In case you were not aware, on Thursday President Donald Trump had an hour-long meeting with Congressional leaders and video game industry leaders behind closed doors in the Roosevelt Room at the White House. Attendees included company representatives from Bethesda, Take-Two, Rockstar, and the Entertainment Software Association (ESA), as well as critics of violent media from the Parents Television Council (PTC), Media Research Council (MRC), Representative Vicky Hartzler, a Republican Congresswoman from Missouri, among others. The meeting, which the White House describes as one of many with the game industry and other stakeholders in a national discussion surrounding school shootings, was closed to the press. However, some of the attendees revealed what went down in post-meeting statements and press interviews.

The meeting kicked-off with the screening of the following 88-second video that depicts violent scenes from game franchises like Call of Duty, Sniper Elite, and Fallout:

Unlisted video from The White House’s YouTube channel​

Following the footage Rep. Hartzler said that the president would ask, “This is violent isn’t it?”, asking for comments and thoughts among those present.

"I think for many of us there, there was a shocked silence," Melissa Henson, a spokesperson for the PTC, said during a press call following the meeting. "Those from the video game industry were quick to defend [the video games] saying they were meant for a mature audience and that they weren't intended for kids to see."

“I think he’s deeply disturbed by some of the things you see in these video games that are so darn violent, viciously violent, and clearly inappropriate for children, and I think he’s bothered by that,” said Brent Bozell of the MRC.

In a press statement following the meeting, the White House added that “the President acknowledged some studies have indicated there is a correlation between video game violence and real violence. The conversation centered on whether violent video games, including games that graphically simulate killing, desensitize our community to violence.”

It is not the first time that President Trump made a connection between violence in video games and real violence. He has been quite vocal about his thoughts on the matter in the past...

Video game violence & glorification must be stopped—it is creating monsters!

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) December 17, 2012

​

... even if studies showed no correlation between the two, as the ESA pointed out: "We discussed the numerous scientific studies establishing that there is no connection between video games and violence, First Amendment protection of video games, and how our industry’s rating system effectively helps parents make informed entertainment choices."

Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.), who was also at the meeting, also acknowledged that there is no evidence linking violent video games to the tragedy in Parkland. But he said he wanted to ensure “parents are aware of the resources available to them to monitor and control the entertainment their children are exposed to.”

"The tone of the meeting was that it was for information gathering, fact finding," the PTC's Melissa Henson said. "I don't believe anyone came in there with a policy outcome in mind. The President was not walking in there with his mind already made up. I am under the impression there will be future conversations, though no next steps were discussed."

___________________________________________​

While nothing consequential went down during this specific meeting, similar ones are bound to happen, especially in the wake of increasing reports of public violence. Decisions might then be made that will have a heavy impact on the video game industry.

Views are highly divided regarding the issue of violence and video games. This will probably remain the case in the foreseeable future until a consensus is met, however unlikely that may be. But what do you think? Is there a correlation? Are there any changes that need to be made within the video game industry that can help to curb real-world violence?

 

[TotalInsanity4]

So the only difference is what side of the political spectrum they are on. Morally, they are both scum.

The specific difference is authoritarianism. If you want to talk about specific violent Antifa protesters, they'd probably fall more under the "anarchist" category, which is about as far from fascism as you can get

 

[Subtle Demise]

The specific difference is authoritarianism. If you want to talk about specific violent Antifa protesters, they'd probably fall more under the "anarchist" category, which is about as far from fascism as you can get

No, they want a specific world view to be the norm. Anarchy would allow the Neo-Nazis to say what they want to say. Libertarianism is about as close you're going to get to anarchy without stepping into complete lawlessness.

 

[TotalInsanity4]

No, they want a specific world view to be the norm. Anarchy would allow the Neo-Nazis to say what they want to say. Libertarianism is about as close you're going to get to anarchy without stepping into complete lawlessness.

Now you're just splitting hairs

 

[Kioku]

Now you're just splitting hairs

Politics...

 

[Subtle Demise]

Now you're just splitting hairs

How so?

Anyway, I thought the topic was was video game violence (seriously? It's not 1992 anymore!), and somehow the topic became about antifa vs the skinheads.

 

[Navonod]

How so?

Anyway, I thought the topic was was video game violence (seriously? It's not 1992 anymore!), and somehow the topic became about antifa vs the skinheads.

I thought they would lock up this thread like 9-10 pages ago. I guess the debate was somewhat okay and a bit civil with minor name calling.

 

[Kioku]

How so?

Anyway, I thought the topic was was video game violence (seriously? It's not 1992 anymore!), and somehow the topic became about antifa vs the skinheads.

... Cuz Trump...

 

[orangy57]

man at least show some glory kills from the new DooM smh

 

[SecureBoot]

You have got to be kidding me...

The guy pretty much singlehandedly starts an international trade war. Let me spell that out for you:

AN

INTERNATIONAL

TRADE

WAR



There are things that could be worse on this planet (like...countries launching nucleair missiles at each other). But not much.


Yet what does he do? He is concerned about video games. FREAKING VIDEO GAMES!!!


Yes, it's my hobby. Yes, I'm concerned for it. But I also have a freaking sense of perspective. Video games aren't a necessity. Countries agreeing with each other is a large kind of exponential magnitude more important.

Americans: seriously...throw that sociopath out of the white house. He has already caused some serious damage to your reputation. Please don't make it harder for his successor to just undo all his stupidity (assuming the trade war doesn't escalate into an actual one).

Jokes on you. We caused enough damage to our reputation WAY before Trump was inaugurated.

 

[Blue Sun]

My ma used to let me play the Moral Kombat and Saints Row games all the time and I came out just fine (at least not murderously violent if nothing else). Granted and ironically, I had a heavily sheltered and Christian-rooted upbringing long before I began to play those kinds of games but still. I still think we need a heavy upheaval of general society (hopefully not too violent but I'd expect it to be anyhow) since we can't seem to agree on what the most central root problem is and start over from less shaky foundations. Probably a bit too extreme nowadays.

 

[Taleweaver]

Jokes on you. We caused enough damage to our reputation WAY before Trump was inaugurated.

Can't really argue with that. I never understood why the republican party allowed a trashtalking bully with no political experience whatsoever to become a candidate in the first place. Or why the NRA is hellbent to keep picturing America as a country of gun nuts. Or why W. decided to demonize and then attack Iraq. Or...

Well...and so on. It's just that with this guy, we get examples on an almost daily basis.

 

[3DSPoet]

I'm just gonna leave this here....different decade, same circus....

https://www.stuffyoushouldknow.com/blogs/people-thought-dungeons-dragons-satanic.htm

 

[Old]

I'm just gonna leave this here....different decade, same circus....

https://www.stuffyoushouldknow.com/blogs/people-thought-dungeons-dragons-satanic.htm

I clearly remember that whole nonsensical scene. I don't recall all of the specifics, but apparently some college kids dropped some bad acid, bugged out, and started 'playing' D&D for real; going down into the sewers, attacking each other, and other such bullshit. One of the cases was highly dramatized in the flick 'Mazes and Monsters'.
Meanwhile, my older brothers & their friends were like:

 

[3DSPoet]

Yep. There's always something that's the cause of this stuff. I guess it's easier blaming video games or D&D or guns*, even...than to accept that some people are just already monsters with screwed up brains.

*I do not, nor am I likely to ever own a gun. No inanimate object ever killed anyone without some other force affecting it, though.

So... Video games don't encourage people to kill other people, Screwed up, socio/psychopathic people kill people.

 

[MercilessDeth]

Interesting, thanks for the information. Since you seem to know more about the topic of guns and their role in mass shootings than I do, do you think that semi automatic rifles should be legal, legal only to certain people (maybe military personnel, or whoever else you think may need one), or banned in most if not all cases?

Also, feel free not answer, I understand if you don't want to step into a political discussion.

I don't mind discussing my thoughts on the matter, for those willing to listen. It is unfortunate that I have some of the knowledge I do, as it was primarily gained from research I've done on my own about the shooting my family was involved in and reading through the court documents and things of that nature. I just tend to avoid political topics because in this country it can often seem like both sides are too entrenched to see eye to eye with each other or compromise on their positions. Maybe it's like that everywhere and I'm just ignorant of world politics but it seems especially prevalent in the US, anyway.

I will say that the firearm my mother was shot with was a semi-automatic AK-47 style weapon, which fires a 7.62x39mm round, versus the AR-15 styled weapons that you hear about in many of the more recent mass shootings which is a .223 caliber rifle. I won't claim that I'm a huge expert on the intricacies of guns, but the style weapon she was shot with fires a larger round and has the potential cause more damage per round at the expense of greater recoil; hence the large exit wound she received that damaged her spinal cord. The shooter also had multiple other guns including semi-automatic 9mm pistols and was in possession of multiple high-capacity magazines for his rifle.

The reason I provide this level of detail is to point out that many rifles that have the appearance of a hunting rifle rather than the militarized/police-grade appearance of an AR-15 are .223 caliber so it's hard for me to say something such as "let's ban them outright" as you get into very tricky territory there. Do we ban all .223 rifles? Do we ban rifles that fire larger caliber bullets as well? What is the criteria we would use to decide if a weapon is an "assault" weapon or a "hunting rifle"? There's a lot of people of the opinion that we should get rid of the AR-15 style rifles altogether, since they appear to be the number one choice for modern mass murderers but if we did so my worry is that they would just switch to using the "next best thing" so to speak.

Previous assault weapon bans have not entirely taken into account, in my opinion, the stats (for lack of a better word) of the firearms the government wants to restrict us from owning, but instead the appearance of the guns. I think lawmakers need to get expert opinions on weapons before they start banning or restricting certain types of firearms (and those experts should not be NRA lobbyists).

In short, it's a topic I'm a bit undecided on. I certainly agree that better background checks, removing loopholes for gun show sales, and more regulation of semi-automatic weapons would be beneficial, as well as banning accessories like bump stocks (which increase the rate of fire) and high-capacity magazines. I've yet to hear an informed argument as to why a civilian would ever need 30 or more rounds of ammunition loaded into their rifle at one time. Even when hunting with a shotgun there are regulations as to how many shells you can have loaded at once, and sometimes hunters are stopped by DNR officers and asked to empty the rounds from the firearm to make sure they are in compliance. Why regulations like that seemingly don't apply to rifles as well is beyond me.

Although, if we went down the path of banning semi-automatic rifles, a bolt-action or lever-action rifle is perfectly adequate for hunting.

 

[FAST6191]

Some of those restrictions are rather US centric and amusingly the UK, which we can all agree is rather more restrictive, lacks much of those -- straight pulls, any stock you like, not sure about capacities offhand but it is going to be more if there are restrictions.

The hunting shotgun thing is probably the same reason for the weapon type restrictions at various times of year as it could in theory then make it too easy to hunt animals (in turn reducing population too much) if you are allowed to go hunting with everything in your favour.

Calibre/caliber isn't the whole story -- powder loads, weapon design (smooth bore vs rifled, whether the round just spins or tumbles) and round type beyond that (see hollowpoint vs other options) all influence things. Or if you prefer https://www.pewpewtactical.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/01/Common-Bullet-Sizes-1024x568.jpg and base article it comes from https://www.pewpewtactical.com/bullet-sizes-calibers-and-types/
The LR in .22lr stands for long rifle and you can see it being rather smaller than a 9mm pistol round (which can also be fired out of a MP5/UMP if you wanted to go that way). That might be a bit disingenuous though as the .223 you mention I would probably know as a 5.56 instead and is on the larger side in that list.
In any case you are unlikely to be able to outrun it and skin is a woeful choice of armour. This then leads to a lot of discussion about things that could be done if restricting and what might be ineffective. This then leads to broad restrictions proposed and either then getting blocked as it is gets called a unilateral affront, or some concession gets made and funnels the ne'er do wells down that path instead.
High capacities you can types of shooting like simulated engagement rather than just plinking targets. That said how many are spray and pray into a crowd these days (same question I guess also applies to the bump stocks*)? Practice for a little while and do inverse taped magazines and your break in fire is minimal if your capacities are limited.

*for those not familiar semi auto refers to when your weapon fires one round per squeeze of the trigger and chambers the next one. Bump stocks are made such that the recoil of the previous shot aids in pulling the trigger for the next one while still technically being a semi auto weapon. Drops your accuracy somewhat but rounds do fly quicker.

 

[ThisIsDaAccount]

I don't mind discussing my thoughts on the matter, for those willing to listen. It is unfortunate that I have some of the knowledge I do, as it was primarily gained from research I've done on my own about the shooting my family was involved in and reading through the court documents and things of that nature. I just tend to avoid political topics because in this country it can often seem like both sides are too entrenched to see eye to eye with each other or compromise on their positions. Maybe it's like that everywhere and I'm just ignorant of world politics but it seems especially prevalent in the US, anyway.

I will say that the firearm my mother was shot with was a semi-automatic AK-47 style weapon, which fires a 7.62x39mm round, versus the AR-15 styled weapons that you hear about in many of the more recent mass shootings which is a .223 caliber rifle. I won't claim that I'm a huge expert on the intricacies of guns, but the style weapon she was shot with fires a larger round and has the potential cause more damage per round at the expense of greater recoil; hence the large exit wound she received that damaged her spinal cord. The shooter also had multiple other guns including semi-automatic 9mm pistols and was in possession of multiple high-capacity magazines for his rifle.

The reason I provide this level of detail is to point out that many rifles that have the appearance of a hunting rifle rather than the militarized/police-grade appearance of an AR-15 are .223 caliber so it's hard for me to say something such as "let's ban them outright" as you get into very tricky territory there. Do we ban all .223 rifles? Do we ban rifles that fire larger caliber bullets as well? What is the criteria we would use to decide if a weapon is an "assault" weapon or a "hunting rifle"? There's a lot of people of the opinion that we should get rid of the AR-15 style rifles altogether, since they appear to be the number one choice for modern mass murderers but if we did so my worry is that they would just switch to using the "next best thing" so to speak.

Previous assault weapon bans have not entirely taken into account, in my opinion, the stats (for lack of a better word) of the firearms the government wants to restrict us from owning, but instead the appearance of the guns. I think lawmakers need to get expert opinions on weapons before they start banning or restricting certain types of firearms (and those experts should not be NRA lobbyists).

In short, it's a topic I'm a bit undecided on. I certainly agree that better background checks, removing loopholes for gun show sales, and more regulation of semi-automatic weapons would be beneficial, as well as banning accessories like bump stocks (which increase the rate of fire) and high-capacity magazines. I've yet to hear an informed argument as to why a civilian would ever need 30 or more rounds of ammunition loaded into their rifle at one time. Even when hunting with a shotgun there are regulations as to how many shells you can have loaded at once, and sometimes hunters are stopped by DNR officers and asked to empty the rounds from the firearm to make sure they are in compliance. Why regulations like that seemingly don't apply to rifles as well is beyond me.

Although, if we went down the path of banning semi-automatic rifles, a bolt-action or lever-action rifle is perfectly adequate for hunting.

Thanks a lot, this is a lot of good info!

 

[huntertron1]

*bangs head on table*
why do you not look at ratings. you always look at the rateing. heck 20% of the time its just parents letting them because they dont know where the rating is, or there dumb enough to let them play. and example my 8 year old cousin. i won't let him play T or M rated games. but my grandmother lets him play it with all the sound turned down. *bangs head really hard* just read the label. i bet 50 % of parents see this instead of the whole box. if people ignores the rating then why does the ESRB exist they rate to help define the age range of certain games. rant done. *bangs head till skull broke*

 

[FAST6191]

*bangs head on table*
why do you not look at ratings. you always look at the rateing. heck 20% of the time its just parents letting them because they dont know where the rating is, or there dumb enough to let them play. and example my 8 year old cousin. i won't let him play T or M rated games. but my grandmother lets him play it with all the sound turned down. *bangs head really hard* just read the label. i bet 50 % of parents see this instead of the whole box. if people ignores the rating then why does the ESRB exist they rate to help define the age range of certain games. rant done. *bangs head till skull broke*

I am still not clear on what harm might be done to a developing mind by allowing them play a game outside the (incredibly variable within a country, never mind compared to others) age rating given to it.

 

[TotalInsanity4]

I am still not clear on what harm might be done to a developing mind by allowing them play a game outside the (incredibly variable within a country, never mind compared to others) age rating given to it.

I think it comes down to parent preference, but an argument might be made that young (like lower grade school) minds are particularly impressionable when it comes to what they find "normal," and that particularly violent games need to wait until brains have developed a bit more.

That's COMPLETELY conjecture, though, I have no imperical evidence backing that up (other than personally seeing what happens when spoiled/bratty kids play online shooters)