Slashdot Mirror
Trump's Meeting With The Video Game Industry To Talk Gun Violence Could Get Ugly (washingtonpost.com)
Anonymous readers share a report: President Trump is set to pit the video game industry against some of its harshest critics at a White House meeting on Thursday that's designed to explore the link between violent games [Editor's note: the Washington Post article may be paywalled], guns and tragedies such as last month's shooting in Parkland, Fla. Following the attack at Marjory Stoneman High School, which left 17 students dead, Trump has said violent games are "shaping young people's thoughts." The president has proposed that "we have to do something about maybe what they're seeing and how they're seeing it." Trump has invited video game executives like Robert Altman, the CEO of ZeniMax, the parent company for games such as Fallout; Strauss Zelnick, the chief executive of Take Two Interactive, which is known for Grand Theft Auto, and Michael Gallagher, the leader of the Entertainment Software Association, a Washington-focused lobbying organization for the industry.
Three people familiar with the White House's planning, but not authorized to speak on the record, confirmed those invitees. A spokeswoman for the White House declined to share a full list of participants on Wednesday. ESA confirmed its attendance this week, but the others did not respond to questions. Opposite of them are expected to be some of the video-game industry's toughest critics, including Brent Bozell, the founder of the Parents Television Council, and Rep. Vicky Hartzler, a Republican from Missouri, the three people said. After another shooting -- the 2012 massacre at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Conn. -- they each called on government to focus its attention on violent media rather than just pursuing new gun restrictions.
Three people familiar with the White House's planning, but not authorized to speak on the record, confirmed those invitees. A spokeswoman for the White House declined to share a full list of participants on Wednesday. ESA confirmed its attendance this week, but the others did not respond to questions. Opposite of them are expected to be some of the video-game industry's toughest critics, including Brent Bozell, the founder of the Parents Television Council, and Rep. Vicky Hartzler, a Republican from Missouri, the three people said. After another shooting -- the 2012 massacre at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Conn. -- they each called on government to focus its attention on violent media rather than just pursuing new gun restrictions.
The meeting shouldn't be any more interesting than the Take Two Interactive and the Entertainment Software Association showing the studies that violent video games do not increase violence, and then everyone else sticking their thumbs up their asses. Then again I doubt it will go that way.
-- All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing. -- Edmund Burke
It seems to me a significant portion of the video game industry is based in Japan, where guns kill between 10 and 20 people each year. Meanwhile in America, 500+ are killed by guns accidentally going off, 10000+ murdered with guns and 40000+ kill themselves with guns every year. Must be the video games they said. We need to do something about the video games to save our children.
Did anyone else see the news about the elephant in the classroom last week? It doesn't seem to have gotten the attention it deserves.
Any civilized country does not allow anyone to just walk in from the damn street and buy 6 fully automatic rifles along with a box of shie polish!
You can't do this in the US either. Not sure where you get your info from but maybe research a little before you spout next time.
I browse on +1 so AC's need not respond, I won't see it.
... is a school satchel.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-rVKknah1Ws
In holland, they don't let people have guns, so bad man only had knives and failed to kill anyone.
People in holland play the same video games. The difference is, they don't let ordinary people have guns without a damn good reason. Even IF IT DID cause violence, you'd have to remove every cause of anger and violence to fix the problem... video games, even if they do cause violence, are not the one and only cause.
The fix is to remove guns from the populace. Not just under 21's, under 81s.
The NRA is the problem here, the money they launder distorts politics.
It's apparently completely acceptable to a sizable chunk of society for kids to play video games where they kill people
Before video games existed, kids played games like "Cowboys and Indians" where they pretended to kill each other. Somehow, they did not all turn into violent sociopaths.
Also, we're on our 3rd generation now where kids play video games where they kill people. So this isn't new. Also, crime and homicides have plummeted during this time.
What if someone made a video game that allowed you to simulate raping people?
Already exists.
Imagine if you could buy an artificial vagina or human head that integrates with your gaming console so that you could rape it.
Already exists.
Society is advancing in morals in some respects but declining in morals in others.
Since crime and homicides have massively fallen since the 1970s and 1980s, citation required.
I think firearms will always be necessary and dangerous. If we don't cull the deer population, they will cull us on the roads.
:facepalm:
You do realize deer exist in lots of countries with strict gun control, right? And that the roads in those countries are not deer-encrusted death traps?
Some people legitimately need firearms for self-defense. Therefore, people should be allowed to have the freedom to possess firearms, and the second amendment is a good thing.
You're missing a very large step in your logic. Specifically, why nearly unfettered access to firearms must be granted to untrained people in order to satisfy your self-defense issue.
If some people need guns for self-defense, they can get the training, licensing and insurance required to handle those guns properly.
To its credit, the NRA isn't defending bump stocks.
No, the NRA did not defend bump stocks in the immediate aftermath of the Las Vegas shooting. Now that there's legislation to actually ban bump stocks, and some time has passed, the NRA is defending bump stocks. See: NRA opposition to FL legislation.
Except, you're wrong and your link doesn't support your claim.
The GP said "fully automatic rifles," which are highly regulated at both the federal and state levels. They may not be transferred without getting federal approval (ATF Form 4) subject to fingerprinting and an extensive background check. Most states have additional regulation, if they allow transfer or possession at all. Only already registered firearms may be transferred, and none have been allowed to be registered since 1986. Buying 6 M-16s would set you back around $100,000.
"National Security is the chief cause of national insecurity." - Celine's First Law
You can't do this in the US either. Not sure where you get your info from but maybe research a little before you spout next time.
Sure you can so long as it is a private sale (except for a handful of states that regulate private sales). Typically only FFLs have to do background checks.
I'm not even American and I know this.
What you "know" is wrong. Fully automatic rifles (aka machine guns) are very tightly regulated, in three ways.
First, the 1934 National Firearms Act (NFA) requires that anyone attempting to purchase a fully automatic weapon must obtain a tax stamp from the federal government. The cost of the tax stamp isn't too bad, $200, since the price was set in the 1934 law and has never been increased, but the legal process to obtain one is long, and arduous, and definitely includes thorough background checks by both federal and local law enforcement. There are also stringent requirements on storage and movement... if you want to transport your machine gun across state lines you have to notify the federal government, for example.
Second, the Hughes amendment to the 1986 Firearm Owners Protection Act bans the transfer of any machine gun to a civilian, unless it was already in civilian hands before the law was passed. This means there is a fixed -- and fairly small -- supply of fully automatic weapons in civilian hands. Fixed supply and growing demand means growing prices. The price of a fully automatic Colt AR-15, for example, is upwards of $25,000.
Third, eleven states simply ban them entirely, so it's impossible to legally own one if you live in one of those states.
The result of these restrictions is that fully-automatic weapons are owned only by wealthy collectors with spotless backgrounds.
Now, if you want to talk about semi-automatic rifles, the story is very different. You can pick up Ruger 10/22 about $200 at any gun store, and at many department stores that sell guns, like Wal-mart. If you buy it from a store, of course you'll have to have an instant background check. If you buy one in a private sale, you won't.
So, what you said is accurate if you refer to semi-automatic, rather than fully automatic rifles. This terminology distinction isn't a nit. The legal and practical differences are enormous.
Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
Remember, kids--stepping outside the libtard echo chamber is "flamebait" around here. These days, Slashdot is like Fark with a slightly more technical slant.
When you start using 'libtard', and also say uber-cynical content-free nonsense like assault nails and how blue states will probably require background checks for them, yeah, that's -1, Flamebait. It's needlessly antagonistic and stupid to boot, so quit crying.
USMC used doom
Yes, they did. And as the article you linked to states, it was developed:
to train U.S. Marines for "decision making skills, particularly when live training time and opportunities were limited."
Which is what I said. Video games and more complex simulators were developed and used for their logistical and fiscal advantages, rather than because they're a particularly good way to train. They don't replace actual training, they augment it.
Even when used in these ways, it's not like the USMC just had guys running around blindly mowing down whatever popped up; they trained as teams under the same command structure as they would in the field, and emphasised things like fire control, target identification, team movement, etc. The key point was to practice every skill other than actually putting the bullet onto the target; that was secondary.
When I was in we did dry-training for that kind of stuff. You could practice "house clearing" with just a team of guys with no ammo (and sometimes even no weapons), in a parking lot with a floor plan marked out with rope. I guarantee that training was more useful than "marine Doom", which is why we did that instead of playing video games.