President Trump showed a weird frag montage in his video game violence meeting

US President Donald Trump yesterday held a private meeting to discuss the issue of violence in video games, having suggested after February’s murders at a school in Parkland, Florida that it “is really shaping young people’s thoughts.” This would clearly amount to nothing productive, given mostly industry representatives and conservative pressure groups were attending, but it is a surprise that Trump showed attendees a short video montage of video game deaths. The White House have released this publicly, so we can all see a sloppy montage of deaths from Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2, Fallout 4, and more. Somehow it isn’t a surprise that some clips are clearly ripped from YouTubers – watermarks and all.

As frag montages go, it’s pretty rubbish.

“This is violent isn’t it?” Trump asked after the video, attendee Representative Vicky Hartzler told the Washington Post.

Clips are from Call Of Duty: Black Ops, Call Of Duty: Modern Warfare 2, Dead By Daylight, Fallout 4, Sniper Elite 4, The Evil Within, and Wolfenstein: The New Order. All of those games are rated Mature 17+ by the Entertainment Software Rating Board, the self-regulatory body formed by the Entertainment Software Association in the 90s to fend off threats of the US government cracking down on the medium during an earlier moral panic.

I would be fascinated to learn who put that video together, how they chose the games and how they found the clips. Some are just so odd. And as displays of gratuitous virtuaviolence intended to shock go, I could do a lot better.

The moral watchdogs in attendance said that violent media is why the USA has an unparalleled problem with mass killings by teenagers armed with guns, according to the WashPo’s accounts from attendees, while representatives of video game publishers said there’s no connection between video games and violence and that the industry self-polices with its rating system so it’s fine. That’s about what you’d expect both sides to say. With no credible experts present at the meeting, that was that.

Senator Marco Rubio acknowledged after the meeting that there’s no evidence linking violent games to the Parkland murders, the WashPo reported, but he wanted to ensure “parents are aware of the resources available to them to monitor and control the entertainment their children are exposed to.”

Indications would suggest that we’re unlikely to see any major crackdown on video games in the name of stopping school shootings, though President Trump has often surprised even his own advisers with rash announcements so who the hell knows really. But I’d be surprised if much more happens than perhaps the ESA and ESRB saying “Oh, yes, do check the ratings label, parents” a bit louder. This is more performative scapegoating by yet another administration in the only country on Earth which suffers this problem on such a deadly scale.


  1. Kefren says:

    “The moral watchdogs in attendance said that violent media is why the USA has an unparalleled problem with mass killings by teenagers armed with guns”

    I love this quote. Someone else made the point the other day that violent media can’t be the cause because we have exactly the same films and games in the UK. But we don’t have mass killings by teenagers armed with guns. So what on earth could be the key factor if it isn’t the games and films? Mmmm? Damn, this is such a toughie.

    • pookie101 says:

      ..and inadvertently saying there is something mentally inferior and unstable about Americans haha

      • DefinitelyNotHans says:

        Were you TRYING to be ironic here? Because that sounds like the kind of backwoods redneck shit you expect to hear from Trump, you goose-stepping little idiot.

        • pookie101 says:

          Trump and the NRA.. violent video games are destroying American youth and causing massacres.

          Other countries have access to the same media but don’t have those massacres.

          Clearly Trump and the NRA are saying there is something mentally inferior and unstable about Americans haha

          I’m sure the NRA would support video games if they gave an assault rifle away with every copy

      • SaintAn says:

        Our culture is one of stupidity, violence, and greedy selfishness. Our schools are shit and underfunded, butchered by Christians that want children stupid so they can be indoctrinated. We admire and lust for war, destruction, and masculinity, because of our cowboy culture we never moved past. And the corporations are the only things that matter anymore to the politicians and most Americans worship corporations.

        We are stupid and unstable, there’s no doubt about that.

        • Psychomorph says:

          First christianity and now marxism. One worse than the other.

          Masculinity is not a problem, it would be a solution if modern men would grow balls, brains and responsibility and protect their offsprings from that corrosive culture.

          We have the same problems in Europe.

          • datreus says:

            These stories always bring out the fascists, bless.

          • Arkanos says:

            Masculinity isn’t a problem, but the masculinity spread by most guys, gamers and non-gamers alike, is harmful, not helpful. High-fiving rape-victims and congratulating them on getting laid, “men don’t cry” and “suck it up”, ignoring emotions, leaving them to suffer and stew in their pain…

    • mattevansc3 says:

      The easy answer isn’t always the right answer. Guns weren’t the only things the mass shooters have had in common.

      • Michael Fogg says:

        Yes, there is also the issue of growing social alienation. The US is at the forefront as the most advanced capitalist society, but I’m afraid these changes will with time also reach European shores.

      • kmv_007 says:

        True, a lot of them were white dudes, too.

        • mattevansc3 says:

          They also had a history of domestic abuse/violent attitudes toward women and/or belonged to violent far-right groups/shared extremist views.

          • automatic says:

            That. Where I live gun ownership is prohibited, therefore these kind of cases are pretty uncommon. Nonetheless it happened once last year and, surprise, the person that did it was secretly a nazi lover far-right extremist. People tried to blame bullying as well but it only lasted until they searched his computer.

          • napoleonic says:

            There are millions of far-right misogynists all over the world though. Only in America do they turn into school shooters.

          • Psychomorph says:

            Wouldn’t you argue that bullied, abused and alienated young white men would seek the comfort in an ideology that is “made” for them?

            Those young white people turn to nazism, because of social problems and the social problems are the reason they seek to discharge their anger through violence. Like black people turn to become anti white racists because of social problems.

            Are you really trying to blame whiteness and nazism for the schootings?

      • Luperts says:

        Actually I would argue that between all the mass shootings (many 100’s a year in the US at the moment) guns is indeed the only thing they all have had in common.

        Or what did you have in mind besides that?

        • Phantom_Renegade says:

          I’d say they had bullying in common.

        • Congo says:

          I’m pretty sure mental illness was in common with all of them

          • mattevansc3 says:

            No. Only 4% of all violent crime in the US is caused by mental illness.

          • Jimbo says:

            Which school shooter don’t you think was mentally ill?

          • Congo says:

            Not talking about violent crime. I’m talking about mass murder shooters.

          • Reblosch says:

            There are lots of mentally ill, stupid or evil people in Europe and Canada as well, but not so many mass shootings…

      • golochuk says:

        Well, the easy answer is mucking around and offering excuses, while the right answer is repealing the second amendment.

        • Robert The Rebuilder says:


        • skeletortoise says:

          1) Technically that wouldn’t do anything on it’s own. Not having the constitutional right to bear arms is not the same as outlawing them, which would also be required.

          2) Is enforcement (gun snatching) implied by this repeal? If not, there are more guns already owned in America than people and a motivated and resourceful person will have no problem continuing to get a gun.

          3) If people’s guns are being taken from them, your problems have just graduated from occasional shootings to guerrilla warfare, secession, uprisings, civil war, etc. Taking people’s guns turns the 2nd amendment into a self fulfilling and self justifying prophecy to those who believe in it. This is the tyranny they armed themselves to defend against.

          4) This is practically a political impossibility without any apparent chance of that changing foreseeable within decades or maybe centuries. Like it or not, this is a contentious issue for a reason. Liberals like to tell themselves the NRA artificially inflates gun support when really the reverse is true. The NRA is a massive force because people care so much about guns. And it’s generally bad politics to completely disregard the passionate feelings of a massive group of people in favor of a comparably sized but less passionate group on the other side.

          • ScottTFrazer says:

            There’s a lot to unpack here.

            1) The 2nd amendment and a sympathetic Supreme Court are behind the shift in viewpoint that the 2nd amendment represents a personal right and not a collective right. That pesky “well-regulated militia” part. The interpretation of that has changed dramatically in the last 60 years.

            2) Enforcement doesn’t require “snatching.” That’s typically a pro-2nd amendment argument along the lines of “it’s too difficult, so we shouldn’t try.” Australia provides a nice example of how to move forward. Stop existing sales. Increase regulations on new sales. Offer buy-back programs. Destroy guns used in the commission of crimes. Australia banned the import of weapons, the US would need to ban the production. Enforced liability insurance for gun-owners would be another tool that could be used.

            3) Literally no one is talking about a door-to-door sweep to remove guns from the hands of americans.

            4) The number of households that own guns in the US has fallen decade-over-decade since the 70s (it was 51% in the 70s and is around 36% now). Gun-owning households are a minority in the US. Your straw-man “Liberals” are correct: the NRA’s influence in politics exceeds it population base. Polls regularly indicate Americans want stronger gun laws and yet congress is unwilling to provide them.

          • skeletortoise says:

            1) I’m not sure if this intended to address my 1st point, as it seems unrelated. Anyway, yeah, agreed. I’m well aware that the current perception of the 2nd Amendment is a somewhat recent development.

            2) Enforcement of what? Since we’re talking about repeal of the 2nd Amendment, I’m assuming we’re talking about getting ride of all guns. All I’m saying is for a complete removal of guns in America, removal of the guns currently in it is a requirement and if you don’t do that people can still get guns even if new ones stop entering circulation. All those programs are nice, but they are contingent on people being willing to participate in them. Cities and states have done buyback programs before without much to show for it. Chances are if someone is seriously planning to shoot up a school the prospect of a few hundred bucks isn’t going to completely turn their life around. And you better believe there’s some serious overlap b/w people who really like guns and people who don’t care for the idea of compulsory insurance. The simple fact is that American’s really like their guns and I don’t think there’s much data to support the idea that more than a modest percentage would comply with this.

            3) Didn’t say anyone was, just pointing out to golochuk that this is what would be necessary for his 2nd Amendment repeal to actually work.

            4) You mean only 100 plus million Americans strongly care about guns? Dang, the NRA may as well pack it up and call it a day. Certainly an effective interest group can have an outsized effect relative to its base, and yes, there certainly is a feedback loop where in gun enthusiasm bolsters the NRA which bolsters gun enthusiasm and so on, I’m merely pointing out that the NRA isn’t just a board room full of mustache twisting, cigar smoking millionaires who do nothing but greedily sell congressmen to gun manufacturers, which almost all liberal rhetoric paints them as at the moment (don’t get me wrong, they are somewhat that, but certainly not entirely). They do actually represent a LOT of normal people who care deeply about guns. And you’re right, a majority of Americans are in favor of just about all specific gun control issues that are commonly discussed. Except for the one we’re specifically talking about, banning all guns, which only 10% of American’s favor (see the last item in the link below).

            link to

          • ScottTFrazer says:

            Me: 3) Literally no one is talking about a door-to-door sweep to remove guns from the hands of americans.

            You: 3) Didn’t say anyone was, just pointing out to golochuk that this is what would be necessary for his 2nd Amendment repeal to actually work.

            Also you: 2) Enforcement of what? Since we’re talking about repeal of the 2nd Amendment, I’m assuming we’re talking about getting ride of all guns.

            Repealing the 2nd amendment wouldn’t require getting rid of all guns. All the 2nd amendment does is say that you have the right to own a gun. If it weren’t there it wouldn’t suddenly become illegal to own a gun, there would have to be legislation passed to make that so. No one has ever proposed such legislation.

            Again, I would point to several other modernized western countries that have effective gun legislation, still allow certain citizens to own guns, and have managed to reduce gun violence and mass shootings in their countries. Australia and Canada being the foremost. There are plenty of other examples in this comment section.

            So “banning all guns?” I’m not even on board with that, so it’s no surprise that it only gets a 10% in the poll. But 57% of americans are currently in favor of banning the sale of all semi-automatic rifles. I’m on board with that.

            Gun buyback programs are always voluntary. Frankly I don’t care how unhappy gun owners would be about compulsory insurance. They should be on the hook for the illegal use of their property and the damage they (as a collective) have caused this country.

            4) I mean nearly 200 plus million people are ready to override them. The more children that get killed in this way, the more this will start turn those 200 million into the kind of single-issue voters that currently make up the NRA’s 5 million membership. And again, repealing the 2ns amendment doesn’t mean it suddenly becomes illegal to own a gun.

          • skeletortoise says:

            “Repealing the 2nd amendment wouldn’t require getting rid of all guns. All the 2nd amendment does is say that you have the right to own a gun. If it weren’t there it wouldn’t suddenly become illegal to own a gun, there would have to be legislation passed to make that so.”

            This is literally the very first point I made in my reply to golochuk.

            “Again, I would point to several other modernized western countries that have effective gun legislation, still allow certain citizens to own guns, and have managed to reduce gun violence and mass shootings in their countries. Australia and Canada being the foremost. There are plenty of other examples in this comment section.”

            That’s nice.

            “So “banning all guns?” I’m not even on board with that, so it’s no surprise that it only gets a 10% in the poll. But 57% of americans are currently in favor of banning the sale of all semi-automatic rifles. I’m on board with that.”

            That’s… also nice. Do you have an argument against something I’ve said?

            “Gun buyback programs are always voluntary.”

            And thus not actually that effective.

            “Frankly I don’t care how unhappy gun owners would be about compulsory insurance.”

            Politicians do, and besides that doesn’t make it enforceable or effective in regards to guns already in circulation.

            “4) I mean nearly 200 plus million people are ready to override them. The more children that get killed in this way, the more this will start turn those 200 million into the kind of single-issue voters that currently make up the NRA’s 5 million membership.”

            I’d wager nothing like that will ever really come to pass. Because plenty of people don’t have kids and the actual threat to them is highly unlikely to ever actually affect them. Whereas a third of Americans who already own guns take most any gun legislation very seriously.

            ” And again, repealing the 2ns amendment doesn’t mean it suddenly becomes illegal to own a gun.”

            See, you were trying to act like this wasn’t about repealing the 2nd Amendment (even though the conversation explicitly started with that topic) but then you say that? And then you undermine yourself and reiterate my point that a 2nd Amendment repeal (and implicitly, a gun ban) wouldn’t actually accomplish so much?

            I feel I should take a break and maybe clarify what I’ve been talking about. Golochuk said repealing the 2nd Amendment would solve this problem and I responded with doubts. I operated on the assumption he meant that after that, they would ban all guns. I pointed out that, without going and TAKING guns from people, this would be ineffective as there are so many guns in circulation already. I further pointed out that actually trying to take people’s guns would be a disaster. I then noted that this was all a pipedream as 2nd Amendment repeal was hard to imagine happening within quite a few lifetimes from now. My point was never that improving things was impossible or gun control laws should be passed. I was simply responding to perhaps the worst possible way I could imagine trying to initiate change. I was first responding to the idea of repealing the 2nd Amendment and indicated I was assuming a gun ban was implicit in that idea. Everything else I said was in respect to that topic idea.

            I feel inclined to further elaborate that I am not even slightly pro-gun. I view them as toys for adults, but they’re far too boring and expensive to interest me. I’m just talking about practical and political realities.

          • golochuk says:

            “Not having the constitutional right to bear arms is not the same as outlawing them, which would also be required.”

            When someone’s hungry, they technically not only have to get food, but also chew and swallow it. But we generally don’t argue about this when a hungry person says they’re going to get some food.

          • skeletortoise says:

            Cute, except it was genuinely unclear what you meant to occur following the repeal and so we don’t know actually know what you intended the “solution” to be.

          • kinyajuu says:

            Why try to stop the sale of guns? Guns are easy enough to make with a good 3d printer and time. Stop the sale of bullets and gunpowder in the US, then the problem goes away entirely. Require a permit to purchase gunpowder and/or ammunition.

            Without a propellant people are forced to use gas propelled ammo which makes the firing weapon bulky if you plan on having any kind of stopping power.

            Sure some folks can make their own ammo, but it’s much harder to make your own gunpowder without proper tools and know-how.

        • Jimbo says:

          Repealing the Second Amendment wouldn’t solve it, and they shouldn’t even if it would.

          • golochuk says:

            Counterpoint: it would and they should.

          • kinyajuu says:

            They could simply let people keep their firearms. Take away the ammo and gunpowder. That will regulate it without “breaking” the 2nd amendment.

          • Daemoroth says:

            As long as the second amendment exists, it’s pretty much impossible to regulate guns, because proper regulation would interfere with the second amendment and would be found to be unconstitutional and thus thrown out.

            The first step IS to get rid of the second amendment and then build legislation around that to allow current owners to continue to be legal owners without fuss. Then work towards regulation of new sales, etc. slow walking towards a gun-free CULTURE.

        • Shuck says:

          Guns were heavily regulated in the US for centuries, and we had a second amendment.

          • golochuk says:

            This provides no motivation for the continued existence of the second amendment, and you’re greatly overstating the “heavily regulated” part.

          • Shuck says:

            Look at how the 2nd amendment was historically viewed (i.e. not about individual gun ownership rights) and the kinds of serious restrictions on guns that existed (e.g. not being allowed to have one at all in certain towns), compared to now. It’s absolutely possible to have significant gun control laws and the second amendment, which would be near impossible to get rid of.

      • Rorschach617 says:

        Yeah, “social alienation” is the problem…

        or the fact that guns are cheaper than game consoles and more available than a Nintendo

        • Morat Gurgeh says:

          A fine point sir.

        • Premium User Badge

          Frog says:

          You say nonsense, the majority of guns are age restricted, subject to background checks, *in general* more expensive than consoles although $300 will buy you a sample of either. Availability is I suppose similar since you can buy both in Walmart.
          Bottom line though, guns are neither easier to buy or more available than consoles.

          • skeletortoise says:

            Well, no, they said Nintendo, so they’re actually right about availability.

    • jellydonut says:

      There’s a far higher prevalence of gun ownership per capita in Switzerland, Finland, Norway, and other countries, yet these countries also do not have these problems.

      Social alienation and possibly also poverty could be causes.

      • anHorse says:

        Switzerland has gun ownership but also has extensive laws around purchase and storage, America has next to nothing in those departments

      • Zaxwerks says:

        Norway is the next country to have the highest guns per captica out of the list you gave, and it has just less than 1/3rd the number of guns per capita that America has. America has nearly 100% more guns per capita than it’s closest rival (which is Serbia!). The reasons behind the CAUSE of gun violence might not be guns, but the implementation of the kind of violence that can mow down dozens of people in a very short period of time, and from a distance IS guns. You are going to get violent, mentally unstable, bullied people wanting revenge in EVERY culture, the only way to reduce the possibility of mass killing, especially mass school killings is to prevent such people gaining access to such weapons, all the countries out mentioned have infinitely more stringent vetting, registration, and storage requirements than America, and it seems to work. Guns are not the be all and end all of the problem, but they are a MAJOR contributory factor and the fact that time and time and time and time and time again it is a “forbidden” subject to question or to do something about, and that anyone who does (many Democrats) are blocked (many by Republicans) has the rest of the world gaping in utter disbelief at the utter stupidity a so called advanced 1st world nation displays towards the lives of its children and citizens.

        • BobbyDylan says:

          Well said. Canada has high gun ownership and much lower gun deaths. America should look to copy the Canadian model of gun ownership.

        • khamul says:

          I’ve got to say: I really feel that ‘do something to reduce the number of people who are so utterly miserable and rejected that they self-destruct in this way’ really ought to be part of the solution too.

          It Is Not Okay.

          The answer to ‘our society excludes people badly enough that they turn murderous’ is not ‘so don’t give them guns’. It’s ‘give them hope’ (and also, don’t give them guns, because COME ON!). We have shit we need to sort out, here, people.

          • KidWithKnife says:

            Oh, come on now. You’re making sense here, and everybody knows no one ever gets anything done by making sense. How adorably quaint of you.

            But seriously, you pretty much nailed it there.

          • April March says:

            Giving them hope is a good long term strategy. Not letting them have guns is a good short term strategy. Happily, they are not mutually exclusive. Unhappily, you won’t find much political support for either.

      • MarkCM says:

        No, Switzerland has less than 1/4 the number of guns per person that the USA does. The only countries that have more than HALF the USA’s per capita gun ownership rate are … Serbia and Yemen.

        link to

      • Martel says:

        When you make up statistics you should at least post the source you got them from

      • Moragami says:

        No Jellydonut, I’ve seen a few people spouting that nonsense about Norway having more guns per capita. Common sense should tell you it’s not true, but even barring that, this is easily researched. They have about 24 guns per 100 citizens, the US has 101 guns per 100 citizens. I wonder where this Norway lie originated from? Russia? The NRA? or the GOP? Either way it’s BS and you’re a moron for lacking the critical thinking skills to fact check it.

        • Zombiwan Kenobi says:

          You’re all wrong, there are actually more people who own some weapons in Norway than in USA. Numbers are nice but you have to understand them first. There are more weapons in USA than anywhere else but only 3% of the entire population owns half of the weapons.

          In fact you’re more likely to find someone who has a gun in Norway than in USA, or at least they’re equal. The only difference is that your typical NRA fan has hundred of guns when a norwegian will only have a hunting rifle (hunting is really popular in Norway, not killing schoolmates, to each their own).

          • klops says:

            Google ”guns per capita”.

          • April March says:

            Or just “per capita”. (Although the tidbit about how many guns the average gun owner has in US and Norway is interesting and relevant, if anedoctal.)

      • kinyajuu says:

        I think the major difference is that in America spanking children is illegal. You’re basically forced to simply send them to their room (isolate them). This, during a child’s formative years, trains them to not fear consequences as well as breaks them mentally due to isolation from the parents as punishment (mentally recorded as being rejected in a forming mind, rather than making a connection of “bad = pain”). This is the MAIN difference between america and other countries and I think it has a lot more to do with things than people want to admit.

        • IronPirate says:

          Spanking isn’t illegal in the us but it is regulated and a lot less common than it used to be. This is true for the UK and many European nations as well where school shootings don’t really happen.

        • Reblosch says:

          Spanking children is less and less popular in Europe. Still, no mass shotings. Maybe the US should legalize punching children in the face in order to make up for the terrible gun violence statistics ? ;)

        • popej says:

          Yeah, there’s still the ‘lack of mass shooting problem in other countries’ counter to that argument. Also we don’t tend to spank our children in Western Europe either.

        • WoodGuyThreepBrush says:

          Rather than physically abusing your children or sending them into isolation there is a third way.

          You could always, you know, talk to them. Find out why they are acting up and work together to solve the problem.

    • MajorLag says:

      It’s interesting that while some are so ready to blame violent media without any significant evidence of causation, others are willing to blame firearm ownership with an equal lack of evidence.

      The problem, as I see it, is a violence-as-a-solution-to-problems cultural mindset, and something pushing people to tend towards self-destructive outbursts. Honestly that does sound a lot like the online communities I’ve seen, gaming ones included, but it’s hard to quantify the effect since it’s all part of the same feedback loop. It says something about us, I think, that there aren’t many youtube or twitch celebrities out there teaching us to forgive games, developers, and other gamers for their faults, but plenty teaching us to rage about them.

      • fish99 says:

        Well it is kinda hard to carry out a mass shooting without a gun.

        • Luaan says:

          “Well it is kinda hard to carry out a mass shooting without a gun.”

          Sure, but there’s two problems with that. One, legality of gun ownership doesn’t necessarily have much to do with illegal gun-related activities. Two, guns aren’t the only way to kill many people at once – you’ll find plenty of mass murders with things like “run into a crowd with a car”. Strangely, nobody called for “stricter controls on access to cars”. Even more strangely, nobody cared whether the weapon (car or gun) was owned and operated legally in the first place.

          Look where those mass shootings take place – it’s almost always in a place where having a gun is illegal. That makes for massive asymmetry between the attackers and the victims – the attackers don’t care about the law, and the victims die over their trust in it. Even if a police officer were in the right place at the right time, most wouldn’t interfere unless they were directly threatened themselves – you just can’t expect most people to put their lives on the line unless they’re threatened or have good confidence in the risk involved (e.g. trained SWAT teams aren’t exactly the same thing as a random policeman with a gun against a guy with an automatic rifle – surely legally obtained, right?).

          • Shuck says:

            Strangely, nobody called for “stricter controls on access to cars”
            Except that, since the invention of cars, people have been demanding exactly that. So they regulated the hell out of them. Now regulation of automobiles covers the design, manufacture, sale, licensing, operation (who can operate vehicles and under what conditions) and built extensive systems for the tracking of vehicles and their operators and owners. All to make them safer. (And guess what, it worked! Deaths by vehicles have continuously decreased as a result, relative to usage.) None of that is true with guns.

          • ScottTFrazer says:

            “Sure, but there’s two problems with that. One, legality of gun ownership doesn’t necessarily have much to do with illegal gun-related activities.”

            It does, though.

            “Prices of semi-automatic handguns, so-called weapons of choice of underworld characters, from a previous price tag of $2,000 to $4,000 have gone up to over $15,000 in the past two years.”

            link to

            “Look where those mass shootings take place – it’s almost always in a place where having a gun is illegal. ”

            This is bullshit. There was an armed guard at the Florida school. The people executing these shootings don’t appear to care if they get shot, as long as they get to take out a bunch of people in the process.

          • fish99 says:

            If we’re talking specifically about school shooting, a gun is a far more effective way of killing large numbers of people.

      • Colthor says:

        The NRA have been blocking US government research into gun violence for over twenty years.

        *Maybe* research wouldn’t show that widespread ownership and easy availability of firearms was a problem, but if you don’t let anyone ask the question it *definitely* won’t.

      • Shuck says:

        “without any significant evidence of causation, others are willing to blame firearm ownership with an equal lack of evidence.”
        Er, what? Numerous studies have been done looking for links between games and violence and they haven’t found any. Despite the fact that the NRA effectively outlawed anyone receiving federal money from researching links between gun ownership and violence, there have also been numerous studies. And they have found substantial causative links between gun ownership and gun violence.

        • Moragami says:

          Shuck – You are crushing it with common sense, facts, and statistics. People like Luaan are totally out of their depths. I agree with everything you’re saying 100% and hope someday the gun nuts of the world start seeing things rationally.

        • MajorLag says:

          Well no shit sherlock. It’s hard to commit gun violence without any guns isn’t it?

          I’m not arguing that access to firearms doesn’t make these people more dangerous, I’m arguing that it isn’t the root problem, and I worry that there are a lot of people out there who, if there were some general firearm round up, would just sit back and say “yep, solved that one forever” while the very real social ills that cause people to want to go on suicidal killing sprees in the first place continue to fester.

          • kinyajuu says:

            Social isolation is the problem. If you spend enough time alone, you start to forget that others have thoughts and feelings too. America’s war on “violence” seems to actually be backfiring. Letting the government get in the way of how a child is raised and removing the very natural animalistic spank method has turned children into sociopaths that don’t fear repercussions of their actions, they feel that at most they’ll simply get rejected/isolated again and they’re used to that.

            Now when your kid is involved in activities that make them interact with folks that may not have the same outlook on the world that will negate that to an extent as they have an anchor in the real world. Also, some children don’t need spanking, they are more socially oriented so they are able to be punished differently. But our government likes claiming that there is only one right way even though some kids need physical pain as punishment.

            I was one of those kids, I didn’t get beat but I got spanked for doing dangerous stuff that could hurt or kill me. I respect the hell out of my gramma for doing it too, made me a better person as I AM one of those loner types naturally. I personally believe the spanking gave my loner type brain a sense of empathy towards how others feel and how much worse things COULD be than the pain of a spank. Spankings hurt, getting shot or killed, probably hurts way more than that. I’ll pass heh.

          • Shuck says:

            “It’s hard to commit gun violence without any guns isn’t it?”
            Sorry, I thought you might have a basic understanding of the dynamics of gun violence – my mistake. To be clearer: you can strike the “gun” part from “gun violence” and it’s still true. Studies show that the presence of guns increases violence, period. The “gun violence” portion of suicide, assault and murder statistics in the US is essentially in addition to non-gun violence, which is similar to countries with similarly violent cultures (like the UK) that don’t have guns the way we do.
            You seem to be arguing that if people didn’t have guns, they’d perform some other fatal act of violence, instead. All the evidence suggests that’s simply not true. The idea that every mass shooting would turn into a mass stabbing just isn’t true – there’s a mass shooting almost every day in the US, now. There’s nothing equivalent, per capita, going on in countries that aren’t awash in guns. Studies indicate that guns essentially make violence easier to perpetrate in general – that is, take away the gun, and the “gun violence” portion of violence largely goes away, rather than being translated into some other form of violence.

      • Zombiwan Kenobi says:

        USA don’t even need evidence to declare a war so you know… They can pretty much say anything as long as people are dumb enough to keep voting for them.

    • Malrick says:

      Yah…it’s not like the UK has 3x the murder rate of the US or anything…right? Derp.

    • saintalchemyst says:

      To blame violent media is as stupid as blaming guns. You might want to check on a stat that has WAY more impact like “overall violent crimes” instead of just “violent crimes related to gun violence” becasue this changes “who has more crime” comparison DRAMATICLY. UK has more uncontended home invations, more muggings and assualts with other “deadly weapons”, and a comparable level of violent crime when not chopping out the HUGE amount that is commmited with other weapons and tools that aren’t firearms. Lastly the one stat that I think speak VOLUMES is one from a CDC report (can’t remember the year, but shouldn’t be hard to find if you want) is that roughly 12,000 ro 16,000 criminal gun deaths are commit annually, (which is tragic no doubt. Also %95 were commited with ILLEGALLY owned firearms) BUT there were between 500,000 to 3,000,000, depending on how strict or loose the definitions were defined,instances of LEGALY owned firearms used in LAWFULL self-defence. So even if you want to take the worst estimate of criminal firearm deaths and the most conservative estimate of LAWFUL self-defense uses, GUNS SAVE MANY MORE LIVES IN THE US THAN THEY KILL AND IN THE INSTANCES THEY ARE USED TO KILL THE WEAPON WAS ALMOST ALWAYS ILLEGALY POSSESED! You should really lose the pompus Brit attitude mate, especailly when you want to defend one liberty from emotional knee jerking but then turn around and do the same to another liberty!

  2. pookie101 says:

    It’s weird that Bethesda games were in it considering a big Trump supporter is on the Zenimax board of directors

    • Rorschach617 says:

      It’s weird they used a Sniper series game and not the “Hitler testicle” shot.

  3. automatic says:

    I just hope USA gun industry don’t dump their production on sub-developed countries in case americans decide to restrict gun sales in their own country. A vain hope, I know. But keep that in mind.

  4. sonofsanta says:

    I’m not sure the Fallout section starting at 1:00 helps their argument of “video game violence is so realistic it’s a danger!” given that the gentleman in question takes a shotgun blast to the head at three feet and just stands up looking a bit angry.

    • Luaan says:

      They seem to switch between “it’s so realistic it’s dangerous!” and “it’s so unrealistic it’s dangerous!” as needed. Either it teaches kids that guns are fun and you can shoot a guy in the head with no ill effects, or it teaches kids exactly how to kill someone, and desensitises them to violence in general.

  5. Sleepymatt says:

    When starting his deflection campaign on video game violence, Trump said he was horrified that his (11 year old) son was exposed to such violent media. All these games are rated 17+. So who do you think is responsible there, President Trump? (Clue: it’s not the video game producers).

    Unless of course he meant one of his other grown-up sons was being corrupted by video games, which now I type it seems entirely plausible, if they inherited the manchild gene from him…

    • MajorLag says:

      Somewhat ironically, Trump himself is prone to self-destructive outbursts, much like the people behind the tragedies we’re talking about. It’s almost humorous how blind he is to the connection.

  6. The Regulator Guy says:

    Huh, that is a weird montage. I know for a fact Malcolm Latimer was killed in his sleep.

  7. chuckieegg says:

    Oh, hey, that video just contains shot of computer games. I was expecting a video of someone being physically beaten to death with a DVD case. Cos that would be real life, with guns and all, not just pixels on screen.

  8. internisus says:

    I saw a comment on Polygon that I really liked in which it was pointed out that the perpetrators of most of the violence in this video are soldiers and police, the people who are actually responsible for committing the majority of America’s violence. I mean, if you want to seriously point fingers at a cultural source for mass violence, maybe you should start by examining the liberal application and glorification of state-sponsored murder both at home and abroad. Maybe routine school shootings is the price we pay for unleashing a heavily militarized and trigger-happy police force upon our civilian populace while maintaining a detached, business-as-usual attitude to blowing people up all over the world.

    The saddest thing about all of this, though, is that this one unlisted video on the White House channel has been disliked into the ground while everything else this grotesque administration puts out is thumbs up for days. I understand that no one sits around and clicks on all of their crap just to rate it down, but, still, it feels like an illustration of how so many people only get involved when they personally feel threatened. I hope Trump does try to take our video games away because then everyone my age and younger will be lining up for the voting booths while hacker collectives steal his Twitter account and dig up something that will get him impeached the very next day.

    • TillEulenspiegel says:

      I just started re-watching some JAG (a TV series I grew up with), and it made me realize that it’s a miracle that any American manages to overcome the ubiquitous military propaganda in that country.

      There’s this cultural idea of righteous violence which pervades absolutely everything.

    • benzoate says:

      Just wanted to say thanks for your comment, or at least for re-sharing it from the original poster. One of the few in a while that gave me some new perspective.

  9. Taintslapper says:

    Let’s say a law is passed stating we can’t see blood or dismemberment any more. Does that same litigation apply to just the studios? Or would it be applicable to mods too?

    • khamul says:

      If it was – would that make computer games worse?

      If I put together a list of all the things about games that I love, it would be a very long list. And ‘blood and gore’ would be very hard to find on it.

      Not that I’m saying that we *should* ban them (though personally there are games, like Wolfenstein, that I would like to play, but never will, because I just don’t want that kind of graphic violence in my life). What I’m saying is ‘isn’t it awesome that we have a hobby that is so great that shit like this really isn’t important’.

      If you took all the graphic violence out of Hollywood, how many of the films would remain watchable?

      • Taintslapper says:

        I really don’t care about blood and gore either. A good example would be looking at Borderlands 1 verse Borderlands 2. BL2 contained little to no excessive gore compared to the first one and I think most would agree that BL2 was the better game. It really doesn’t add anything.
        My real question is, do these kinds of laws affect only production studios or do they apply to private modders too? It’s more a question from curiosity rather than concern.

      • woodsey says:

        Individual games might not suffer – many probably would benefit from a gore reduction – but videogames as a medium would be worse, yes. I would think this is obvious.

        Violence and gore are narrative and thematic and mechanical tools like any other. I can appreciate that you are put off by the new Wolfestein games because they are excessively violent, but the violence in those games is inexorably linked to what they’re trying to communicate.

        • Taintslapper says:

          I’m ok with gore if it means something, but the cheap thrills garbage you get from movies like Saw has always seemed perverse and actually detracted from the overall quality in my mind. Not that it’s grounds for censorship by any means, just my observation.

      • SyCo_Venom says:

        I don’t really need violence and gore for most games and movies, though it would make some movies lose something.

        That really is not the point to me. Do we want the state to be our nannies? Do they get to choose our entertainment? Where does it stop? Let the developers choose to leave it in or leave it out if they want to implement their morals in games but not because of a law.

        I guess they can just give us the entertainment they want and we can have our daily 2 minutes of hate and maybe we wont go crazy and we can praise big brother every day.

        • Taintslapper says:

          Getting a little off topic here, would a violent content ban be applicable to modders?

          • khamul says:

            Um, sorry about that. I ignored your question deliberately because I figure (A) no-one is ever going to actually pass the law, (B) even if they did, the chances of it actually being enforced are negligible, and (C) almost certainly, no-one involved has even the faintest idea that modding exists, let alone what it is, or how to account for it.

            So the question seemed rhetorical – though it was a challenge that hadn’t occurred to me. But personally, I firmly believe that you will be free to mod guts and gore into as many games as you want for the forseeable future. Though I’m not a lawyer.

        • khamul says:

          In the absence of the state limiting how gory things can be – what limits it? The games producers listen to their audiences, and the audiences’ expectations are set by the game producers, and the system as a whole inexorably slides in the direction of a feedback loop based on whatever nudge it got when it started.

          I don’t like the idea of the state deciding what we are and are not allowed to consume. But I don’t particularly like unregulated feedback loops either: they’re dangerous.

          My preference would be a third option: someone with a voice, but no actual power, who can say ‘guys, you’re being dicks. Just rein it in a bit, kay?’. A moderator.

          Actually, that’s my reason for quite liking the idea of a Monarchy, providing the Monarch has precisely 2 powers: (1) a reset button for the democratically elected body doing the actual government, and (2) a loud voice, and lots of opinions.

          Unfortunately, while I live in the UK and so theoretically have exactly this arrangement, the monarchy abjectly fails to do the job I think they should be doing. Yes: I am, in fact, the only person in the world (other than himself) that wants to see Prince Charles on the throne.

  10. Don Reba says:

    It must be especially shocking for Trump that some of the victims are Nazis — “You have people who are very fine people on both sides.”

  11. Stargazer86 says:

    Anyone remember Jack Thompson? The lawyer who was disbarred for being a douche about purported video game violence for years? Given Trump’s track record for picking cabinet members and appointees, I’m surprised he wasn’t chosen to chair this meeting.

  12. mercyRPG says:

    Perfect montage! I would remove from sale any game that displays such sick psychopathic inhuman mass murder scenes that completely lobotomize the minds of young idiots so the poor wretches become so brain damaged, that apparently this montage means nothing to them anymore.
    Example is this specimen:

    “As frag montages go, it’s pretty rubbish.”

    All this began with Manhunt where the main character repeatedly stabbed his victim in the head with a big glass shard and later decapitated people with a shovel, adding kicks to improve the shovel movement..

    • Don Reba says:

      Yeah, I think that’s the game from which Hieronymus Bosch drew his inspiration. Or maybe it was Postal, which came out 6 years earlier.

  13. Scraphound says:

    It’s much easier to blame video games, or rock ‘n roll, or D&D, or talkies, or novels, or cave paintings than it is to address the real problem: A public education system that’s been failing kids for over 40 years. Teachers who have no concept of cognitive function or child psychology, prison-like schools that stifle the natural desire to learn, children who are being abused or neglected at home, and who go to school to be told again and again that they are selfish failures, or they can’t afford to be sad or depressed, etc., etc.

    So much of what’s wrong in America could be fixed by ditching the stigma against mental illness, focusing less on memorizing and regurgitating watered down misinformation in school, and focusing more on making sure children are happy, healthy, fed, and taught to enjoy learning.

    But instead we’re going to double down on a broken system while pointing the finger at the latest boogeyman.

    • Luaan says:

      To be fair, public (and many private) education systems are kind of the same all around the world. It’s awful, and it’s something I find myself discussing very often, but most “western” countries use the same model. Stopping that ridiculous propaganda and “civilised” child torture would surely help many people all over the world, but it doesn’t really explain why the US has so much more trouble with people mindlessly following (perceived) authority on one hand and engaging in wanton violence on the other.

    • Shaun239 says:

      As you describe, formal education is very much an assembly line for young people that cares little for developing their resilience and wellbeing (the irony being that happy, healthy people are more productive and more willing to learn) and does not cope well with those that learn differently (leading to frustration/isolation etc). This isn’t just an American problem though, it’s a whole world problem.

      I highly recommend watching this short TED talk on the need for change in education if you find the subject interesting: link to

  14. fish99 says:

    While they’re busy blaming violent games and media for the spate of school shootings, did it occur to them that the UK consumes the same games and media and has almost no school shootings? If only someone could solve this puzzle.

    • NailBombed says:

      As long as there’s something easy to blame (comics/films/any ‘alternative’ music/videogames), instead of SEVERELY tightening gun control laws like they should have been doing since Columbine, the US administration will do that and stick their fingers in their ears and heads in the sand at the same time. And will gladly take any and all crap from the NRA – cos money talks volumes.

      Violence and Sex? Awful….
      Guns? Do you want one of those free with your Hershey bar?

  15. Craig Stern says:

    Wait, really? They used footage from Wolfenstein: The New Order, a game in which you shoot Nazis? As evidence that video games influence kids like the Parkland shooter, who publicly discussed his hatred of jews and literally carved swastikas into his gun magazines? Are they reaching for some kind of irony award here?

  16. something says:

    Somehow it isn’t a surprise that some clips are clearly ripped from YouTubers – watermarks and all.
    What did you expect them to do, play through the games themselves?

    Senator Marco Rubio acknowledged after the meeting that there’s no evidence linking violent games to the Parkland murders, the WashPo reported, but he wanted to ensure “parents are aware of the resources available to them to monitor and control the entertainment their children are exposed to.”
    Um, that sounds very reasonable. I mean, obviously it’s going to do nothing to reduce gun violence in the US but it’s not like the gaming comunity needs to be (if you’ll forgive the expression) up in arms about this. We want this don’t we? We want parents to be able to prevent their kids playing unsuitable games. That’s why we have the age ratings and why we always say it’s the parent’s responsibility to control what their kid sees.

    Look, I get that this is a distraction from the real issue of gun control, and that’s an important matter for the American political community to deal with. But from a purely gaming point of view? He’s got a point. That video was full of horrible violence of the sort that would prevent a movie from finding a general audience, but in the merry old land of videogames, it’s mainstream (COD, Fallout) and often unremarkable.

    Games make great use of violence as a mechanic and, frankly, as a fetish. But they have no intelectual or emotional grasp on violence. Violence is all about small actions with huge consequences. Games turn that on it’s head, more as a matter of habit than design, which is disappointing.

  17. Morinaka says:

    Anyone want to come up with a better list of gore they could have used?

    Mortal Kombat X fatalities immediately came to mind for me.

    • NailBombed says:

      What about Tipper Gore? This is how it’s beginning to look…. welcome to a new era of PMRC, just aimed at the videogame industry.

  18. K_Sezegedin says:

    I love it when Trump pretends his delicate sensibilities have been offended.

  19. Cederic says:

    Regarding, “the only country on Earth which suffers this problem on such a deadly scale,” the USA don’t even make the top ten for gun deaths per capita.

    That’s even when you exclude warzones.

    Disclosure: Firearm owner in the UK.
    Disclaimer: Never shot anybody, even by accident.

    • skeletortoise says:

      Give us time.

      But actually though, do you mind providing your source? While they may not be warzones I’m betting most of them are significantly less developed or stable than the US to the point where it’s not really comparing apples to apples.

      Congrats on not shooting anybody, by the way.

      • Cederic says:

        Well, I went the lazy route and used the summary on Wikipedia. The primary sources are all referenced though.

        They wouldn’t all qualify as failed states and several of them are politically stable and can be compared to the US on most grounds other than defence.

        And thank you :)

  20. skeletortoise says:

    ‘“This is violent isn’t it?” Trump asked after the video’

    Very insightful analysis.

  21. LennyLeonardo says:

    Is it 2004 already?

    • NailBombed says:

      … Just waiting for Jack Thompson to crawl out of the woodwork at this stage.

  22. skeletortoise says:

    Eh, I have my reservations with your point. I’ll ignore that the data for every country all comes from varying different years (I can imagine the US may have shifted a spot or two since 2014) and the fact that, at 11th, the US is still pretty high up there (there are a lot of countries, after all). The top ten consists entirely of central and south American countries, Mexico, and a tiny African country. I’m sure individual countries might surprise me, but on average these countries are likely meaningfully more crime ridden, unstable, and corrupt than the US.

    • skeletortoise says:

      Intended as a reply to Cederic.

    • cpt_freakout says:

      But the point is not violence in general. The point is violence from kids, mass shootings, etc. Obviously other countries are more violent than the US because of wars and so on, but not one of them suffers from mass shootings from random people that one day wake up and decide they’re gonna kill some people like the US does.

  23. Zombiwan Kenobi says:

    There were already mass school shootings in the 80’s, because of Pacman i presume ?

    The fact they can’t even understand why only american kids are killing that much schoolmates is even worse than mass shootings themselves. Blaming Arcanoid or Marilyn Manson only prevents them from thinking about what’s really wrong in their own society.

    Mass school shootings already happened in the 19th century so let’s say it’s all about american culture instead of blaming games or music they usually don’t know a thing about.

    • SaintAn says:

      No, in the 80’s rock music was the scapegoat.

      • Zombiwan Kenobi says:

        Elvis was even worse than that, well until he got abducted by aliens.

  24. H. Vetinari says:

    well I have to give them at least some credit for trying to sell the idea of “evil games and media” that influence killing sprees even though nobody is buying into it.
    It’s like feminists still trying to sell the mythical patriarchy and wage gap, as well as the tinfoil people still selling chemtrails.
    it’s a good laugh worthy of being part of a fail compilation on youtube.

  25. Psychomorph says:

    Media and entertainment is part of the problem. The amount of violence that you see is ridiculous. I find some of the content in the video highly disturbing and you can’t claim those are fake.

    When I played Postal I was so disgusted that I quit and never returned. What a trash! Some games really shouldn’t exist, no matter how much it is satire, it is degenerated.

    Instead of desensitizing our youth with this violent, sarcastic trash, what about games that inspire and even educate?

    Combat and some violence is okay, but what about games, such as the old Tomb Raiders, that inspired awe and love for Archaeology and ancient cultures in me, compared to the new Tomb Raider that lays much focus on mass murdering dozens of men?

    Games are not the problem, modern games are a problem (unrelated to the shootings), because they are not art anymore as they used to be, they’re business and business always exploits bad nature.

    Modern media/entertainment is highly desensitizing toward violence (and other forms of degeneracy) and violence sells these days almost as good as sex.

    • khamul says:

      I think you’re on the wrong games site to ask why we can’t have games that inspire, and even educate, given the number of complex, beautiful and delicate games discussed here daily.

      Modern games are not the problem – many many modern games are exactly what you’re asking for. I doubt that Firewatch, for example, made it onto the ultraviolence mashup. Or Minecraft, which was? is? the single biggest game in the world?

      That said – I am also worried about how graphic and extreme the violence is in some major mass-market titles. And yes, it’s an easy way to get a response, which helps sales. But… horror movies are popular. This is not a new thing, nor unique to games.

      *Does* it desensitise us? I know it feels like it might – but that doesn’t mean it actually does. We pay scientists to provide authoritative answers to questions like that, so it seems to me we should listen to them, rather than making up our own. And then should make policy on *that* basis.

      • Psychomorph says:

        You’re right about the amount of non-too-violent games today. One of the reasons I play almost exclusively indie type of games, because I see more value in them these days and yes, RPS does a good job to give those titles the attention they deserve.

        I should have been more specific on calling out the big business game industry, which I think we can agree does not produce a very healthy environment with all the shady practices, etc.

        Games are great, but gaming is not void of issues. I particularly have an issue with endless grinding MMOs and similar, which have the biggest risk for addiction and in my opinion aren’t the most healthy type of games in general. When I was a young gamer I avoided those.

        That bears the question; if games aren’t a problem, but have a bad element, doesn’t a similar logic apply to gun ownership?

      • Horg says:

        ”*Does* it desensitise us?”

        Short answer, no. Long answer, noooooooooooooooo – ok i’m not doing that joke. Serious answer; as someone who has played computer games for almost two decades, and through work (Fireman) is occasionally exposed to the aftermath of trauma and violence, I can safely state that computer games don’t desensitise you to real world gore and death in the slightest. I’ve never looked at a badly injured person and been able to say i’ve felt nothing, even minor injuries can be unsettling if the individual is in obvious pain. Corpses are a whole different experience again, and there’s a reason senior officers will keep an eye on crew members for a while after they’ve seen their first dead body. The unfocused, glassy eyed stare is something that you never really get used to, and fortunately something that most people will not have to deal with. There is a disconnect between what we see on our screens and what we experience in the physical world, so if computer games are desensitising us to any kind of violence, it’s only screen violence.

  26. datreus says:

    ‘What do all these men have in common?’ ask dozens of people.

    Well, they’re not women. And women deal with the same issues of disenfranchisement and mental illness that you all bring up.

    Maybe something to think about, especially for the nice gentlemen suggesting that forms of masculinism are the ‘solution’.

    Rather than suggesting that these disturbed men ‘man up’, take on board the fact they can’t, and the fact people like you sneer at them for it, is what pushes their mental illness into action in many cases.

    But something tells me you won’t do that.

    Yes, mental illness is the issue. Mentally healthy people don’t go on shooting sprees. But you need to grasp that mental illness isn’t just a ‘genetic’ thing but a complex interaction of environmental factors and heredity – with the former often shaping how the latter manifests.

    • Psychomorph says:

      It looks like you equate masculinity with mental illness. That would be a nice theory to debate.

      Where I grew up (east Europe), masculinity is first and foremost about responsibility, reason and guidance. Masculinity escalates into violence exactly then if it lacks those three aspects.

      So yeah, masculinity is a bit like “the Force”, it’s a source of productiveness, but is destructive if drawn to the dark side.

      And if you disagree with the way things are, blame nature, for she created the predator and the prey and if reality disgusts you, than I hope for your sake that our “western liberal safe space civilisation” will last longer than you.

      • April March says:

        Nature did create the predators and the prey. Human beings are prey. They are soft and limber. The have no claws and no incisors. They can eat plant and meat, a good diet for a scavenger. They are resourceful and can use tools, much like crows, which are also scavengers.

        All of civilization exists so that we are removed from that state of nature can and foster the best things we accidentally evolved into. If it fails, you won’t be driving down sand dunes waving your boomstick at the poor people who didn’t find their true nature as predators; you’ll be either hiding in the cellar from the tigers with the rest of us, or in their belly.

        • ShotPaperRockGun says:

          So, just to be clear, you regard human beings as essentially no different from crows?
          From an evolutionary standpoint, our way of countering claws and fangs and such would be our massive brains. Crows don’t have those. They do have beaks though. The pricks.

        • Psychomorph says:

          That’s a pessimistic way of seeing things. Nature gave us problems, but also solutions (and problems are sometimes the solutions, because they motivate to actually solve things). Our intelligence is a tool that developed in order to deal with the problems and find solutions. It’s the hardship that made us human.

          We cannot exist like animals, but high civilization also created problems. We need to find a middle ground between a natural and a civilized life. I’m optimistic enough to believe that we can.

  27. Mario Pajas says:

    Funny Hatred doesn’t make an apparition after all the polemic.

  28. Bob_ says:

    Nothing new. Worst adults (especially the bigots and the old ones) always blame videogames for their bad influence on youth, just because they are so unable to EDUCATE Youth (they don’t care about youth until something bad happens).
    (And by the way, what was Trump’s policy about weapons before?)
    WHEN (and IF) youth is badly influenced by tv, movies or games, is why
    parents, school and society around is UNABLE to influence youth in the right way.
    IF a kid is really influenced by fake violence, it could be because he wasn’t educated at the right way by adults.

    Politicians and bigots first blame things they don’t know (and never cared before). What could know over 60-70 years old people about videogames? Why Trump didn’t blame violence on C.S.I. series, or Eli Roth movies? Or comics, why not?

    I watched violent movies since I was 6, horrors since 8, played videogames since 10, I did A LOT of frags at Quake and Unreal, and saw a lot of violence in tv, games and movies. This didn’t make me -or my friends- a serial killer or a criminal, ’cause I was EDUCATED to separate reality from fantasy, real from fake violence, and I was -luckily- grown surrounded by people, not left alone: my parents watched violent movies with me, so they could check me and educate me about that.

    Japanese create and play some of the most violent games in the world. So, why we hear mostly about american massacres?

    It’s easier blame videogames than make better education at home or at school, than care about teenagers when they are confused or depressed, it’s easier than change a culture where weapons are so easy to reach, a culture where the best way to solve a problem is to shoot at it -or bomb it-.

    • kinyajuu says:

      Totally agree. Nobody wants to admit it’s their fault, the parents, the school, society itself. The problem is obviously in the changes to how our children are being raised and how little attention they get from their parents and/or other authority figures.

    • Zombiwan Kenobi says:

      Education isn’t much relevant here, mass school shooting is part of american culture, just like guns & violence worship. A nation need a lot of time to find some peace and tbh USA are still a young nation, with a lot of issues.

      American schoolmates has been killing themselves for centuries, this nation declares war or crusades on anyone almost permanently, there are issues here far worse than simple education – we’re talking about culture.

      • popej says:

        Education is always relevant and is the answer to all of societies ills. We just need to do it better.

  29. kinyajuu says:

    Calling Trump an idiot at this point is just beating a dead horse but wow Trump is an idiot. I didn’t comment on the other article before the meeting but what in the hell is this man’s deal? He talks like he thinks he knows everything but every time he opens his mouth he makes Bush Jr. look like a Nobel laureate.

    We moved past this games = violence nonsense in the 90’s back when games didn’t even look close to realistic. Games have LESS to do with it in my opinion than the very realistic looking violence against other humans on television nightly.

    If games desensitize one to violence, than what does deer hunting do? I don’t see a higher rate of school shootings for kids raised as hunters as compared to others. It’s not about desensitation at all, or glorification. Showing isn’t glorifying, if taken out of context any scene can look like glorified violence. Some of those clips from COD were scenes where it was depicting the horror of war and terrorism, it wasn’t wanton violence, it was an emotional backdrop to make you think. I still think about the scene where the chopper crashes and you die alone.

    Regardless, gaming has nothing at all to do with violence, it’s just an easy scapegoat since it’s ONLY 50 or so years old as a medium.

    • Spleesh says:

      I like what your saying but… I’m just stuck on Call of Duty making you think. Like really? How? I seriously need to know. I’m very confused. Which one because if it was a black ops or something then I don’t even know anymore. Its 12:30am for me now so maybe thats why… goodnight. :)

  30. kinyajuu says:

    If making laws and more rules solved problems there wouldn’t be any school shootings to begin with. They are attacking this from the top when it needs attacked from the bottom (home life, parents, school). I impose the parents being charged for any crime a child under their care commits. Punish both, it’ll set an example and eventually parents won’t leave it up to everyone else in the world to teach their kids right from wrong.

    • ShotPaperRockGun says:

      So…making laws and rules doesn’t solve problems. Your proposed solution: make new laws. And not just any laws, but laws that would be almost impossible to enforce. And if they were somehow enforced, would dramatically increase the prison population. Way to think things through.

    • DaSpunkyPotato says:

      parents can’t fully control their children

    • Spleesh says:

      No. Thats not how it works all the time. What if your parents are meth heads.

  31. ShotPaperRockGun says:

    Quite a few Nazis taking a murdering in that little frag reel. I think I know why Trump’s upset.

  32. n0s says:

    Capitalism breeds greed, greed breeds selfishness, selfishness breeds evil.

    And in a country where capitalism is a religion, evil becomes gospel, cruelty the norm.

    Americans need to start turning their society back into caring for each other, i.e. socialism, where you realize it is in YOUR interest that your neighbor has at least the same as you do. Americans need to re-learn that caring for others IS THE SAME as caring for yourself.

    The ONLY time in history when the US was truly exceptional, was the 10 years after WW2, when they actually had socialism.

    Then capitalism ruined everything.

    • Spleesh says:

      Here, here. But no-one (I’m left wing btw so don’t take this the wrong way) has done communism well either unless you count Norway but they’re technically socialism which is basically capitalism + communism.

  33. Pianoslayer says:

    “Dead by Daylight is a violent game”
    Did they show the killer being looped as violent… or…??? Pull out a part of an Ochido montage that plays sad music and then Trump said “Dudddddd”… or… link Marth88’s experiment in the description???

    Wait I know they just showed patch 1.9.2

  34. DaSpunkyPotato says:

    Honestly this is quite BS since murder and crime had started in America since before video games were even created. Actually the first murder in America was in Sep­tember 1630, what happened was John Billington — an original Plymouth colonist, a landowner, a father to two sons, a signatory of the Mayflower Compact — stood with a noose around his neck. He was sentenced to hang. When he died that day, John Billington left behind a legacy of grim historic firsts for the New World.
    John Billington was the first person to commit a crime in the colony. He had the dubious honor of being the first European to be convicted of murder in this new place. And he was the first to be executed by the state in the New World. (source:link to
    Also on September 6, 1949 Howard Unruh embark upon his “Walk of Death,” murdering 13 people and wounding three others in a 20-minute rampage before being hauled off by police after a dangerous firefight.
    (Read more: link to
    And the fist video game invented was a “Tennis for Two”. It was created in 1958 by William Higinbotham. No violence involved.
    There are many other cases like these way before video games were big. Plus TV shows and Movies are just as violent, so it’s kinda stupid just to go after video games.

  35. says:

    If i thought video games were real i would plug my contoller into these politcians head’s. I would make them wipe their butt’s, it would the first time they did something right.

  36. veteran870 says:

    First off .. they put these ratings on the games for a reason.. It’s to show hey this game is going to have some stuff in it that a kid under the age of what is shown on this cover most definitely should never see. The parents completely disregard this rating and allow their kids to play it anyway. Now we have all these little 8-10 year old kids foul mouthing and bullying people on the internet because their parents didn’t care.

    Secondly.. We have so many kids out there bullying other kids that it literally causes anxiety and depression for the victims. These kids get so fucked up in the head that one day they get tired of it and just decide to take care of the bullies. Unfortionately the parents of these kids that didn’t care keep their weapons where these kids can get to them.. Why you must ask? Because they dont give a fuck.. thats why.. Parents are becoming more and more lazy with their parenting skills that its literally ruining the next generation years before it ever comes along. Instead of these people taking responsibility for these actions what do they do? They blame the next best thing … the video games.. the movies .. tv .. you name it .. These industries are not to blame for anything .. whats next .. blaming car accidents on grand theft auto games because of the sheer freedom you have to just run people over and crash your shit into other people?

    Come on people wake the fuck up and take control of your kids .. stop being lazy parents thats all it comes down to really.

  37. Spleesh says:

    I’ve read most of these comments and I have to say this was really entertaining. Some really well put arguments here and I learnt a lot about the intricacies of American gun law. I’m an Aussie btw so this is an outsider perspective and I’m just going to name all the contributing problems to the teen gun violence.

    1) Guns. This is by far the biggest contributor and I don’t think anyone has really denied that. The USA has really poorly regulated (2nd amendment says right to bare REGULATED arms btw) guns and it is the biggest problem. In Norway for instance, most people have bolt action or semi-automatic rifles so your not exactly going to kill 60 people in 10 minutes. That’s it on this for me. Theres been enough talk on this.

    2) Culture. Now you’ve said video games, movies and tv (correct me if theres more) but has anyone suggested it’s the USA’s culture in general. I mean WTF do you expect from a country where the constitution was written by a General who killed people. The USA was built on war and its had civil war – side note: why do people respect those who had ancestors in the civil war? Whats with that? – and crime is just also really fucking high in general. This environment and the violent history that has forged American culture is why there is this problem. I’m including the masculinity stuff here. I’d also like to say that my boss actually said to me of the cuff – this is a direct quote from an Australian – only poofs cry. So the whole men don’t cry thing is not unique to the USA. I think you get it though. I could go through movies and stuff aswell but I think other people like veteran870 have summed up why thats a problem pretty clearly.

    3) Poverty. I mean you saw this coming right? America is basically a third world country in this area. When above %50 (I know the stat is higher) of any countries people live on destitution and need food stamps I call it a third world country. The health system is also just completely fucked, I mean you should just dump it and completely redesign it. This also makes drugs and alcohol more of a problem because people become disillusioned and hopeless which leads to substance abuse. This then starts a cycle of neglectful parents and I think you see where I’m heading with this. Basically, poor people are fucked from the start and that makes violent crime so much more common. Let me elaborate. Soviet Russia had everyone living in poverty right? Wrong. They had everyone in economic poverty but people grew their own food to survive and so things weren’t so bad (I’m getting this from an actual Russian who loves capitalism). What was really interesting was that there was 0 crime. LITERALLY 0! The police didn’t know what to do when there was organised crime after the soviet union fell because there was no crime before. I don’t really know why this is relevant but it just seems like there is something to be learned here – I’m going with my gut and saying that communism is good in some ways but bad in others. What the USA essentially needs to do is decrease the amount of people living in poverty so that people become happier because then they will invest in the important things and not give up. Mental illness rates will go down if you do this. I say you have a golden wage until you figure out something better. EDIT: I kinda went on a tangent there. What I was going to say is people need to get paid more but whatever soviet russia did was also working.

    4) Ignorance. This is my last point and its here because this is all exacerbated by ignorance. When people decide not to understand or don’t try to understand then the whole thing becomes an angry mess. Trump much anyone? Anyone?

    Thanks for reading this far. I know this was a long one. If you skimmed to here fuck you. I put a lot of effort into this and you fucking skimmed it SHAME SHAME SHAME (a little bit of Aussie pop culture there from Darryn Hinch). TLDR. Get rid of fully automatic rifles, understand that your culture is part of the problem, fix poverty with some marxist ideas until you get better ones and listen to peoples opinions respectfully. I’m open to any criticisms and feel free to correct me where I’m wrong.