We'll get the heat

Discussion in 'Legal and Activism' started by steve666, Mar 26, 2013.

  1. steve666

    steve666 New Member

    627
    0
    0
    I'm sure that we (gun owners) will take the heat for this, even though it has nothing to do with us.
    Controversy erupted after an unidentified developer created a digital reproduction of a real high school, Port Moody Secondary School in Port Moody, Canada, for the violent first-person shooter game Counter-Strike. The popular video game allows users to create customized scenes and share the “maps” with others. In this customization, the shooter wanders the school shooting military opponents.
    http://news.yahoo.com/video/real-high-school-campus-depicted-204611547.html
     
  2. Rick1967

    Rick1967 Well-Known Member

    4,991
    48
    48
    Why to video game producers do everything is such poor taste? I remember when MW2 did the scene in the airport terminal. I heard that you were supposed to shoot inocent people in that part of the game.

    The more I think about this the more messed up it is. I was thinking that nobody would use a video game to plan an attack. Then I remembered how the 911 attackers used flight simulators to practice for their attack. Do video game people feel no resonsibility for anything? I am sure they will claim freedom of speech or something stupid like that.
     

  3. rocshaman

    rocshaman New Member

    3,250
    0
    0
    That is one of the most irresponsible things I've ever heard. What are those nitwits thinking about? They ought to be drummed out of business and run out of town. Good Lord....
     
  4. trip286

    trip286 New Member

    18,658
    1
    0
    I've played that game, and remember that mission vividly. It was disturbing. After just a short moment of blazing away with the machine gun (I believe it was an M60), I quit and just followed the other NPCs (non playable characters) throughout the rest of the mission, until the emergency services arrived and started shooting back.

    I also did not see at all where that mission was advancing the plot of the game.

    Terrible choice in a supporting scene/role.
     
  5. mountainman13

    mountainman13 New Member

    11,488
    0
    0
    It's a video game. We make movies about Vietnam and the takedown of Osama and the assassination of past presidents, hell there is a movie comming out in which America falls and the Whitehouse is destroyed. Nobody cries about that sh!t.
     
  6. Garadex

    Garadex New Member

    1,267
    0
    0
    Seriously? This is the same logic as saying gunmakers should feel guilty about a shooting with their guns. The game developer made it for entertainment they had no intention of it ever being used to hurt people. I agree that the scene in MW3 was way inappropriate and shouldn't have been in the game, but there are movies with things like this and very few people complain about it.
     
  7. MisterMcCool

    MisterMcCool Well-Known Member Supporter

    12,826
    146
    63
    We, of all people, should get behind anyone expressing their first amendment rights. You can disagree with the content, but respect their right to express it.
     
  8. rocshaman

    rocshaman New Member

    3,250
    0
    0
    I'm not saying they can't do it, I'm just saying a game that has you shooting up a high school is in extremely poor taste and totally unnecessary.
     
  9. trip286

    trip286 New Member

    18,658
    1
    0
    I don't think anyone is arguing so much on the morality of the issue, as much as how much flak the gun community may get for it.

    Well never mind...
     
  10. SRK97

    SRK97 Well-Known Member Supporter

    3,772
    287
    83
    I think it was called No Russian I skipped it.
     
  11. trip286

    trip286 New Member

    18,658
    1
    0
    That's right, I remember. Because of the controversial nature, I believe that skipping that one was an option.
     
  12. rednekked

    rednekked New Member

    22
    0
    0
    I don't see why this should offend anyone. The creator doesn't have innocent students being shot, or even present. No faculty is present in the school. The only people present on the campus are the two opposing teams. Were it modeled after a real office building, with no innocent people in it, would you feel the same way. The fact is that I believe the map should be allowed simply because it does cause uneasiness. War is not something to be glorified and romanticized as they do in most games and movies. War is destructive, both physically and emotionally. I have several close friends, that I won't see again until the end of my days, because of it. This isn't a school mass shooting. It can't be compared to the MW2 level. It is simply a location.
     
  13. texaswoodworker

    texaswoodworker New Member

    10,198
    0
    0
    .............
     
  14. kaido

    kaido New Member

    1,743
    0
    0
    I'm with Redneck and the others. I don't see what all the fuss is about. Yes it is a school, but there's games where you can run around play grounds and/or skate parts shooting at the enemy team. Neither levels have anyone with out a gun in their hands. As they said, the map was being developed well before Sandy Hook took place. That being said, how do we know the creator of the map didn't already decide to wait before releasing it to the public? He could of bad it done and ready to be released the day of or after the shooting happened for all we know. The RCMP already said that they can not charge him with anything, there's nothing they can do about it.

    If it trust bugs people enough, I'm sure they can start a petition to have either the levels creator, the server, or the game creators remove the map.
     
  15. texaswoodworker

    texaswoodworker New Member

    10,198
    0
    0
    It definetly wasn't the best idea for a level. It was important to the plot though, but they could have taken care of that with a quick video of a newscast or something. It basically was what caused the war between Russia and America.
     
  16. kfox75

    kfox75 Well-Known Member Supporter

    7,269
    157
    63
    On the newer releases of it, they make it an optional level, you can skip it if you choose to. That still doesn't make it right.

    They need to make laws against doing this kind of cr@p. Federal level, with substantial monetary and legal penalties. No Club Fed, Riker's or Levanworth. The reason for my feelings on this? What if it was based on the school that you child goes to? What if it was an office building, that had the same layout of the one your wife works in? Please, no attacks saying that I am using liberal logic. I just want to put the shoe on the other foot, so you can truely see how it fits. That is all, I am not trying to be a troll, just playing devil's advocate. If I have offende someone, I apologize in advance.
     
    Last edited: Mar 26, 2013
  17. kaido

    kaido New Member

    1,743
    0
    0
    We all understand the reasons as to why it's not the best ideas that the creator could of gone with. No one is saying "suck it up" or "who cares, not my school." It isn't the best taste of things to do, we can all agree here.

    But like others have said, if t was an office building, someone would still disagree. I'm sure even the people from Pripyat, Chernobylwhere a little upset when someone took their city and used it to map a game off of.
     
  18. kfox75

    kfox75 Well-Known Member Supporter

    7,269
    157
    63
    Garadex. I myself would place it on a slightly different level. There are NICS background checks on firearms, so there is a system of checks and balances that, in theory, make it harder for those who should not own or use a firearm to get one legally. Is this system flawed? Yes, but it does exist. It does not work simply because criminals, and the mentally unbalanced don't buy in a legal manner. Those checks, can protect the manufacturer, and the retailer from civil suits.

    The only thing between impressionable Little Johnny, and the glorified violence of media is a rating system, and his parents. A large part of the solution? Better parenting. Another solution, take a good long look at what the first amendment really covers, and what it should not cover.

    Under the first amendment, a Preacher could choose to preach to his congregation on any sidewalk in America, even at 02:30 on the sidewalk in front of your house. Why can he not do it? Noise ordinance laws. I Certainly do not want to step on his 1A, but what about my right to a good night's sleep?

    For it to be equal to the example you pointed out, there would have to be a background check system on PS3s, X-Boxes, and Wiis, as well as their games. Also, don't forget the home PCs, laptops, Tablets, Smart Phones, etc. It would be very interesting, if the survivors of Aurora CO decided to sue the shooter's University, his psychologist, the manufacturer of his PC, but, you and I both know that will never happen. I myself feel that the problems with society should be fixed at home, but some of the other forms of influence need to be more regulated. Just MHO, yours may differ, but that is the beauty of this country. We can both agree to disagree.
     
  19. kfox75

    kfox75 Well-Known Member Supporter

    7,269
    157
    63
    Very true Kaido, Very true.
     
  20. trip286

    trip286 New Member

    18,658
    1
    0
    See, I don't believe it should be a law. I think we have plenty of laws. Maybe a law that you can't use a REAL place as a model?...maybe I can live with that.