: 2
Rukkian posted "... I have no problem banning them, as I do not feel there really is a need to have them, ..."

Well, I guess it's very fortunate then that what you "feel" has no significance when it comes to the U.S. Constitution, right? The law is not about "feelings" and this is precisely why we call demands for gun bans a knee-jerk reaction (as opposed to reasoned thoughts). A ban would solve nothing; it would have zero impact on reducing these tragic occurrences. So why ban anything then? Because politicians with ambitions of ever increasing power do not like the idea of an armed people. It's a pesky obstacle to them.


"There is a single light of science, and to brighten it anywhere is to brighten it everywhere." -- Isaac Asimov














botimage
Copyright 2014 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki