Play Of The Gun: The Best Amendment

Blood will have blood, living by the sword often leads to death by the same and men are frequently brought low by their own violent yesterdays. Mollieindustria’s latest release, The Best Amendment, is a tactical top-down shooter that ponders the act of using a gun to stop a gunman. At first it works, one on one, but every new level has an extra enemy and those enemies are the player’s previous incarnations; ghosts performing terrible acts that blur the line between self defence and aggression. Eventually, the man in white has become a dozen men in black, bullets fill the air like bees around blossoms and there is nowhere left to hide.

As with Molleindustria’s previous releases, The Best Amendment can be played for free, although it’s also possible to donate a sum of your choosing which will go toward funding a series of workshops: “Imagining better futures through play”. A few days after Sweatshop’s removal from Apple’s app store (it’s still available here), The Best Amendment is a bracing reminder that controversial or uncomfortable content can’t easily be locked out of the wider world of the web. Whether people will actually donate when given the chance is another question entirely. I reckon the soundtrack alone might be worth whatever pennies I can dig out of my pocket.



  1. JFS says:

    I love the title.

  2. Pathetic Phallacy says:

    Perhaps the white triangle, or hooded type figure, shooting black figures may have not been the best design choice . . .

    • PoulWrist says:

      Or maybe it was…

      • PatrickSwayze says:

        So you think every white person who wants to own a gun is a racist murderer?

        • roryok says:

          My internet is so dodgy these days. I’m missing entire comments. What comment was this in reply to?

        • Ny24 says:

          Well, … maybe not EVERYone …

        • plugmonkey says:

          @ Swayze

          I don’t have to think that personally in order to imagine that the game’s creator might possibly be making some sort of commentary on what he sees LaPierre’s definition of “Bad guy with a gun” and “Good guy with a gun” might be…

          • Corporate Dog says:

            Exactly. Someone ask Wayne if he thinks the folks in Brooklyn protesting the death of Kimani Gray should excercise their 2nd Amendment rights against an oppressive government.

            The NRA makes its bones on fear… fear that your home could be broken into, and your loved ones threatened, if you DON’T own a firearm. In everything it does, it paints a picture of Fortress Suburbia being threatened by urban ne’er-do-wells.

            That doesn’t necessarily make gun owners racist, but it DOES mean that the organization which purports to speak for them is all too willing to manipulate them, by using the race card.

          • Oculardissonance says:

            Add to that, modern pro gun legislation was started by the black panthers so they could patrol their streets which white cops refused to do. Lets just say Gun issues in merika are very racially charged and the shade scheme of black and white is too and reading into subtext is completely valid in a satirical game about politically relevant themes.

          • Cam says:

            The NRA propaganda machine tells white people to be afraid of black people, and tells black people to be afraid of white people.

            They’re an industry-owned PR group now; Everything they do is for the sole purpose of benefiting the manufacturers they work for. They don’t care about you or your safety, they simply want to get people to buy more guns. If you want to look to the NRA for any kind of rationality, you’re several decades too late.

          • x3m157 says:

            @Oculardissonance Conversely, a lot of anti-gun legislation was started out of racism. Blacks in the south were not allowed to have guns, even for a while after the emancipation. Also, Hitler started with taking weapons away from the Jews so they wouldn’t be able to fight back.

        • saginatio says:

          a valid interpretation would be that
          white guy with a gun
          is as good as black man with a gun
          who is as good as good guy with a gun
          who is as good as bad guy with a gun
          who is as good as any murderer, including a racist murderer

        • mondomau says:

          I think you might have missed the point a bit there.

        • HothMonster says:

          No he thinks albinos are inherently evil.

        • lasikbear says:

          Obviously not, if they just want to own a gun they are still trying to become racist murderers.

        • aliksy says:

          @PatrickSwayze Wow. I hope you’re not serious. If you are, you’re really impressively stupid.

          • Pathetic Phallacy says:

            And you’re naive and incapable of grasping political satire and metaphor. It’s not as if the historical connection between the KKK and the NRA is a big secret.

            Upon further reflection, I think it’s entirely possible that the white hooded figures are indeed intended to be a sort of racial commentary on the promotion of firearms to protect oneself against the evil black force.

          • mouton says:

            @Pathetic Phallacy

            And you are naive to think that your political satire is perceived as political satire just because you intend it as such. In the jungle of internet, idiotic statements will be perceived as idiotic unless there is some actual indication that it is not so.

      • Fred S. says:

        If you hear LaPierre say “good guy” and you think you heard “white guy” I’d suggest that it’s not LaPierre who is the racist.

        • ScottTFrazer says:

          You know that the NRA was _for_ gun control when it was the Black Panthers exercising their 2nd Amendment rights, yes?

          link to

          • ocelot113 says:

            People can’t agree that that is the kinda crazy we are all talking about? Keep loving your Black Panthers. Advocating for straight out genocide. Good job picking sides.

            @HothMonster – ScottTFrazer is stanting for the Black Panthers, King Shabazz Shamir is the leader of the NBP. I’m not sure what’s so radical about the leader of the group. That is the group.

          • HothMonster says:

            Hooray you can find an extremist who supports any cause!

            edit: @oce
            The New Black Panther Party != The Black Panthers. The Black Panthers have called the NBPP illegitimate and do not recognize their existence. Because they are extremists and not inline with the beliefs of the Black Panthers. They were also formed in 1989 long after the events that Scott is referencing.

            So yes you found extremists.

            But you seem to have a lot of trouble understanding that groups can change over time. Like how the Republican party today is nothing like the original republican party.

          • Bhazor says:

            Didn’t you just link to an article where Ann Coulter champions the Black Armed Guard that would ultimately become a local branch of the Black Panthers?

          • nearly says:


            you’re my new favorite person for making that point. I basically dropped out of high school because a mildly racist teacher wouldn’t.

        • aldo_14 says:

          I’ve yet to hear LaPierre advocate mandatory firearms ownership for people living in places with high murder rates. A lot of these places (thanks to the continuing effects of long-standing inequalities) pair a predominantly black population with a high gun crime rate.

          Perfect for LaPierre to test out his theorems on.

        • KDR_11k says:

          Who says the player is the good guy?

      • Pathetic Phallacy says:

        NRA and KKK, best friends forever!

        • ocelot113 says:

          You are a fool. Learn history.

          link to

          @ScottTFrazer – If you’d do your own homework I wouldn’t have to link anything and you should know this. Look up the founding of the Republican party for starters. Anti-slavery activists were the first Republicans.

          • ScottTFrazer says:

            At least he’s not quoting Ann Coulter.

          • Bhazor says:

            And the founding principles of the democratic party were personal liberty, small scale government and private enterprise. Hence why they opposed the union. If you did your homework you’d know the two parties have completely reversed in the past century.

          • Sparkasaurusmex says:

            He didn’t say “the truth” he just said “history”

          • SkittleDiddler says:

            Way to link to an extremist website no one here gives two shits about. Next time try a nonpartisan source.

          • HothMonster says:

            I think Ann Coulter is Lord Custard, I mean check out this wit and satire,

            “God gave us the earth. We have dominion over the plants, the animals, the trees. God said, ‘Earth is yours. Take it. Rape it. It’s yours.'”

            “There is a growing body of evidence that radiation in excess of what the government says are the minimum amounts we should be exposed to are actually good for you and reduce cases of cancer.”

    • roryok says:

      I definitely think that was intentional

      • The Random One says:

        Even if it wasn’t, I salute molleindustria on developing games in such a way that it makes sense to think it might have been deliberate.

    • sinister agent says:

      Okay, who had “second comment”? Anyone? I had a fiver on third, so I’m out.

  3. DeVadder says:

    Those damn spawn campers!

  4. SouperSteve0 says:

    RPS not taking sides! Unbiased journalism you say!

    *golf claps*

    • cryohazmat says:

      oh, you are soooooooooo new here

    • mondomau says:

      What on earth are you banging on about?

    • Lord Custard Smingleigh says:

      Alas, we live in a world where PC game blogs are not required to adhere to the same strict standards of unbiased hot-topic reporting as Fox News.

      • elmo.dudd says:

        Or MSNBC, CNN, CBS, NBC, ABC, BBC… It’s almost as if these places are populated by people and they have their own conscious and subconscious agendas!

        Fox News is a piece of shit, but it is a piece of shit of the same craft as its competition.

    • Ironclad says:

      All news is biased. It’s usually more interesting to read sources that clearly advertise their bias, even if you disagree with them. Or are you one of those people who can’t stand to have your opinions challenged?

    • mouton says:

      Thank Yahweh somewhere out there are unbiased media and unbiased journalists.

    • The Random One says:

      what is this ‘journalism’ you speak of

      is that what we used to get by before blogs existed

    • AlwaysRight says:

      At RPS we’re always careful to respect other people’s deeply held opinions however anti-scientific and irrational they may seem. So in the interests of balance we’ve been asked to read out the following statement:

      “Though the majority of RPS readers believe the overwhelming evidence that the NRA’s view on gun control is wrong, we accept that there exists a minority of readers who’s deeply held beliefs are wrong.”

      • DoomMunky says:

        Good lord, AlwaysRight. That was awesome.

      • Mitthrawn says:

        I don’t know if trolling, stupid or overconfident, but you are so very, very wrong. It’s nice to see such confidence, if only there was some wit or intellect attached to it. :)

        • Premium User Badge

          phuzz says:

          You need to remember that RPS is mainly from the UK, and here in the UK we don’t have guns, and no-one gets shot*. So when we look at the US and it seems like someone goes crazy with a gun every few weeks and kills loads of people/children/kittens, we assume you must be doing something wrong.


  5. Gap Gen says:

    La Pierre? Don’t trust no damn Frenchie with my gun rights.

  6. mollemannen says:

    so molleindustria strikes again.

  7. The Godzilla Hunter says:

    But can you talk to the guns?

  8. Lord Custard Smingleigh says:

    So what about my phial of mutated anthrax?

    • The Godzilla Hunter says:

      Anthrax? Bah!

      I have heard from a very reliable source that Anthrax originates from cows! While this sort of disease may, perhaps, be able to be used in warfare, I do strongly believe that such a lowly disease would only be used by or on an Irishman. Englishmen deserve a far more refined disease, befitting their noble status – smallpox or perhaps syphilis.

  9. jellydonut says:


    And you wonder why I don’t fawn over the collective ‘indie game’ community..

    • Ironclad says:

      The music sounds nothing like Sherley Manson. Also: way to lump minecraft, bastion, frozen synapse, Trine, Supermeatboy, … all in the same category. Indie is quite diverse. Don’t judge all of them on the basis of a single sample.

    • c-Row says:

      Well, it sure didn’t give me sleepless nights so far.

    • Pathetic Phallacy says:

      One game is bad = all games of the same small budget funding are bad.

      And people wonder why individuals question the intellect of the average CoD player.

      • mouton says:

        I hate indie “all AAA games are horrible” fanatics also, heh. It is a sad trait of humanity that it can turn even the best outlooks stupid.

      • jellydonut says:

        I didn’t say they were all bad. Try reading what I wrote.

        This game perfectly explains why I don’t buy into the cultish worship of indie developers that seems to have taken root in certain communities. Oh, it’s indie, it’s gotta be good.

        I also enjoy how you assume I’m a CoD player when I’m not a fan of indie games in general.

  10. ocelot113 says:

    You want the truth about America’s history with guns and the KKK?

    link to

    • Pathetic Phallacy says:

      Ann Coulter: trusted historian!

      • Bhazor says:

        Ann Coulter is the most hateful mysogynistic writer I have ever read. One of very few people whom I would actually wish physical harm on.

        • Gap Gen says:

          Yes, it’s interesting that a lot of women are conservatives, even if it means reducing their social and political power as a group. I suppose socialisation is pretty powerful at convincing people to be fatalistic about their position in society, and think that socialised behaviour is genetic/innate. Usually with reference to an inaccurate view of how prehistoric people lived.

          • ocelot113 says:

            Yeah, believing that freedom is the most important thing in the world is so fatalistic.

            Conservatives believe that freedom is the most important thing and liberals believe that safety is the most important thing.

            Conservatives understand that when someone else is responsible for your protection you are at their mercy. Conservatives believe that the individual is the one that owns their rights.

            Progressives/Liberals believe that a government is responsible for your ultimate protection. Liberals belive that elected officials are there to protect you not protect your rights layed down in the constitution. Liberals will abandon their natural rights for someone else to take care of them. Conservatives say, shove off, I’ll take care of myself and actually be a free person.

            So yeah hard choice. Give me a break.

            @Bhazor – “They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.” – Benjamin Franklin

          • derbefrier says:

            of course thats all bullshit but whatever I doubt I could convince you otherwise. Democrats and liberals have successively painted a picture of Conservatives as evil, racist, women hating white guys because people like you are to stupid to question anything.

            It the democrats that accuse all prominent black republics of being “uncle tom’s”. If you pay attention you will notice its the liberal politicians and media that feel the need to inject race and gender into every debate. Its the liberal media that goes crazy over what Sarah Palin or other top conservative women wear calling them whores, insulting their intelligence among other things. Did we hear the feminists rage over this? nah because they only care about you if you have the same political beliefs.

            So what is the purpose of all this misdirection? well to distract you from the real issues at hand of course. Its not like purposely lying to paint the other side as a literal boogy man has its advantages when trying to secure votes from the dumb masses but your all to smart to fall for that crap right, right?

          • Bhazor says:

            Exactly how many more mass shootings will it take for you to think that *maybe* just *maybe* they should tighten up gun regulation?

            A phrase parroted by many. Like the great American hero Luigi Galleani who championed personal liberty and gun ownership against tyranny.


            “Democrats and liberals have successively (sic) painted a picture of Conservatives as evil, racist, women hating white guys”
            Oh no no, you’re being modest the Republican’s have done a much better job of painting conservatives like that.

          • SkittleDiddler says:

            Not to be pedantic, derbefrier, but it’s hard to insult the intelligence of someone who has none.

            On a less serious note, please provide evidence that anyone in the evil librul media went so far as to call Sarah Palin a “whore”. The real media, not some random left-wing blog or socialist radio show.

          • ocelot113 says:

            @Bhazor – And yet not once have I said that blowing up buildings is how you achieve liberty. We still have a framework in place for individuals to be free, it doesn’t mean you have to be a crazy anarchist terrorist in order to champion individual liberty.

            Luigi Galleani quite clearly lacked a respect for human life which is a pillar of individual liberty. If you want to be free, then every other human must be. That aligns itself with the mutual understanding that I don’t blow you up because you disagree with me.

            Irrational inference.

          • Bhazor says:

            Yet you claim school shootings are an acceptable price for liberty.

          • Gap Gen says:

            ocelot113: Sorry, I was talking about equality of genders rather than gun rights. Interestingly, I’d couch the broad ideological divide the other way around – conservatism is the belief in traditional values, and it often leads to more authoritarian thinking (e.g. it’s OK to waterboard terrorism suspects). By contrast, liberalism (in its broadest sense) is the belief in personal freedom and human rights. This is the dictionary definition of the terms, so bear with me.

            Conservatism in the US is often (bizarrely, to a Brit) used to refer to libertarianism, which is also known as classical liberalism. This is the idea that the state should interfere as little as possible – in the case of gun rights, the idea that the state shouldn’t hold monopoly of force could even be termed as a form of extreme liberalism. By contrast, democrat voters are largely social liberals. This idea is that in order to maintain equality of opportunity, the state needs to intervene, since otherwise wealth pools in the hands of the richest (check out income equality since 1980, for example, when Reaganite economics replaced the relatively high taxation in place since the New Deal). This is an idea that stems from people like John Stuart Mill in the 1800s. I suppose the confusion is that the US was founded as a liberal state by classical liberals, and hence conservatism is conflated with ideas of freedom and liberty (as well as religious conservatism, which is genuinely non-liberal and demands restrictions on personal freedoms for things like homosexuality, extra-martial sex and contraception, etc).

            Anyway, I thought given that you’d mentioned the terms liberal and conservative it’s interesting to discuss them, and how the media in the US has misrepresented what they actually mean. (And yes, comment tree = stretchy paragraphs. Sorry.)

          • ocelot113 says:

            @Gap Gen – “Anyway, I thought given that you’d mentioned the terms liberal and conservative it’s interesting to discuss them, and how the media in the US has misrepresented what they actually mean.”

            While I do agree that conservatism can represent the religious standards and tradition, but that is not wholly accurate to the conservative movement in the US. There has been a massive sway in “who” conservatives are as of late as well. I’ve always considered political standardizing pointless anyway because no one is perfectly aligned with anyone else. So that is why party labels tend to mean so many different things depending on who and where you are asking.

          • Gap Gen says:

            ocelot113: Oh, absolutely. The Republicans in particular are a very broad church – religious conservatives, low-tax libertarians, defence hawks. And as you point out, those things can be mixed up, so someone can believe in low taxation and a small state but believe that personal freedoms are limited when it comes to sexual matters. And indeed, the idea of having a large military to aggressively pursue US foreign policy goals is opposed to the idea of low government spending.

            Similarly, in the UK the conservatives are a mixture of authoritarian traditionalists and believers in the free market and low spending, while Labour has largely abandoned the notion that it’s a socialist party (beyond the norms of British society, of course).

          • mickygor says:

            @Bhazor “Yet you claim school shootings are an acceptable price for liberty.”

            Yes, they are. If by school shootings you mean teachers gunning down any prick who brings a gun into a school with the intent of massacring students. The problem isn’t guns, it’s that guns aren’t allowed in schools, rendering people on the premises defenceless.

          • dE says:

            From an outside perspective, both parties do a pretty good job at making their country look like something to ridicule and laugh about. It’s very hard to not burst into mad laughter when another politician screams bloody murder and garners it with words like socialism, communism, freedom, guns and amendment – be they conservative or liberal.
            It’s an endless repetition of the very same triggerwords, uttered with as much pompous holier than thou attitude and polemic “you are a traitor to america” bullshit as possible. It is so iconic and repetitive, it has become a meme, several memes actually.

            Which isn’t entirely fair to the people of america, as they are represented by a bunch of idiots who do their best to smear their elections all over the globe like some god given gift to humanity. From the outside, it looks like both parties want the best from people – their money.

            See, stuff like this. It was very hard to not laugh out loud.
            “The problem isn’t guns, it’s that guns aren’t allowed in schools, rendering people on the premises defenceless.”
            That’s not based on an idea of safety – it’s based on paranoia.

          • Bhazor says:

            Ahhh the greatest liberty is achieved when everything is done at gun point.

          • Gap Gen says:

            I find it hard to see how universally arming a population as a way of responding to shooters wouldn’t result in chaotic shootouts. As for arming teachers, I don’t see how this is good but having policemen enforce the law with guns is bad (as someone made the claim that lawlessness = freedom elsewhere).

            In any case, gun deaths, while tragic, are quite low on the scale of causes of death (and are probably inflamed by media attention anyway), so is it an acceptable price for liberty? Well, maybe it’s an unavoidable one. It’s crazy to argue that you can avoid having massacres at all in any way if assault rifles are legal to buy, and it’s probably going to be difficult to ban guns entirely in a country like the US. The real problem, it seems to me, is that the US political system seems to be good at creating political quagmires that satisfy no-one.

          • ocelot113 says:

            @Gap Gen –

            — “I find it hard to see how universally arming a population as a way of responding to shooters wouldn’t result in chaotic shootouts.”

            Answer: Do you have a gun or ever shot one? They are not complicated to use and are made for accuracy. However, realistically most people will run before shooting, but there are some that value others life and WILL take the opportunity to save lives at the expense of their own.

            — “It’s crazy to argue that you can avoid having massacres at all in any way if assault rifles are legal to buy,..”

            Answer: That WOULD be crazy. Freedom doesn’t guarantee safety, and anyone that claims otherwise is oblivious, but what is does give you is the opportunity to take matters into your own hands. To protect yourself and the ones around you, immediately.

            — “The real problem, it seems to me, is that the US political system seems to be good at creating political quagmires that satisfy no-one.”

            Answer: Consolidation of power is corrupting and a system that rewards the power hungry with 200k salaries and free lifetime healthcare and all the other amenities attracts the corrupt and greedy. Government officials should not be paid, imo. The office is a place for servitude and volunteerism… “public servants” not “career politicians”.

          • ocelot113 says:

            Oh and just for the record, all the conservative/liberal banter is utter garbage in actuality. It means nothing seems how labels change and people change.

            Me personally, I believe in maximum liberty and minimal rule. Not no rule, so I’m no anarchist, but I do believe that gays have a right to get married, so I am not technically conservative. HOWEVER, my one beef is that marriage is sanctioned by the government which the government has no business doing in the first place. Taxes should not be influencing marriage and marriage should be decided on by the individuals which should be able to marry whomever they want. I morally don’t agree with gay marriage but I have no legal right nor authority to stop people from deciding for themselves what they do.

            With the inclusion of taxes and other governmental benefits for marriage it does then give me power in representation (through my tax money) into who does and doesn’t get married. So the solution.. GOVERNMENT get the fuck out of marriage. I think both sides can agree to that (aside from the fringes) and go on their marry way.

          • Gap Gen says:

            1st post: I think the problem with not paying public officials is that it either a) closes public office to anyone except the very rich or b) encourages bribery. In any case, the US has so much money that it can’t help but influence politics. The trick right now is to figure out how to prevent a plutocratic tyranny, which some people argue has already happened. Also how to stop people dropping out of the system entirely, since this can lead to crime and a breakdown in the implicit social contract that you (rightly, in the broadest of terms) argue is necessary to maintain a stable society.

            2nd post: I respect that – at least, it is self-consistent, even if I choose to support a wider mandate for government. There is indeed no reason marriage should be a contract between anyone except the individuals concerned. But given that the recognition of marriage by the state exists, I support the widening of its definition in law. Also, nice pun.

          • Bhazor says:

            Except that marriage is a hugely important legal issue. What happens when a marriage breaks down and theres no legal framework in place? What about child custody? Future earnings? Joint ownership?

            Modern society is far too complex for self governance to be in anyway feasible.

          • ocelot113 says:

            @Gap Gen – Haha, didn’t even notice the pun, but I will pat myself on the back.

            fyi: thank you for being logical and rational. I tend to scare people off because of my “radicalism” and they don’t counter-argue with logic which… loses me. It’s nice finding people that are logical, rational, and accepting, which I feel is required to actually make strides in understanding and comprehension of matters.

          • Gap Gen says:

            Bhazor: Hmm, I see your point. If it were just stuff then a simple legal contract might suffice, but a child is a trickier issue that needs to be legislated carefully. Plus in any case courts (which are part of a government) need to exist to arbitrate any legal contract in the event of a disagreement. I wonder if there’s a better way to organise society that doesn’t have family units as we do now, since these tend to pool opportunity to succeed through upbringing and inherited wealth, but that’s a more hypothetical question.

            ocelot: Right, it’s been interesting. Thanks for engaging, too. I dislike internet shouting matches where both sides go away having gained nothing but rage. Plus, I don’t think our basic positions on personal freedoms are that different, only our ideas about how to best protect them. Also worth noting that what works in Europe won’t necessarily work in the USA, and vice-versa.

          • Josh W says:

            I like that idea, that because america was founded by liberals, even the most conservative of conservatives need to talk the language of liberalism: It’s not traditional values, it’s consistency with a constitution! But this doesn’t go too far, as if you try to think as those constitutional framers did, and define rights for yourselves and others, that is is “entitlement”, despite the same applying to arrogant american’s assertions that they were entitled to “free speech” or a say in how their taxes were spent, (it’s almost like gamers expecting a say in how their games are made, shocking!).

            So why do those old rights count and the new ones don’t? Because the old ones are old, they’ve stood the test of time, and they link us to our fathers before us.

      • ocelot113 says:

        I love that everyone keeps railing on Anne Coulter without even checking it out for themselves. You may not like the source, but it doesn’t make it any less true.

      • Twitchity says:

        Coulter is insane, certainly, but the basic contours of the story are true: Robert Williams applied for and was granted an NRA charter, though I doubt that the NRA was aware of Williams’ plans to create a vigilante group (Williams was an interesting character — disavowed by the NAACP for his advocacy of “meeting violence with violence,” his Black Riders were later called upon to save the Freedom Riders in North Carolina from the KKK. He was then charged with kidnapping after sheltering a white couple from a restive black mob, which triggered a flight to Cuba, then China; years later, after finally returning to the US, he became a respected authority on Chinese politics).

        Having said that, the NRA of 1956 was basically a hunting and marksmanship organization (founded by former Union soldiers, no less), whereas the NRA that emerged after the Harlon Carter-led “Cincinnati Revolt” in 1977 was very different: the moderate, gun sports-focused leadership was unceremoniously ousted and replaced with hardliners who saw gun ownership and carry as the antidote to crime and inner-city revolutionary violence. Thus, equating the “old” NRA with the “new” NRA is as ridiculous as equating Copperhead leader Harrison Dodd with Barack Obama because both belong to the Democratic Party.

        • ocelot113 says:

          Personally I think Anne Coulter is a little to brash for her own good and talks herself into corners.. a lot… but never the less it was truth. However even you, with the understanding of who the KKK was, would have to agree then that equating even the current NRA to the KKK takes an absolute ignorance of history.

          @Bhazor – Then tell me. What does the Democratic party stand for today?

          • Bhazor says:

            Yet you’re the one trying to tie the democratic party of 100 years ago to the democratic party of today.

          • Gap Gen says:

            The Democrats are a social liberal party who believe in the primacy of the free market but that equality of opportunity is impossible without rebalancing the economy to prevent wealth (and hence social power) pooling into the hands of the commercial elite. Of course, a political party is a broad church, but this is roughly what it’s about.

            Also yes, worth pointing out that Democrat and Republican voting inverted itself almost overnight in the 1960s when both parties decided to condemn segregation. But it’s fair enough to say that what the Democrats started as isn’t what they represent today (especially since they were the same party as the Republicans until Andrew Jackson’s epoch).

    • ScottTFrazer says:

      That nicely ignores the whole conservative/liberal flip the two parties did by starting off with “Democrats in 1868!” You know Strom Thurmond started out as a Dem, right?

      And you really shouldn’t get your history from Ann Coulter. The NRA was _all_ about gun control when it was the Black Panthers trying to arm themselves:

      link to

      • Bhazor says:

        Don’t forget that democrat’s were the south, aka the fans of slavery aka as far removed from the modern democratic party as the Nazi party is from the modern german liberal party.

        • ocelot113 says:

          If you were to understand freedom, that claim would not be made so easily. Regulation of the people and their rights is absolutely a form of slavery. The government was put in place , not to preserve life, but to protect a human’s natural rights… life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness. Currently the democrats (and the old guard GOP) believe that the protection of people is more important than protecting their rights as humans.

          The government has no power besides that of our rights that we loan them. They have no right taking away our rights because we own our rights, not them. Freedom means that I can carry whatever gun I want, whatever soda I want, whatever drugs I want, as long as I am not harming others. The democrats AND the republicans have been hard at work to steak claim to our rights and demand things of its people because we have become pussies and afraid to protect ourselves, provide for ourselves, and make decisions for ourselves. So naturally the government began dictating to us what our rights would be.

          Laws are in essence, slavery. Libertarians and more and more conservatives say less law, smaller government, which in turn results in MORE rights being retained by the individuals and more freedom. The government (R’s and D’s) want to “protect people” by taking away their freedom. Absolute freedom is lawlessness. Since people are people, lawlessness only works on a population of honest, trustworthy and good people which America has fallen FAR from. “Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious (honest, trustworthy, value life) people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.” -John Adams

          So, the parties are far from wanting slavery? Really? It requires an understanding of what freedom actually is to make a concise statement like that.

          • Bhazor says:

            “Own any gun I like….. so long as I don’t harm anyone”
            That’s, that’s the sticking point isn’t it?

            So I assume you’re a big supporter of Luigi Galleani a man who viciously and bravely fought against the American tyranny.

            ” religious (honest, trustworthy, value life)”

          • ocelot113 says:

            @Bhazor – (“Own any gun I like….. so long as I don’t harm anyone”
            That’s, that’s the sticking point isn’t it?)

            …and if you do that is where our laws come in. Natural law means that if you do harm someone then our rights are infringed by another and our government prosecutes you because of the authority of our individual rights, that we’ve loaned the government .

            You want pre-crime? Enjoy slavery to the whims of a bureaucracy or the mob.

          • Bhazor says:

            How long does it take for the law to take effect? How many bullets can your average concealed semi automatic pistol fire in that time?

          • Gap Gen says:

            Well, I’d argue that the monopoly of force is a good thing for a state to ensure, as the rule of law and the growth of the economy relies on the lack of violence, chaos or banditry. The monopoly of force, far from enslaving the population, ensures that their rights are protected. The trick is, of course, to ensure that the state is representative and not tyrranical. Another liberal idea the founding fathers had was that the state should be split into different branches so that power couldn’t pool into one place. This is why the President can never get anything done – he doesn’t have the same power as, say, the British Prime Minister to push bills through (of course, in foreign policy the President is pretty much World Emperor). That said, they assumed that political parties wouldn’t form, so you wouldn’t get this economic deadlock we see today, which was a bit dumb, perhaps.

            Another question would be whether you believe that a citizen’s rebellion could repel Predator drones and Apache gunships (which didn’t exist in the 1700s). Syria’s an interesting case study for that, given that it’s in a state of sectarian revolt against a much better armed government.

          • ocelot113 says:

            @Bhazor – How many bullets does it take for the police to get there? It doesn’t make a difference. In both cases everyone is dead.

            Protection or freedom. You can have both if people were more free to carry. The problem is people do not want to be responsible for their own safety. So, freedoms are taken from the majority of people for the guise of potential safety because of one lunatic. Instead of weakening gun regulation and allowing people to be there on the scene to instantly kill the shooter.

            The problem with pro-big government people is you don’t consider the reality that laws don’t stop criminals from committing crimes, only debilitates good people that want to protect themselves and their public. Laws, like police men are to reestablish law and order not stop chaos from ever occurring.

          • Gap Gen says:

            Also, your last paragraph about lawlessness is interesting. I’d agree that you’d need people to not be people for anarchism to work, but I’d disagree that the moral character that people had in the past ever allowed this. Piracy and banditry was very common a few hundred years ago, when the state was less able to project power. I’d also strongly disagree that conservative values such as “knowing your place”, an imbalance of power between men and women or restrictions on sexuality characterises moral values I’d like to see return. I think for now, unless you’re in a very rural area we’re stuck with the state policing us to ensure that I don’t get mugged going home from work or try to blow up a subway station.

            EDIT – “The problem with pro-big government people is you don’t consider the reality that laws don’t stop criminals, only debilitates good people that want to protect themselves and their public.” is a little facile. Of course a police force, national guard and legal system limits crime. I’d argue that the US prison system is broken and/or corrupt, but this is a different matter than the principle of state monopoly of power.

          • HothMonster says:

            ” Since people are people, lawlessness only works on a population of honest, trustworthy and good people which America has fallen FAR from.”

            Well that is why lawlessness will never work, because people are people. Please tell me any country in any era that has been made up of a vast majority of honest, trustworthy good people? Cause America has certainly never come close to being qualified.

          • ocelot113 says:

            @HothMonster – “Please tell me any country in any era that has been made up of a vast majority of honest, trustworthy good people? Cause America has certainly never come close to being qualified.”

            True, but what you mistakenly suggest is that we need to be perfect. That’s not what is meant. We use to, as a country, TRY to be better people. Strive for being good to our neighbors, trust people, make families work, work at being better people. That is all but lost now. The best solution to the worlds problems is not government control, but for people to be better people.

            Call me naive, but we DID use to strive for that as a country even if there were MASSIVE problems that arose. People felt ashamed if they abandoned their kids or marriage, people tried to make a living for themselves and on their own efforts and were embarrassed to take assistance from the government, people didn’t think twice about allowing their kids to play on the street or at the park without supervision. These are all drastic changes that have taken place in people over the past few decades. Lack of trust, lack of will, lack of honor and integrity, that is why we are losing the freedom we were founded on. Absence of morality, honor, and trust and replacing them have been greed, selfishness, and fear.

          • Bhazor says:

            “We tried to be better people”

            When? During the slavery era? The segreation era? The prohibition era? The great depression? How long did this golden age last?

            You saying it was much better when unhappy couples were forced to stay together in abusive relationships? Or when thousands of families were starving to death during the dust bowl because they couldn’t get government aid and there was no farming restrictions?

            People wanting to “get back to the good old days” seem to forget that the good old days weren’t that great for most people.

          • ocelot113 says:

            Bhazor says: “When? During the slavery era? The segreation era?”
            — You conveniently disregard that there were enough GOOD people that got it right in order to end slavery and segregation.

            “The prohibition era?”
            — Progressive governmental ideology, religious imperialism, cultural cleansing. Call it what you like, the Utopian philosophies. Even the founders said that we would get it wrong but good and just people would make it right again. They were correct. Recognize, no mention of the government fixing itself.

            The great depression?
            The rest of the world was not hit as hard as the US. Why? US policies that crushed our economy and prolonged the depression. And, we live in a different time now where people can help others with a click of the mouse.

            “You saying it was much better when unhappy couples were forced to stay together in abusive relationships?”
            That’s not what I was referencing, and you know that, however you think there is less abuse happening now? And, I’m not advocating forcing anything, I was saying people wanted and TRIED to fix things. Family use to be something that was honorable and mattered, and stability was important. There is way less shame in walking way from your family or kids now than there use to be.

            Or when thousands of families were starving to death during the dust bowl because they couldn’t get government aid?
            Yeah, also not to which I was referring. I was talking about the shame of people that sit around all day collecting a check when they aren’t injured and could work just choose not to. Also, it’s not the 30’s anymore. Entire towns are being helped by individual donations online without government aid.

    • aldo_14 says:

      Clearly an entirely unbiased and independent website, that.

    • cpt_freakout says:

      I don’t think you know what “truth” means, or how an argument works, or what history is.

      • Bhazor says:

        Y’know, I’d have to at least acknowledge grudging respect to a spree killer who managed to reach double figures armed with nothing but his bare hands.

    • Mordsung says:

      If in 2013 your country requires people to be as heavily armed as they were during the point after the civil war for their own protection, your country has failed on a fundamental level.

      We’re supposed to outgrow this kind of primitive activity. You know, evolve as a species and a society.

      Maybe instead of sitting around with a gun waiting for a crime to happen you should try educating the youth so they do not become criminals to begin with.

      No one is born evil.

  11. Bhazor says:

    Over to you Chris Rock

  12. bstard says:

    How can one country hold so much lowbrowism.

    • Subject 706 says:

      Hey, don’t be so self-flaggelating! There’s plenty of lowbrowism in the rest of the world too, if it makes you feel better.

    • Sparkasaurusmex says:

      it’s an easy -ism to hold

    • Mitthrawn says:

      Really, you’re going to complain about American culture? Does the country of Saudi Arabia not exist?

  13. lofaszjoska says:

    So I launch the game, and I see this shady looking character carrying a pistol. He sees that I’m also armed, so he doesn’t do anything. This goes on for five minutes, nothing happens.

    Didn’t they forget to add a
    ‘Congratulations, responsible gun ownership protected you from a violent attack. Game over.’

  14. Dangerdad says:

    Wow. With this moronic entry and the ridiculous comments, I guess I’m not a reader RPS wants. Plonk.

    • Curry the Great says:

      You can’t really blame RPS for the comments, but how is this entry moronic? It’s about a game that tackles a political issue in a different way. It’s not like they’re advocating one side or the other, that’s just people in the comments.

    • Wisq says:

      Given that you’re willing to ditch the entire site due to them choosing to cover a politically-charged indie game in the most tactful way possible, I think you’re probably right.

      Good luck in your endeavour to find a site that never ever has any content that offends you. A bit boring, if you ask me, but to each their own.

  15. AbyssUK says:

    Wait couldn’t the good guy just use a pointy stick ?

    • Bhazor says:

      How to defend against a man armed with a pointed stick? Don’t be ridiculous!

    • Shooop says:

      Don’t come crying to us when some lunatic rushes at you with a whole fruit tray.

  16. Mordsung says:

    The gun-nut/derpa-derp-liberty! comments in this thread are an example of the second reason I read RPS.

    I come for the witty writing, I stay for the comments.

    Everyone believes in the limitation of liberty, we call them laws, people only disagree on degrees of limitation.

    • Gap Gen says:

      Not necessarily. Fascism and Stalinism were/are not interested in personal liberty.

      • Mordsung says:

        People under both systems had certain amounts of personal liberty, just not as many as other places.

        As I said, everyone believes in limiting liberty, it’s just a matter of how much.

        Can’t yell fire in a crowded theatre—————————————-Can’t speak your mind at all

        Everyone lands somewhere between those two points, but those two points are still limitations of pure liberty.

        All liberty is limited.

        • Gap Gen says:

          Right, sorry, I think I misinterpreted your comment. It’s (probably) true that everyone here believes in promoting personal freedoms as the goal of their political philosophy, and that we only differ in which freedoms should be restricted to ensure that. No philosophy can guarantee absolute freedom, as you say.

          • Mordsung says:


            Once we accept this the rhetoric can give way to proper discussion and debate.

            I don’t think we could ever ban guns, but we could create anti-gun technologies that make guns ineffective at killing humans. Bulletproof clothing isn’t out of the question with some of the material sciences we have today.

            Then people can own their guns without the threat of killing people.

          • ocelot113 says:

            However you then are sacrificing the little girl that didn’t get raped because her parents bought a gun for home protection. Will the gun have rape protection, so if the attack will rape the 12 year old then it will work, or do we just let her be killed or raped? Weapons can be a good equalizer and useful in protecting those that would not otherwise be able to.

            link to

          • Bhazor says:

            Speaking of 12 year old children with access to guns.

            link to

          • Mordsung says:

            Ocelot, you can’t pick and choose emotionally charged situations to make your point.

            You have to use unbiased, emotionally neutral statistics over a long period of time across a large swath of samples.

            If you require emotionally charged subject matter to make your point, the point is faulty.

            One girl is saved by a gun, another is raped at gun point, taken as a singular event each situation makes the argument for each opposite side.

            Individual events are worthless for the purposes of these sorts of discussions.

          • Gap Gen says:

            I’d hesitate to say that arming children is a good idea in all except a few cases like this one. Plus there’s no indication that the intruder would have raped her. Best not to use hyperbole here.

          • ocelot113 says:

            “Individual events are worthless for the purposes of these sorts of discussions.”

            The I would appriciate people stop using New Town as an individual event and reason to ban guns. And If you think this is the only time… then…

            link to
            link to
            link to
            link to

            Do your own work and educate yourself. This happens more often than any mass shooting.

            Disrupted Mass Shootings By Gun Owners
            link to

    • mickygor says:

      No, not everyone believes in limiting personal liberty.

  17. Strangerator says:

    I’m surprised nobody has applauded RPS yet for this, but they are covering both Castle Doctrine and this anti-gun game in a fairly unbiased manner. Thanks for putting games before politics RPS!

  18. Strangerator says:

    I guess I couldn’t resist throwing this in here.

    Mass shootings kill fewer people per year than lightning strikes. What you should really take a look at are murders in a city like Chicago or D.C. where gun control laws are more stringent. Somehow, it seems difficult to convince a criminal willing to commit murder to follow gun laws. In fact, it seems like the only ones penalized in these areas are the people who obey the gun control laws and are defenseless victims, futiley trusting in the obviously non-omnipresent law enforcement system. The problem is, of course, you can never statistically measure how many people are saved by gun ownership. (Hell, even Obama and co. have abandoned the phrase, “jobs created or saved”) It has both a deterring and a countering effect on violent crime, but it is hard to measure how many times something would have happened if the pre-conditions were different. Both sides of the debate need to recognize the difficulty involved in analyzing whether we’d be safer with or without an armed citizenry.

    Where are the calls for the banning of cars?

    Cars are the best example, because the answer is obviously, “we need transportation.” The use of personal vehicles for transportation claims a staggering number of lives per year. But we accept that there are negative side effects for the freedom of driving a car. As weapons go, cars are far more likely to cause unintended death of innocent life. If you’ve ever texted while driving or had a few drinks and driven, you are comitting an act ORDERS OF MAGNITUDE more dangerous than owning a firearm, and yet we sort of blow off the dangers of this very popular freedom we all enjoy. We mandate safety measures, like seatbelts and airbags and even require drivers to have insurance. This is equivalent to safety switches on guns. But the current push against guns is equivalent to capping the speed and efficacy of cars, and even outright banning entire types of vehicles. “Nobody NEEDS an SUV do they?” As an anti-gun proponent, would you be fine with the government forcing everyone to drive a smart car, to ensure our safety?

    The fundamental disconnect here is that, to people who use guns for self defense, they would say “we need protection.” When you come after their guns it is, to them, as major as saying, “you shouldn’t be allowed to drive.” Gun ownership is also not nearly as universally an enjoyed freedom, since nearly everyone drives at some point in their life, but in the US only about 50 percent of people own guns. (Some Gallup stats link to It is fairly easy to drum up anti-gun support because we have been taught to fear them. You don’t look at other cars on the road with the same terror and loathing as you do guns, despite the fact that the latter is far more dangerous. But when you see calls for gun control, as a gun-fearing non-owner you would agree for many reasons. Obviously, you have nothing to lose (in your mind), since you do not choose to participate in this particular freedom. Second, it validates the fear implanted deep in your mind that guns should be limited and avoided. It also provides that sort of personal validation that everyone sort of craves on the intellectual level.

    But what’s this, you see how I didn’t list the reason “I want the country to be a safer place?” This is not a reason to support gun control, because rational investigation reveals that private gun ownership enhances safety. Why do you think your side needs to constantly appeal to emotion and fear? If this were really a question of safety, don’t you think this would be a statistical war and not an emotional one? So if you’re on the anti-gun train, and you believe you’re in it to keep people safe, just know that you are being misled. Gun control is far more about control than about guns.

    • Bhazor says:

      “Shootings are incredibly rare”
      “We need guns to protect ourselves from shootings”

      “Why don’t we ban cars then?”

      Sometimes arguments aren’t even worth a response.

      • elmo.dudd says:

        Thanks for highlighting yourself so clearly for a Block. I can deal with disagreement, I can deal with opting to not discuss because you think it isn’t worth the time for the person involved. But leaving a comment to say you won’t leave a comment? That is just contrarianism. Feel free to block me back, it will simplify things.

    • Mordsung says:

      Cars are registered and licensed and if they change hands paper work has to be given to the government.

      Some models of car are not street legal.

      You must complete a lengthy process to become legally able to drive and have an age restriction to when you can begin this process.

      You cannot operate a motor vehicle under a variety of conditions without getting in legal trouble.

      I would have no issue with guns being treated exactly as cars are.

      The fact that guns are less regulated than cars in the US is psychotic.

    • lasikbear says:

      Average lightning deaths in the US: 51

      Mass shooting deaths in the US in 2012: 88

      Firearm murders in the US in 2010: 11,078 (can’t find anything more recent)

      Non firearm murders in the US in 2010: 5,181

      Guns are winning over 2:1 against nonguns, and almost 1.75:1 against lightning!

    • Muzman says:

      No, gun control is about gun control. It really is. As for cars, it’s a somewhat accurate observation except they are subject to heavy regulation that is extremely rigorously enforced without complaint (or the same kind of complaint). Nobody gets death threats for adding new safety features and restriction to cars (even though people were fighting for their god given right to not wear a seatbelt back in the day too). Cars are also devilishly difficult to conceal and have a great deal of trouble causing harm at a distance from the machine itself, never mind moving at supersonic speeds. Guns are expressly designed for doing this. What about we expand the category to vehicles. Large trucks, prime movers, forklifts, cranes etc are even more heavily controlled than cars. Operators are granted limited license to control them that has to be renewed frequently. Significant security regulation surrounds their ownership and operation to the point that if they are misused the owner and the operator are liable. What about insurance too: it might be a thing if every gun owner had to buy and maintain third party insurance at minimum in order to carry a gun or even own one (since just having it is arguably its primary use by all accounts). Fail to present this when asked and no more gun for you. How do you think this would sit?
      Not well, right.
      If the same level of restriction was equally applied to guns the comparison might hold better. But it’s a bit more complicated than that.

    • Gap Gen says:

      I suspect that when self-driving cars become safe enough, people driving cars will be banned from public highways except in the case of emergency.

    • tormos says:

      I was going to stay out of this one but… A car is a machine to move people around. A gun is a machine to shoot pellets of metal through other peoples soft parts. The logical (at least to me) aim for policy is to make sure that both kill the fewest people possible. The way to do that with cars is to increase safety features (something that I have absolutely no problem with the government mandating eg DUI laws, licensing, seat-belts, speeding tickets). The way to do that with guns? Have fewer guns. The US is the upper income country with the loosest gun ownership laws, the most guns per capita, and the highest rate of homicides per capita (as per link to I find it somewhat hard to believe that anyone could argue that this is a mere coincidence. Tl;DR; fewer guns, homicides are harder, fewer homicides

      • Gap Gen says:

        I think if you’re being absolutist, then banning cars would cut a lot of deaths. But the utility of a car is greater than that of a gun on an economic and personal level, which is why road deaths are tolerated. I’ve never been in a shooting, and I’ve never needed to overthrow a tyrant with my assault rifle, but I have been in a car many times to go places.

        • darkChozo says:

          You’d also have to give consideration to the fact that many more people use cars than use guns, and that people tend to use cars far more often than they tend to use guns (kind of like they “you’re more likely to get in an accident within 5 miles of your house” fallacy). I’d be curious to see the statistics for fatalities per manhour, though that may be a bit biased in the favor of cars.

      • Josh W says:

        Or perhaps you should put airbags on bullets?

  19. ass wasp says:

    i just wanna say FUCK YOU to the asshole who made this garbage, i’m glad i didn’t pay anything, i didn’t even play the game, it started, called my beautiful mouse & keyboard ‘obsolete’, i closed it and deleted it.
    aight i played it whatever
    it started, the other guy didnt shoot at me, so i didnt shoot at him, it kept refreshing for a while
    nice ham fisted piece of shit 2deep4u game, this is why the indie scene sucks.

  20. tormos says:

    Do the various aggressive gun nuts commenting not realize that this is a largely British (UKian? Limish?) website and that the readerbase keeps electing governments that not only banned guns but are considering banning knives in the London area?

    • Gap Gen says:

      I assume so. But then what’s the point of a discussion if everyone agrees?

      • tormos says:

        this is as good a place as any for signalling my appreciation for your avoiding shitposting better than most people on both sides of this one.

    • mickygor says:

      Yes, and believe it or not not everyone in the UK supports gun prohibition, and not everyone in the UK bears an authoritarian ideology.

    • deadrody says:

      Indeed. And as a result, the violent crime rate in the UK is 5 times that of the US. You do know the EU named Britain the most violent country in the EU, right ? When you ban guns, now all the criminals that DO have guns (or don’t, what difference does it make?) know that the victims of their crime, be it robbery , rape, etc. cannot effectively fight back. Yay violent crime!

      • sonson says:

        The definitions for violent crime in the US and UK differ wildly-in the US violent crime the definition is very cut and dry-murder, manslaughter, aggravated assault, forcible rape and robbery. In the UK it is simply any crime committed against a person. So it includes thinks like shouting aggressively, flashing, that sort of thing. Still not nice things to experience but its a far cry from the violent crime as defined by American laws.

        Also of note-violent crime as so defined by the respective definitions has been falling in both countries, as has gun ownership.

        The rate of homicide-in totality, not just gun related- in the US however is four times that of the UK.

        What I take from the above personally is that living in the UK you’re more likely to have the occasional unpleasant encounter. I myself have probably experienced five or six of the “lesser” ones-assault, robbery-in my 27 years here.

        But your likelihood of encountering such in the UK as compared to the US is the same percentage of your likelihood of being murdered in the US as opposed to the UK. I know which chance id rather take.

  21. Totally heterosexual says:

    Well the game got people talking about the issue. Guess it did something right.

    • tormos says:

      on the other hand, it was the flood of vehement shitposting that accompanies most of these discussions on the internet…

  22. Shiny says:

    Totalitarian attention whore makes shitty “statement game”. RPS finds kindred spirit, writes about it.


    • Mordsung says:

      The desire to not be surrounded by armed primates is not a totalitarian concern.

      And I say primate as in all humans, not just gun owners.

      If humans weren’t just slightly smarter apes, I would be a little more comfortable with them being armed, but we are just slightly smarter, hairless primates and it is frightening to think that these hairless primates are carrying around ballistic weapons.

      If you were sitting next to a chimp playing with a shotgun, you’d be nervous too.

      • Shiny says:

        Mordsung, we’ve been surrounded by armed primates for hundreds of thousands of years.

        And there’s no putting guns back into Pandora’s Box.

        • Contrafibularity says:

          Which is why everyone should have a nuclear weapon. I think we can all agree that the future of solving societal ills lies in nuclear strategism and mutual assured destruction.

  23. Mitthrawn says:

    To all the anti-gun people, you do realize that criminals don’t follow the law right? So all those statistics about gun deaths in the US and how we could save lives by outlawing guns is complete garbage right? The problem isn’t guns. The problem really is mental health, in the case of these mass shootings. Or its the culture of gang violence in something like what we’ve seen in Chicago over the last year. But tackling these issues is harder, and guns are flashy and easy to blame. But making guns illegal doesnt solve the problem. Then you’ve just made guns more expensive. That is literally the only thing you’ve done by outlawing them. If you don’t believe me see the war on drugs in America over the last thirty years. Creating meaningful social change is hard. Dealing with intensive gang violence is hard. Creating a support network for and identifying troubled young men so they don’t erupt into violent killing sprees is hard. But that’s what it takes to actually effect change. Games like this and comments like what I’ve seen in this thread feel nice to say, but in the end they are fallacious. You’re not changing anything, you’re just adding to the wind.

    • Mordsung says:

      The “criminals don’t follow the law” argument can be applied to any law.

      By that logic, rape and murder should both be legal since “criminals don’t follow the law anyway.”

      We do not make laws based on what criminals will and won’t follow, we make them based on increasing social stability.

      • Mitthrawn says:

        You miss the point entirely. This isn’t about the law per se, it’s about enforcing it, and the desired effect. It seems to me anti-gun activists seem to think that by waving their hands and passing a few laws, guns magically don’t exist anymore. Criminals will still buy guns if they are illegal, the only thing you’ve done by restricting them is upped the price. My point is that your supposition- gun violence would go down if you banned and/or restricted guns- isn’t sound, because the premise is incorrect. You can’t take the guns out of criminal’s hands, you can only make them pay a little more for them while stripping legal gun owners of their guns.

        • Mordsung says:

          Anti-gun activists are well aware that removing guns is a process that takes time.

          But every gun we get off the street is one less gun that criminals can get their hands on.

          Criminals need somewhere to get the guns, the less legal avenues for gun purchase that exist the less illegal avenues exist as well.

          All illegal guns began as legal guns (with the exception of the rare home-built firearm), reducing legal guns also reduces illegal guns because it makes the stream of legal to illegal guns slow down.

          • Mitthrawn says:

            As I said above look at the war on drugs- how is that working out for the US? Remember too that any country can manufacture guns. It’s really easy.
            The fundamental problem you run into is that you’re fighting economics. Every gun you take off the street increases the price of the guns remaining, making it more lucrative to make more guns. There are tens or hundreds of millions of guns, and even if you could get rid of them all, you would have driven the price so much that everyone would get into the gun trade. Drug dealers would stop cocaine production and switch to guns. So no, every gun off the street is not a gun removed. Remove enough and the incentive will be enough that you’ll be right back where you started.

          • Distec says:

            I dunno, man. I’m not sure gun control and the War on Drugs are comparable. One is trying to curb the availability of deadly weapons with the potential to inflict mass harm (or “tools” if you really want to call them that), the other is an attempt to curb the ability of people to get their rocks off.

            The demand’s a little different, no?

        • Chris D says:

          I have to admire the sheer dedication to self-delusion it takes to pretend that Europe and almost every other country in the developed world don’t exist. Believe it or not we’re not all cowering in fear of roving gangs of marauders that the government is powerless to do anything about while they simultaneously oppress everyone else.

          But if you do genuinely believe that it’s not the guns it’s mental illness then, I don’t know, maybe having the government providing free mental healthcare might be a start. After that maybe you could work up to other kinds of healthcare too.

          • deadrody says:

            No, you’re right. You aren’t all cowering in fear. You’re just five times more likely to be the victim of a violent crime (in the UK, specifically).

          • Llewyn says:

            @deadrody: I’d be interested to see your source on that. Comparison of crime statistics between different jurisdictions is generally complicated because there’s rarely any direct correlation between the way they’re collected.

            One thing that is clear and straightforward though is that if you’re in the UK you’re far less likely to be the victim of murder than in the US: 1.2 murders per 100k population against 4.8.

            Edit: Forgot source: link to

        • darkChozo says:

          But by that logic, shouldn’t we be seeing a lot more deaths due to artillery, or grenades, or nuclear weapons? After all, we haven’t made those things disappear, we’ve just made them more costly and difficult to get.

          A bit exaggerated, I know (well, actually, not by much in the case of grenades), but my point is that the effectiveness of laws isn’t a binary thing. I’d be willing to guess that drug use would be far more common if it were completely unregulated (just to note, not trying to pass judgement here either way, just stating it factually), and drugs are something that can is typically easy to produce and sneak around. Drugs also tend to be a little less obvious when used than guns do. And there are plenty of examples of countries that have banned guns fairly effectively; at the risk of speaking without hard evidence to back me up, England is a fairly prominent example.

        • Mitthrawn says:

          Well there are many cultural and geographical differences between Europe and America. Specifically here I’m thinking of the culture of gang violence in a city like chicago or more apropos, Los Angeles. I can’t think of a parallel city or culture in Europe. It’s also easier if you’re on an island, so I don’t think Britain’s a great example. Obviously to facilitate illegal trade requires (or is greatly helped, anyway) by other countries. If we were to make guns illegal here in America, I’m sure the same avenues that bring drugs up could be used to bring guns up.
          Also, even if you were to magically get rid of guns, murderers would then just use bombs, or IEDs to kill people (see columbine, or the serial killer in Norway). I’d invite you to stop blaming the symptom and start looking at how to treat the disease.

          • Llewyn says:

            Well there are many cultural … differences between Europe and America … I’d invite you to stop blaming the symptom and start looking at how to treat the disease.

            I think collectively we’ve all done very well so far to avoid suggesting that the problem with gun-related murder rates in the US is simply Americans. However, as you say, if it’s not the guns that are the problem…

            Incidentally, the article quoted elsewhere in these comments which mentioned cars as being much more dangerous than guns prompted me to look at RTA death stats from various countries. You guys sure do like killing one another, don’t you?

            (Yes, I’m mostly trolling, and this doesn’t represent my general opinions on the US and Americans. Only on the “guns aren’t the problem, people are” activists.)

          • Muzman says:

            It’s kind of tiring to repeat this, but the way gun advocates talk about “criminals” is generally fallacious. In the main ‘criminals’ actually do obey the law. Not because they want to a lot of the time, but because they’ll get caught if they don’t. If the desire to truly address the social aspects is truly held, then the first thing to do is discard this category called “criminals” as some kind of catch all for bad people who do whatever they like (hey, it might just be short hand in this case. But I’ve seen enough gun arguments to know that there’s a peculiar American take on what a criminal is, among gun advocates particularly, where they land somewhere between a sub-species of humanity and a kind of vampires that are repelled by the presence of guns as though they were blessed crosses.)
            A person who will use a gun to rob a store or a person and a someone who will shoot someone else over a dis in the playground is a very different thing indeed (and people could likely find the latter to be the friendly one they’d hang out with, who’d never think of robbing someone. You never know).

            There was a good series on NPR about Chicago highschools the other week actually. That illustrated nicely that getting a gun for these gangs is actually pretty complicated. Of course they still get through, but the laws are providing a significant barrier to entry for the goal of shooting someone. Plug those holes and things could change quite a bit. (the trick being you’d have to clamp down on Indiana gun shows)
            And this meme about “they’d just use something else” is hogwash. People can’t argue for the effectiveness of firearms for defense and then say its completely interchangeable for any other purpose, or I suppose desire. It’s that “magic criminal” notion at work again. They’re insatiable beasts in their desire to do harm to others. It’s true in the case of mass shootings that restrictions don’t necessarily make any difference. But that’s because they are relatively rare to begin with. But anyone who argues forcing some spree shooter to learn how to make pipe bombs, instead of, y’know, buy an assault rifle and bullets legally, doesn’t alter the situation is talking rubbish.

          • InternetBatman says:

            As an American, I can safely say that the problem with per capita violence is Americans, who have greater per capita rates of violence, even cases excluding guns, than other first world countries. If you look more closely at the homicide data, it also becomes clear that violent deaths per capita look very different in different regions, with the South the highest and the North East the lowest.

            That said, bogeyman statements like the type the NRA favors certainly don’t help things.

      • deadrody says:

        Maybe you could highlight all the posts here calling for murder to be legal…

        No ? Your analogy is wrong. The CORRECT analogy would be that since rape is already illegal, maybe the best way to go would be to make rape DOUBLE illegal. That would fix it.

        Murder is already illegal. Making guns illegal is really not an effective way to stop a person intent on killing another person, and therefore breaking the law against murder, from doing so. Since they’ve already decided to break THAT law, the trivial matter of breaking the law against guns is probably not much of a deterrent.

        Nice try though

        • darkChozo says:

          That analogy is just as flawed. The correct analogy would be to outlaw rape, and also outlaw some device that allows you to rape people at a distance and with significantly less effort than other methods, but, you know, is also used for raping animals out in the woods, or raping inanimate targets, or raping in self defense when someone tries to assault you.

          That way, you could limit availability of the devices through legitimate channels, have a better way of detecting an prosecuting those who come through illegitimate channels, and prevent people who would otherwise not rape from raping in the heat of the moment. That would be in exchange for the ability to using the raping device legitimately and for causing ideological issues due to taking away freedoms.

          Of course, that’s also a flawed analogy because rape is generally considered to be more heinous than killing/wounding, and there’s not really a practical application for rape, while there is (morality aside) for killing/wounding. Weird, almost like analogies have inherent limitations in what they can convey about an issue or something.

    • InternetBatman says:

      There is a huge difference between a chemically addictive substance that is cheaply made outside the country and a manufactured product that is largely produced inside the country. Outright prohibitions don’t have a great track record, but making the manufacturers internalize negative externalities has been far more successful in recent history.

      The far greater flaw in your argument is that you immediately divide people into two camps, create an arbitrary binary choice. There are pro-gun people and anti-gun people. The anti-gun people support banning guns and the pro-gun people support unrestricted access to guns. This is a socially detrimental way of arguing because it means that there can be no compromise, only winners and losers.

      If all political issues were placed in such an arbitrarily binary continuum, your argument would be self-defeating since guns are supported far more on the right; this the same right that argues for drastically reduced spending on social programs, like ones for helping and intervening with troubled teens. So you undermine your argument by the fourth word.

  24. zain3000 says:

    Realistic blood?
    Unlimited levels?
    Moral relativism?

    Best 2 bucks I ever spent…

  25. Distec says:

    I might pay a bit more credence to anti-gun control arguments if most of them weren’t pervasively tainted with anti-government paranoia and an unchecked enthusiasm for throwing the word “totalitarian” around.

    At least the ones I’ve been subjected to.

  26. vorkon says:

    It’s fairly obvious to me that attempting to join in on the “debate” about gun control going on in these forums would be mostly counterproductive, but because it’s a subject I feel strongly about on a site I enjoy, I wanted to at least link to two of my favorite articles on the subject that have come out since Sandy Hook. Take from them what you will.

    link to
    link to

    In both cases there’s a couple things here and there that I disagree with, but as a whole they are both pretty excellent, and should hopefully give gun control advocates a better perspective on how actual gun rights advocates (as opposed to the little white KKK-inspired strawmen that live only in their imaginations and indie games) really feel.

    That being said, kudos to RPS for some great unbiased journalism on a topic that tends to inspire the opposite!

    As far as the game itself goes, I must admit that it looks like it’s built around a pretty fun mechanic. If I’m understanding it correctly, it’s sort of like Braid, except the little shadow guy that repeats whatever you did before you rewound time can kill you, and you keep spawning more of them. That is actually a pretty cool concept. Trying to shoehorn that mechanic into the gun control debate is questionable at best, and belies a fundamental lack of understanding about what self defense actually is, but at least the mechanic looks interesting.

    • InternetBatman says:

      I just read the first article you posted, and it’s not exactly a mindblowing example of rigor or logical clarity. Specifically, it reproduces a bunch of the same old logical fallacies, but this one shows a particularly egregious lack of research:

      “Because really serious criminals simply don’t care, they are able to get ahold of military weapons, and they use them simply because criminals, by definition, don’t obey the law.”

      Compared to this article about machine gun violence from an obviously pro-gun source:

      link to

      It’s a significant problem when the basic facts that underlie your argument are wrong.

      The second article has significant flaws as well, but is better written and more convincing. The largest problem with his argument is that he uses raw data rather than the ratios of specific types of gun ownership to specific types of gun violence, and he reverts to anecdotal evidence when discussing the lethality of gun violence by different types of guns.

      The second problem is that he admits that accidental gun deaths are a problem (about a 1/3 of total gun injuries), but doesn’t examine the possible impact of accidents that would occur when civilians carry guns, even civilians with training, in schools. Finally, there’s a bizarre contention that schools shouldn’t hire private guards because they’re unreliable, and the police can’t reach a school in time (because physics). Most school systems already hire active duty police officers in their middle and high schools, that would stop blatant aggressors “at the door.” Except Columbine, where most of the victims were killed after the aggressors traded shots with the school’s officer.

      link to

      So teachers with limited training are supposed to perform better than a trained professional with a semi-automatic weapon?

      I understand the arguments, have heard them before, but find that they stop extremely short of compelling evidence. I’m not someone who supports a blanket ban on guns. I don’t think it would work, although the harder a type of gun is to make on a scale of shotguns to rifles to hand guns to semi-automatic (by arbitrary clip-size and reload speed rating), the more effective a prohibition would be. I know several people who derive a substantial portion of their protein from hunting. I do think that we can significantly improve laws. One way would be internalizing the negative externalities of gun manufacture.

      Either way, I suspect this argument will soon be short-lived when 3d printing severely curtails the ability of any democratic government to enforce meaningful arms control.

  27. sonson says:

    It’s not the only reason for it but I honestly think that the history of the how the US was formed plays an enormous part, and serves to explain why gun crime is so much greater than in other countries which also share comparative gun control without anything approaching as bad statistics.

    It’s essentially an empire building exercise which has been carried out across an enormous landmass. All the stuff that the concept of empire is slammed for, and that the more traditional Imperial powers are rightly castigated for-conflict, cultural and physical displacement and enforcement, racism, control of the few over the many-that’s how the United States have been formed, and many of these issues haven’t been resolved.

    Small wonder that some of the population live on as though another Revolution might occur, for all that I’m dead against gun ownership without exceedingly stringent control. There’s never really been a point when significant factions haven’t been fighting for something across the nation.