Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Connecticut Groups Cancels Plan to Destroy Violent Games

Unknown Lamer posted about a year and a half ago | from the pr-stunt dept.

The Almighty Buck 350

An anonymous reader writes with an update to an earlier story about a group wanting to destroy your violent video games. "Southington, a town in Connecticut, has canceled its plans to collect and destroy violent games, stating that it has already succeeded in raising attention." Perhaps the real reason: "Backed by the Southington Chamber of Commerce, SouthingtonSOS originally planned to offer citizens $25 gift certificates in exchange for their violent games, films, and CDs, which the group would collect for 'permanent disposal.'"

cancel ×

350 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

now they can concentrate on ignoring mentally ill (5, Informative)

Dan667 (564390) | about a year and a half ago | (#42547439)

not helping the mentally ill can be their new top priority.

Re:now they can concentrate on ignoring mentally i (0, Troll)

GameboyRMH (1153867) | about a year and a half ago | (#42547547)

Fallen for one of the NRA's diversion tactics huh? At least the "blame them vi'lent vidjergames" thing didn't unfairly demonize a whole swath of the population.

Re:now they can concentrate on ignoring mentally i (5, Interesting)

Firethorn (177587) | about a year and a half ago | (#42547591)

Disclaimer: Lifetime NRA member(it was half price!).

I'm currently pissed at the NRA for pointing the finger at violent media, though they had a point if they'd restricted it to the *news*. Specifically, the making of the shooter into a celebrity, the digging into their life, etc...

I also happen to think our support structure for the mentally ill is horribly broken and needs to be fixed. End the war on drugs, actually combat poverty, treat the sick and we'd be more like Switzerland - awash with guns, but very little crime, not just 'little gun crime'.

Re:now they can concentrate on ignoring mentally i (3, Funny)

Jetra (2622687) | about a year and a half ago | (#42547773)

Think they'll be mad if I put Pride and Prejudice up that it causes suicidal thoughts in young women?

Re:now they can concentrate on ignoring mentally i (1, Interesting)

ByOhTek (1181381) | about a year and a half ago | (#42547781)

There's a local NRA backed gun club/firing range that I frequent for target practice. It has all kinds of targets depicting people... From what I gather, this is not uncommon.

Of course they point at other sources, they'd hate for people to see how much they really promote it, themselves. They glorify killing, thinly veiled under 'self defense' and 'anti-terrorism' motifs.

Re:now they can concentrate on ignoring mentally i (5, Insightful)

0123456 (636235) | about a year and a half ago | (#42547827)

If you're training to use a gun in self-defense, what exactly do you think you should be shooting at?

I presume the police also 'glorify killing', since they shoot at human-shaped targets too?

Re:now they can concentrate on ignoring mentally i (0, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42547985)

Despite the many gun owners and lobbying (bribing) NRA group, self-defense hasn't prevented a single massacre. How about you stop using "self-defense" as the reason gun nuts want assault rifles?

Re:now they can concentrate on ignoring mentally i (2, Informative)

Kr1ll1n (579971) | about a year and a half ago | (#42548159)

So when fascist dictatorships disarm the entire population, and then mass execute people, are you saying that guns would not have prevented that?

Would lack of gun ownership make any difference in these cases?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A9fVABaWkAM [youtube.com] - Battle of Athens, TN 1946
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mm9o3vhKoF8 [youtube.com] - Man shoots robbers
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CLj2IExXl9k [youtube.com] - Homeowner shoots robber
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xe6v2TWbkhU [youtube.com] - Homeowner shoots robber
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZI4e94nOo1c [youtube.com] - Off duty cop shoots armed robber

I am sure ALL of those poor, innocent victims that got shot would NEVER commit another crime.

Why not be a grown adult, and post as something other than AC.
I have no shame in my own opinions, why do you have so much in yours?

Re:now they can concentrate on ignoring mentally i (2, Insightful)

GodfatherofSoul (174979) | about a year and a half ago | (#42548345)

I'm for gun rights but it's pointless to cite these stories because you're 22 TIMES more likely to use a gun against someone you know. Throwing more guns into the mix will definitely stop crimes, but you're going to create FAR more inicidents than you stop.

Re:now they can concentrate on ignoring mentally i (3, Insightful)

Spectre (1685) | about a year and a half ago | (#42548193)

Given that it is a major pain in the butt to get an assault rifle already ... you do realize this requires an expensive federal permit to even own one? They are effectively already banned.

The current bans being discussed are trying to go further and ban things that are not assault rifles, but merely "look scary".

Re:now they can concentrate on ignoring mentally i (2)

wonkey_monkey (2592601) | about a year and a half ago | (#42548229)

Despite the many gun owners and lobbying (bribing) NRA group, self-defense hasn't prevented a single massacre.

Which only goes to prove that we need guns!

(that was a joke)

Re:now they can concentrate on ignoring mentally i (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42548241)

Despite the many gun owners and lobbying (bribing) NRA group, self-defense hasn't prevented a single massacre

Well first of all, it's not a massacre if it's been stopped.
Second, it's illegal for me as a gun owner to carry a gun on school property, so you've artificially limited the data set.
Third, I don't have enough people in my home to qualify as a "massacre" even if someone killed everybody in the building.
Fourth, you should probably educate yourself on exactly what an "assault rifle" and an "assault weapon" really are, how they are legally defined, and notice that most people use the terms to mean the same thing when they are not.

As for the actual STORY we're discussing, I've seen kids beat each other up over a game of fucking Tiddley-Winks, so I suspect any link between violence and games has more to do with competition getting out of hand and lack of parental involvement than the actual material in the game.

Re:now they can concentrate on ignoring mentally i (1)

ByOhTek (1181381) | about a year and a half ago | (#42548265)

Without splitting the world into two, and seeing how many people would have been killed on the timeline where the armed/out-of-control gunman were allowed to gun down every one he or she wanted, then we can't say for certain, no.

Our friends at tautology club can tell us that self defense shootings failed to prevent every massacre that actually happened...

Re:now they can concentrate on ignoring mentally i (4, Insightful)

ganjadude (952775) | about a year and a half ago | (#42548565)

Did they also explain to you that 61 of the last 62 mass shootings took place in "gun free zones" I know crazy that law abiding citizens would follow the laws that a crazy person would ignore.

so again, how will outlawing XX stop anything when it already is shown that gun free zones are criminal welcome zones?

Re:now they can concentrate on ignoring mentally i (4, Insightful)

PortHaven (242123) | about a year and a half ago | (#42548353)

Actually, it has prevented many. But usually they are dismissed. For example, off duty cop, or in the case of the "security guard" at the church. Who was merely a citizen who had a carry permit, and due to some concerns had volunteered at the church. (Essentially, what I used to do.)

No, there are many cases. But you'll almost never hear them in the news, cause they do not fit the agenda.

That, and the perpetrator is usually taken out before it can become a "massacre".

Re:now they can concentrate on ignoring mentally i (4, Interesting)

srw (38421) | about a year and a half ago | (#42548373)

...except for the recent shooting in Oregon, where the shooter turned his gun on himself after a civilian with concealed carry pointed his gun at the shooter. (and chose not to shoot due to people behind the shooter) Funny the news never reported it that way.

Re:now they can concentrate on ignoring mentally i (4, Insightful)

ganjadude (952775) | about a year and a half ago | (#42548533)

on that same logic, Neither has there been any mass shootings using automatic weapons yet they talk about them non stop everytime a crazy person goes crazy.

Re:now they can concentrate on ignoring mentally i (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42548113)

If you're training to use a gun in self-defense, what exactly do you think you should be shooting at?

Prawns [wikimedia.org]

Re:now they can concentrate on ignoring mentally i (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42548215)

Zombies!

Re:now they can concentrate on ignoring mentally i (4, Interesting)

ByOhTek (1181381) | about a year and a half ago | (#42548221)

I typically shoot at lined/bullseye targets.

I don't need to get off killing a pretend person, I just want to see how accurate I am.

Re:now they can concentrate on ignoring mentally i (0, Troll)

iluvcapra (782887) | about a year and a half ago | (#42548223)

If you're training to use a gun in self-defense, what exactly do you think you should be shooting at?

If you were going to go by the statistics, the target should look like:

  • Your husband or pet in a dark hallway after making too much noise coming in late,
  • The inside of your mouth after a getting fired from your job,
  • The next door neighbor kid, after your kid borrows your gun to "scare him."

Actually the classic target that looks like a dude with a gun pointed at you is one of the much less likely things the gun's ever going to be discharged at.

Re:now they can concentrate on ignoring mentally i (1)

Cymsdale (772966) | about a year and a half ago | (#42548139)

Those aren't people. They are zombies. They just happen to have very similar profiles.

Re:now they can concentrate on ignoring mentally i (1)

ByOhTek (1181381) | about a year and a half ago | (#42548291)

The zombies I don't mind, those are funny, and just generally people being silly. Black shilloutes (lines) are also fine. But there are actual targets of people too, or that look so much like a person, that you would be able to tell unless you looked at just the right spot, right up close.

Re:now they can concentrate on ignoring mentally i (5, Interesting)

ShanghaiBill (739463) | about a year and a half ago | (#42547869)

Disclaimer: Lifetime NRA member(it was half price!).

I am a gun owner, but I would never join the NRA, and I am disgusted that they are so often considered to represent all gun owners. They have taken positions on drug prohibition, censorship, "precrime", and other issues that are appalling. They may be pro-gun, but they are certainly not pro-freedom. I believe in the 2nd amendment, but I believe in the rest of our constitution as well.

Re:now they can concentrate on ignoring mentally i (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42548303)

Almost every NRA member is compromising somehow. It's a massive organization and they'll say things you disagree with at some point.

For my part, I was a little aggravated to see them endorse Romney. It's not that I was a bigger fan of Obama, but it seemed dishonest to sponsor a guy that had actually enacted gun bans over a guy that wants to enact gun bans.

But it's not like I'm going to forfeit my membership. They're the best shield we've got against disgusting legislation.

Re:now they can concentrate on ignoring mentally i (4, Insightful)

GodfatherofSoul (174979) | about a year and a half ago | (#42548357)

The NRA is a gun industry lobby posing as a gun owner lobby.

Re:now they can concentrate on ignoring mentally i (1)

PortHaven (242123) | about a year and a half ago | (#42548409)

"They have taken positions on drug prohibition, censorship, "precrime", "

Please cite an example...

Re:now they can concentrate on ignoring mentally i (3, Informative)

interkin3tic (1469267) | about a year and a half ago | (#42548007)

You might also be pissed at the NRA for polarizing the issue so badly. By refusing to compromise on anything at all, they really invite criticism. I'm a liberal. I really don't want to take away your guns. Hearing them constantly bleat that I'm out to get them makes their side look bad. Were I less logical, I might question the sanity of that whole side of the debate.

Fortunately, I am more logical than that. Unfortunately, many people are not, and many liberals I've talked to are, if anything, driven to be anti-gun because of how ferocious the NRA is.

We have already compromised (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42548347)

We have already compromised by making it a pain in the ass to own automatic weapons and not being allowed to own anything bigger than a .50 Caliber

Re:now they can concentrate on ignoring mentally i (2)

PortHaven (242123) | about a year and a half ago | (#42548441)

The NRA has compromised many times, and repeatedly.

The Gun Control advocates on the other hand. Not so much. And they won't address basic concerns or look at alternatives.

SO CALLED PROBLEM: Gun Show Loophole (which is pseudo-lie for "private sales", which includes if you sell your old hunting rifle to your brother).

EASY SOLUTION: Allow private citizens who are selling a firearm in a private sale to call and run a background check for free.

Re:now they can concentrate on ignoring mentally i (1)

amicusNYCL (1538833) | about a year and a half ago | (#42548587)

I'm currently pissed at the NRA for pointing the finger at violent media

I don't know, they might have a point. I'm in my 30s, I've been playing games for many years now, all kinds of games. It turns out a lot of them are violent. I'm not a violent person by nature, but I admit that after spending several hours playing Far Cry 3, now I really want to go hang gliding.

Re:now they can concentrate on ignoring mentally i (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42547675)

You mean like unfairly demonizing responsible gun owners?

Re:now they can concentrate on ignoring mentally i (2)

ByOhTek (1181381) | about a year and a half ago | (#42547829)

There's a lot of gun control advocates out there who don't demonize responsible gun owners.

And from what I've seen, those that cry 'unfairly picking on/demonizing responsible gun owners.' often require removal of the italicized adjective, when referring it comes to themselves.

Re:now they can concentrate on ignoring mentally i (2)

Nadaka (224565) | about a year and a half ago | (#42548027)

I would see your point if the majority of the gun control proposals were aimed at promoting responsible gun use/storage or providing disincentives for irresponsible gun use/storage.

But most of what I see is people trying to ban black rifles and external magazines over 10 rounds, which do absolutely nothing to address those issues.

I would be fine with it if someone had to pass a test demonstrating an understanding of gun safety and local self defense laws before buying a firearm, with the option to apply for a license so that he does not have to retake the test every time he buys a gun.

I would be fine with it if background checks were required for personal firearms sales, provided a simple and affordable means of doing so were made publicly available.

I would also be fine with it if they made it a crime (negligence of some kind) if you claimed that a gun was stolen, but did not file a report, and your gun was used in a violent crime.

I would even be fine with a national digital firearms registry, if there was not such a push to ban guns of various types.

Re:now they can concentrate on ignoring mentally i (1)

ByOhTek (1181381) | about a year and a half ago | (#42548505)

I'll grant you, many people who promote gun control don't have a clue about guns, then again, many who are strongly against it, seem to be in the same line. I'd also argue that many who promote gun control overestimate what the authorities can do to protect them.

However, that doesn't really change that they aren't demonizing these people. They are making ownership of certain types of firearms harder.

At the same point, as the number of rounds your firing in a given timeframe goes up, the less likely you are being responsible/legitimate with your guns.

1) You are either firing at more people, or missing more often.
- The former becomes less and less likely with a legitimate user unless you are seriously in the hood.
- The latter means you shouldn't be using that gun in defense even, because now innocent bystanders are going to need to fire at you in self defense, so you don't hit them while missing your assailant.
2) If you are being targeted by a large number of people, they are going to take you out before you get too many unless you are (a) unarmed, (b) they are all a horrible shot, or (c) you prepared for the incident in advance - i.e. you most likely instigated it. The only exception I can see, is you didn't instigate (c), but rather a large mob decided to break into your house for whatever reason. How many non-instigated breakins of more than 2-3 people in number happen?

Oh, and maybe the government has become volently malevolent towards it's citizens, and wants to take you out. Good luck against heavily armed military units with that little gun of yours.

High round counts serve no legitimate purpose except for ease of target practice and competition (less time reloading).

No, legalizing them does not take them out of the hands of those that would abuse them, but the cases of those that would legitimately use them are pretty close to nonexistent. I can see a few for high-cap semi-automatics (wilderness, wild critters in numbers), but not for autofires.

numbering mine.

1.I would be fine with it if someone had to pass a test demonstrating an understanding of gun safety and local self defense laws before buying a firearm, with the option to apply for a license so that he does not have to retake the test every time he buys a gun.

2.I would be fine with it if background checks were required for personal firearms sales, provided a simple and affordable means of doing so were made publicly available.

3.I would also be fine with it if they made it a crime (negligence of some kind) if you claimed that a gun was stolen, but did not file a report, and your gun was used in a violent crime.

4.I would even be fine with a national digital firearms registry, if there was not such a push to ban guns of various types.

1. Seems nice/reasonable, problem is, what kind of test? It could be abused.
2., 3. Pretty sure that required in all states in the US. Outside of the US, YMMV.
4. Like 1., that seems problematic. I'd almost want it to be a ballistic test, where the ballistic profile of the bullet provides a decryption key to who owns the gun.

Re:now they can concentrate on ignoring mentally i (1)

davydagger (2566757) | about a year and a half ago | (#42548337)

I am one of those

I always practice good gun control.

I use both hands and always hit my target.

Re:now they can concentrate on ignoring mentally i (1)

Dan667 (564390) | about a year and a half ago | (#42548559)

the movie killer in Colorado rigged his apartment with explosives and they were only not set off because he told the cops. I would much rather focus resources on solutions that prevent all kinds of spree killing attacks, but go ahead and ignore the root problem, the mentally ill are not getting help when they cry out for it.

Darn. (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42547449)

Well, I guess I'll just have to destroy these copies of Sonic 2006 without getting paid.

Re:Darn. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42547521)

I bet you can talk them into paying you. It'd be easy to show that game leads to violent acts.

now they can concentrate on ignoring mentally ill (0)

Dan667 (564390) | about a year and a half ago | (#42547451)

not helping the mentally ill can be their new top priority!

Oh wow! (3, Insightful)

Runefox (905204) | about a year and a half ago | (#42547457)

$25 to get rid of your old shooters? Man, they're a better trade-in deal than anyone else around. Plus, they're getting rid of e-waste! How thoughtful!

Give them your Call of Madden 2011 and 2012, then go buy Call of Madden 2013.

Re:Oh wow! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42547647)

exactly this. people amaze me.

Re:Oh wow! (1)

ByOhTek (1181381) | about a year and a half ago | (#42547859)

Does it say where the gift certificates are to? I wonder if they were smart enough to pick places that didn't sell violent video games.

If it was target, meijer or wall mart, I'd turn in my 'regret' purchases, for more fun (and probably just as violent) stuff.

Re:Oh wow! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42548181)

If it was target, meijer or wall mart [...]

Psst... trust me, man, I know from life experience, leaving evidence that you live in the midwest like that tends to get you ignored as a part of flyover country around these parts ("these parts" being "The Internet")...

Re:Oh wow! (1)

ByOhTek (1181381) | about a year and a half ago | (#42548569)

Depending on where on the internet, I've seen that instead for the south, the entirety of the US, India, France, etc. etc.

Awesome (5, Funny)

seepho (1959226) | about a year and a half ago | (#42547461)

Where else am I going to get $25 for my copy of Duke Nukem Forever?

Re:Awesome (1)

StoneyMahoney (1488261) | about a year and a half ago | (#42547559)

Think I've got a copy of Hellgate: London somewhere they can have....

Ah-ha, here it is, under my coffee cup!

Re:Awesome (2)

seepho (1959226) | about a year and a half ago | (#42547923)

They made the mistake of giving out beta access to that game with a $5 preorder, so I got away without buying it. I'd still rank that among the worst $5 I've ever spent, and I've bought Powerball tickets.

Re:Awesome (1)

girlintraining (1395911) | about a year and a half ago | (#42547729)

Where else am I going to get $25 for my copy of Duke Nukem Forever?

Sell it to the Museum of Hype. It's pretty much the centerpiece of the collection.

Re:Awesome (1)

C0R1D4N (970153) | about a year and a half ago | (#42547755)

I wanted to turn in my copy of the Left Behind rts!

Re:Awesome (2)

flatt (513465) | about a year and a half ago | (#42547775)

If you are particularly enterprising, you can take that $25 and buy (at least) 10 copies of Duke Nukem Forever... rinse, repeat.

Apparently these people have never heard of the Cobra effect:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cobra_effect [wikipedia.org]

Sounds like they grew up (1)

The Shootist (324679) | about a year and a half ago | (#42547479)

Good for them.

what could go wrong? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42547483)

I'd be buying every violent movie in the walmart dollar bin to turn in...

Re:what could go wrong? (2)

vux984 (928602) | about a year and a half ago | (#42548151)

And this is why it was cancelled i think.

"Never mind..." (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42547495)

Actually we cancelled our "event" because nobody was going to sign up!

Now what will I do with my E.T. cartridges? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42547505)

I dug them out of that landfill for nothing! Nothing!

Oh well, at least I found Curly's Gold.

Re:Now what will I do with my E.T. cartridges? (2)

Desler (1608317) | about a year and a half ago | (#42547725)

You didn't get any copies of Custer's Revenge?

Re:Now what will I do with my E.T. cartridges? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42548103)

They were covered in something crusty.

I didn't take my chances.

Back to the old lows (1)

Jetra (2622687) | about a year and a half ago | (#42547507)

Where's Jack Thompson? Shouldn't he be there conducting it?

Damn, missed my chance to kill him. Maybe another day, AR-50.

Modern-day book-burning averted (4, Insightful)

GameboyRMH (1153867) | about a year and a half ago | (#42547523)

Maybe there's some hope for us after all.

Best publicity stunt yet. (5, Funny)

SuricouRaven (1897204) | about a year and a half ago | (#42547533)

1. Announce intent to do something attention-gathering.
2. Revel in the reporting.
2. Announce cancelation.

Cost: Zero.

Re:Best publicity stunt yet. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42547819)

It would have been funny, if those people were doing just that. But no, they were serious.

Re:Best publicity stunt yet. (3, Insightful)

K. S. Kyosuke (729550) | about a year and a half ago | (#42547969)

"Southington, a town in Connecticut, has cancelled its plans to collect and destroy violent games, stating that it has already succeeded in raising attention."

You know, this must be the first time I see someone publicly admitting to being an attention whore, and being proud about it.

Re:Best publicity stunt yet. (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42547997)

Lots of people do that. Here, PETA does that once a month. All they do is send out an email and the local media (bunch of idiots) happily gives them all the publicity they want. Doesn't cost a thing and next month they'll do it again. Sadly, most people will happily eat it up.

That would have pleased the NRA (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42547537)

The NRA blamed the recent mass murders on, among other things, violent video games.

On the other hand, the NRA went apeshit nuts [npr.org] when police in Tucson wanted to destroy a couple hundred guns.

"Raise awareness" (2)

Baloroth (2370816) | about a year and a half ago | (#42547551)

Raise awareness of what, exactly? Violent videogames? That seems... odd, unless you are working for a marketing department. The dangers of violent video games? What dangers? I've seen exactly zero evidence of any such dangers (TFA says there is "ample evidence" but, of course, they don't actually cite what that evidence is, exactly). The only awareness that seems to have been raised is that the group behind this are a bunch of scared people lashing out at what they don't understand, desperately looking for something to blame. They said they wanted to "prompt discussions", but you can't have meaningful discussions without some evidence about how or even if video games have negative effects, and there is no such evidence.

Re:"Raise awareness" (1)

j00r0m4nc3r (959816) | about a year and a half ago | (#42547709)

To people like that, "ample evidence" just means they heard it from some lady in the supermarket checkout line who doesn't even have kids...

Re:"Raise awareness" (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42548503)

What does having kids have to do with it?

Ruined Business Model (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42547577)

1. Buy cheap old violent games
2. Sell them to Southington
3. Profit!

Useless feel-good crap. (4, Insightful)

sootman (158191) | about a year and a half ago | (#42547597)

> SouthingtonSOS originally planned to offer citizens $25
> gift certificates in exchange for their violent games

which would have caused a spike in sales on cheap old games at GameStop the day before the event and accomplished nothing else.

Similarity to gun buybacks? (2)

milbournosphere (1273186) | about a year and a half ago | (#42547611)

I can't really take issue with the program as they would have implemented it. It's a voluntary program, the person with the game is reimbursed for the game, and the game is destroyed. It's stated up front, everybody knows what the endgame is. At the end of the day, it sounds just like a sponsored gun buyback program. I wouldn't take my games personally, but at the end of the day it's a good potential resource for concerned parents out there. If the NRA is willing to sponsor a program like this one, I fail to see why they'd be protesting a gun buyback program in Tucson (http://www.npr.org/2013/01/09/168926749/nra-vows-to-stop-tuscon-from-destroying-guns).

Re:Similarity to gun buybacks? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42548015)

The NRA sponsors no such program and is suing Tucson Arizona to prevent them from destroying the guns they buy back and force them to auction them back into circulation.
Dumber than a box of rocks NRA National Retard Association.

Re:Similarity to gun buybacks? (2)

PortHaven (242123) | about a year and a half ago | (#42548477)

You realize that many antique and historically relevant firearms are destroyed in such buybacks. Truthfully, they should be made available for next to free to museums before they are destroyed.

Re:Similarity to gun buybacks? (4, Interesting)

ShanghaiBill (739463) | about a year and a half ago | (#42548099)

I can't really take issue with the program as they would have implemented it.

But you should take issue with it, because it is anti-science, and it is diverting the public's attention from the real issues. There is NO evidence that violent video games cause real life violence, and there is at least a correlation between video games and lower violence. This may be because teenagers are spending more time at home playing games, and less time on the street, joining gangs and getting in trouble. They would probably be doing more good if they handed out games rather than collecting them. If they are allowed to do this without protest, people will assume that their pseudo-science is actually legitimate.

Re:Similarity to gun buybacks? (1)

milbournosphere (1273186) | about a year and a half ago | (#42548539)

I agree with the points you make about video games, their 'effect' on violence and their use as scapegoats. However, the program IS (well, would have been) voluntary and could potentially serve as a resource for parents of younger children who don't, for some reason or another, feel comfortable with their (non teenage) kids playing violent stuff. I'm simply trying to point out the hypocrisy of the NRA calling for a program like this one while lambasting voluntary gun buyback programs. I find it hilarious that they're making the same points about the 'video game scourge' in support of a program like this one, while fighting those exact same arguments made in favor of gun control.

If they are allowed to do this without protest, people will assume that their pseudo-science is actually legitimate.

I hadn't considered that angle...I appreciate the food for thought.

Re:Similarity to gun buybacks? (2)

KYPackrat (52094) | about a year and a half ago | (#42548577)

If the NRA is willing to sponsor a program like this one, I fail to see why they'd be protesting a gun buyback program in Tucson

The NRA doesn't sponsor video buybacks either. If they did, they'd be stupid. If someone did this trick in my neck of the woods, I'd do exactly what other posters suggested:
* Go to WalMart, GameStop, etc. and clean the $5 bin out.
* Get my $25 gift certificate for each.
* Repeat.

Gun buyback programs accomplish three goals:
1: They allow criminals to destroy evidence by safely ditching a "hot" gun.
2: They allow people to get above-retail value for broken or low-value firearms worth significantly less value than the turn-in amount.
3: Sucker owners of $200+ firearms into getting a feel-good coupon.

Numbers 1 and 3 are inherently immoral. The first destroys chains of evidence, because you can't prove that the defendant ever used a certain gun. If done outside the color of the law, people would be going to jail as "accessories after the fact".

Number 3 is theft as well: most people who turn guns in at gun buybacks are poor, and they could use the full value (usually $200 to $1000, or more) of the gun for their regular budget. Instead, they are convinced to take a token so that others feel good.

Number 2 is theft if public money is used too. Private citizens come in, selling crap and getting $100 back, money taken from their fellow citizens. To take the Tuscon buyback as an example: a woman tried to sell four rifles, but got no takers. I've sold into this environment; gun stores in Kentucky were buying .303 Enfields (in very poor, but working, shape) for $75 a year ago (now that same gun would be $125 wholesale, at least). If she couldn't walk into a gun store and get $50 each, then those rifles were complete crap, and Tuscon got ripped off.

Buybacks are worthless. Look at LA: the chief of police out there keeps trotting out the same plastic "rocket launcher" trainers and clean AK-47s (sorry, no criminal EVER touched those guns) after every buyback. If he really showed what they got, it's be boxes of broken Davis autoloaders, rusted top-break .32 revolvers, and single-shot shotguns that have bounced around in the back of a pickup since the 40s. All a city gets is boxes of scrap metal, criminals with cash to buy their next gun, and citizens who get the shaft.

As for fighting the Tucson buyback: State law says abandoned and surplus property has to be auctioned. The guns were turned over to the state: they're either abandoned or surplus. Why in the world should a citizen expect the state to do what the law says?

$25 certificates to Gamestop? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42547633)

COD Black Ops II here I come!

Goal was accomplished alright. (1)

UltraZelda64 (2309504) | about a year and a half ago | (#42547703)

All they wanted in life was attention. They got it. Now they shut the fuck up. Overall, a happy ending... although it would be better if they would get their heads out of their asses and realize what the real problem is: mentally deranged psychopaths who are beyond fucked in the head. Not otherwise inanimate objects such as plastic discs, or even guns on their own without a lunatic wielding them.

Re:Goal was accomplished alright. (2)

SomeoneGotMyNick (200685) | about a year and a half ago | (#42547853)

Westboro wanted attention, too. And just like them, SouthingtonSOS ended up getting all the WRONG attention in their distorted sense of activism.

young males (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42547715)

It*s only young (usually white) males that commit these acts. They*re the only ones who need to be sheltered from violent games and movies. For the rest of us, they have no effect at all. I have seen lots of violent movies and, when I get depressed, there isn't even a tiny trace of violent thoughts in me. I*ve never conceived of hurting myself or others. For a girl, I can*t comprehend what goes on inside their heads. I don't know what it is to be a young male with mental illness. It*s so scary to think about!! :(

Re:young males (1)

Jetra (2622687) | about a year and a half ago | (#42547741)

That is stereotyping and I don't like it. I'm a young white male. I know other young white males who play very violent video games. They spend their weekends working at a crappy job. Yet, they don't have a single violent tendency.

Statistics are a bitch.

Re:young males (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42547837)

I am SO sorry to offend you! Please forgive me! I didn*t mean all young males. I did say "with mental illness". Depression affects people in different ways and, from watching the news, it seems like only young white males who don*t want to live anymore are the ones killing people. But that doesn*t mean *all* young males would do that either. I was basing my statement on statistics too. If I*m wrong, I*m so sorry!

Re:young males (1)

Jetra (2622687) | about a year and a half ago | (#42547891)

Calm down. I didn't mean to get mad at you. Generalization is not really great and I'm tired of having to be on the shit list on every government-backed promotion that aims to rid the internet, violent games, and violent media.

Sorry if I scared you a bit.

Re:young males (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42547955)

Awww it*s okay!! :) Thank you! I*m sorry too. I should keep my comments to myself. I*m just so scared cause shootings are happening more often now.
Have a great rest of your day Jetra!!

Re:young males (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42548109)

Don't worry so much about it. You'll be an old man before you know it, and will no longer have to worry about being part on the dangerous young men demographic.

Re:young males (2)

0123456 (636235) | about a year and a half ago | (#42547851)

But the fact remains that young males commit most violent crimes. The solution, obviously, is to lock them in the basement until they're forty.

Re:young males (1)

Bigbutt (65939) | about a year and a half ago | (#42547939)

Wait, aren't they already in their parent's basement? Playing violent video games?

[John]

Gamestop is crying (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42547787)

Gamestop almost had a new revenue source.

Profit! (2)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42547805)

Step 1: Buy $5 Lethal Weapon DVD
Step 2: Sell DVD for $25
Step 3: Profit!

Gamers found out where they could unload their. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42547963)

Junk for 25 bucks. ROFLMAO

Connecticut mis-spelled in Title (2)

girlinatrainingbra (2738457) | about a year and a half ago | (#42548035)

Okay, here's a simple one for the editors to fix:
Connecticut is the correct spelling, not Conneticut
.
http://www.ct.gov/ [ct.gov] -- official Connecticut state government portal
.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Connecticut [wikipedia.org] -- wikipedia link
.
Let's see how long it takes to fix it or continue to ignore it. It's 9:45 am PST now. Start counting.

Re:Connecticut mis-spelled in Title (1)

ArcadeNut (85398) | about a year and a half ago | (#42548187)

You must be new to /.

The editors don't correct anything here...

</sarcasm>

Re:Connecticut mis-spelled in Title (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42548213)

That's pretty funny. I didn't catch it myself either.

Re:Connecticut mis-spelled in Title (2)

Megane (129182) | about a year and a half ago | (#42548313)

They don't like to change article titles because the RSS feed thinks it's a new article, or something like that. (Which is why they should pay more attention when they green-light an article!)

Putting the money in the wrong place (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42548053)

That would have been a better deal than Game Stop would give me, although, I would probably spend the money on a newer violent game.

If they really want to fix the problem they should just donate the money to their local mental health clinic. I have yet to see one that is properly funded.

Any science in it? (1)

AlecC (512609) | about a year and a half ago | (#42548199)

There are two possible theories:

1. Violent games encourage people to be violent in real life, increasing violence
2. Violent games provide catharsis for those with violent tendencies, decreasing violence.

As far as I know, very little research has been done to test which of these is true. I recall seeing one small experiment that pointed in the direction of 2 - violent games reduce real world violence. Apart from anything else, they may keep the potentially violent off the streets.

These campaigns are run by people who loathe violent games - which they are entitled to - judging players of such games as if they were themselves - which is not reasonable. It "makes sense" to them that violent games cause violence. But, when researched, such things that "everybody knows" quite often turn out to be false.

So these people may be doing more harm than good. Or not. We don't know. So why don't we do the research?

Keep the kids off of them (1)

GodfatherofSoul (174979) | about a year and a half ago | (#42548293)

Had a great conversation with my parents over break about the access little kids have to games like Grand Theft Auto. My 6 and 7 year-old nephews said THEY had played! Parents just don't seem to understand that "video game" doesn't mean Pacman and Asteroids anymore.

Additionally, it would seriously help out with the maturity level on multiplayer maps.

Drop in the ocean (2)

SirGarlon (845873) | about a year and a half ago | (#42548429)

Any campaign to buy back violent games and, especially, movies would be a drop in the ocean.

After I heard about the Newtown shooting, I decided to spend the evening avoiding violence in all media. That meant turning off the news, of course, and looking around for what to do.

What struck me was the shortage of non-violent entertainment in my house. With the exception of baseball, all my Xbox games are violent to some degree. All the DVDs on my shelf had some level of violence -- even the Disney movies and nature documentaries (I can't stand chick flicks, but lots of those are nonviolent). There's violence in TV commercials. I ended up watching some episodes of Through the Wormhole on my DVR.

If you like violent games and movies, I have no problem with that. But since that day, I've been quite amazed by the pervasiveness of violence in games, movies, and TV.

All I have to do is squeeze! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42548487)

All I have to do is scream!

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?