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?

 

[ThisIsDaAccount]

Obviously very strict tests, background checks, and questioning would be necessary before handing over a license. lol
You guys are making it difficult on your selves by thinking to hard.

Paddock wasn't a criminal. The guy's only other example of law breaking was a speeding ticket or something like that.

As for checking mental health, it isn't exact. Take a look at this experiment, which showcases the potential for false positives and false negatives. In the experiment, people first pretended to be psychologically unwell and then admitted they were fine, only to be kept in a hospital anyway. Another hospital then claimed they wanted to do the experiment themselves, and when they did they caught 20 impostors. In reality, none of them were impostors.

The problem with mental checks is that the science simply isn't there yet. You have the potential not only to miss some people, but also the possibility of infringing the second amendment rights of legitimate gun owners if those checks are then expanded to all guns. I support passing legislation to take guns from people who have already been discovered to have problems (after due process) but mandating mental checks before every gun purchase will be an infringement on the second amendment rights of some people. It's much more straight to the point to just ban semi automatic rifles, and will actually be less of of a problem than what you proposed.

 

[Navonod]

Paddock wasn't a criminal. The guy's only other example of law breaking was a speeding ticket or something like that.

As for checking mental health, it isn't exact. Take a look at this experiment, which showcases the potential for false positives and false negatives. In the experiment, people first pretended to be psychologically unwell and then admitted they were fine, only to be kept in a hospital anyway. Another hospital then claimed they wanted to do the experiment themselves, and when they did they caught 20 impostors. In reality, none of them were impostors.

The problem with mental checks is that the science simply isn't there yet. You have the potential not only to miss some people, but also the possibility of infringing the second amendment rights of legitimate gun owners if those checks are then expanded to all guns. I support passing legislation to take guns from people who have already been discovered to have problems (after due process) but mandating mental checks before every gun purchase will be an infringement on the second amendment rights of some people. It's much more straight to the point to just ban semi automatic rifles, and will actually be less of of a problem than what you proposed.

I know that but there were signs that no body picked up on. Paddock's gun purchases spiked significantly between October 2016 and September 28, 2017; he purchased over 55 firearms, the majority of them rifles, according to Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives. He also purchased a number of firearm-related accessories. Prior to that, he purchased approximately 29 firearms between 1982 and September 2016, mainly handguns and shotguns.

Obviously copied and pasted from the wiki. But no one noticed or questioned Paddock at the time of him hoarding guns? This is the kind of signs people should be looking for and investigating regardless of who gets offended.

Edit: Also taking all kinds of drugs at the same time.

 

[ThisIsDaAccount]

I know that but there were signs that no body picked up on. Paddock's gun purchases spiked significantly between October 2016 and September 28, 2017; he purchased over 55 firearms, the majority of them rifles, according to Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives. He also purchased a number of firearm-related accessories. Prior to that, he purchased approximately 29 firearms between 1982 and September 2016, mainly handguns and shotguns.

Obviously copied and pasted from the wiki. But no one noticed or questioned Paddock at the time of him hoarding guns? This is the kind of signs people should be looking for and investigating regardless of who gets offended.

Thsts true but it's not hard to come up with a legitimate use as a cover. In the last page, you mentioned collecting as a legitimate gun use. Paddock's gun purchases could be explained by saying he developed an interest in collection.

All in all, there really isn't a guarantee that he couldn't have passed the checks you bring up.

 

[Navonod]

Thsts true but it's not hard to come up with a legitimate use as a cover. In the last page, you mentioned collecting as a legitimate gun use. Paddock's gun purchases could be explained by saying he developed an interest in collection.

All in all, there really isn't a guarantee that he couldn't have passed the checks you bring up.

You're still missing the key word. "Investigate". I'm not saying look at him once and say they check out. There would need to be a follow up and so on.

 

[ThisIsDaAccount]

You're still missing the key word. "Investigate". I'm not saying look at him once and say they check out. There would need to be a follow up and so on.

Repeated checks wouldn't hold up in court, they would clearly violate the right to privacy, which is a right the Supremw Court claims is upheld by the Constitution.

I don't think your thinking about this completely wrong, but all of your proposals best around the bush. Banning semi automatic rifles is 100% the best way to do it in terms of least amount of rights violated.

 

[TotalInsanity4]

Collecting: There are many gun collectors out there. Some that have no other reason for owning a gun other than collecting and others like collecting and shooting. Rare guns can be worth thousands of dollars.

You can collect literally anything else, too. That is clearly not the primary purpose of a firearm, and I think we both know this one's an excuse at best

Conversation: Some people just like to sit around and BS about their guns. When someone gets a new gun they usually like to show it off to some of their friends. So what's wrong with that.

See above

Sporting: Target shooting is a great sport and done everyday by thousands of people. There is also combat shooting which a lot of people enjoy.

This is probably the only "fair" answer you gave in this response, but restricting gun ownership would not prevent people from using guns provided by the facility they shoot at while they are there

Hunting: Meat is a food source; We all have to eat. Some people like to hunt their own meat. Meat packers shoot those cows and pigs too. Does anyone put down a gun for that?

That's killing. I'm not interested in the semantics of whether hunting is morally good or bad (I personally have nothing against it), but you're just reinforcing that a gun's primary (and really, only) purpose is to kill

Self Defense: One never know when or where he/she is going to be in a situation where they will need to defend themselves from a fatal attack. This could be on the street on even in your own home. Face it, we need to be able to protect ourselves and we have that right to do that.

Threatening to kill

Defense for Others: Here's a scenario. Suppose you're walking past a dark alley and notice some guy holding this a knife at some ladies throat. He is trying to remove her clothing and she is terrified. Being the good citizen that you are and carrying your gun, you decide you're not going to allow this to happen. It turns out that you just had to shoot this guy because he made an attempt to stab you. You just stopped a rape and/or a murder. The lady clings onto you as you wait for the police to arrive. So who was to know that this lady was a Anti-Gun-Nut.

Same as above

Just Plain Having Fun: How many gun owners like to just go out and shoot em up. Go out to the desert or wherever and shoot at cans or anything they see (of course being lawful about it). Plinking is fun and lots of people do it. I have even known some people to pick up some of the trash they shot at left by others. So tell me how that is bad.

Believe it or not, I lived in a desert for a couple of years and did find enjoyment in using a rifle to shoot prairie dogs and glass insulators. Doesn't change the fact that there are hundreds of other ways to entertain oneself, especially when considering that one could go to a target practice facility and do the exact same thing but in safer conditions. Plus, shooting cans could be categorized as a blatant misuse of the weapon

 

[Navonod]

Again. Banning a weapon wont stop people from shooting up people were ever they choose. You might as well ban any and all guns along with your kitchenware and hardware tools.

 

[TotalInsanity4]

Again. Banning a weapon wont stop people from shooting up people were ever they choose. You might as well ban any and all guns along with your kitchenware and hardware tools.

And ban murder, while you're at it, since criminals will just break the law and do it anyway

Oh... Wait...

 

[Navonod]

And ban murder, while you're at it, since criminals will just break the law and do it anyway

Oh... Wait...

This has been my point the whole time.

 

[ThisIsDaAccount]

Again. Banning a weapon wont stop people from shooting up people were ever they choose. You might as well ban any and all guns along with your kitchenware and hardware tools.

Not everyone has access to the black market, so it will stop some people. The majority, in fact. All of the past mass shooters who used them bought them legally.

Furthermore, the same can be said for everything you're advocating for. If you force mental checks on every purchase, you won't stop them all, and you'll block some legitimate citizens from purchasing due to false positives. Furthermore, routine checking amounts to a violation of privacy.

I'm not saying to ban all guns. I would hate that to happen. Just ban the ones that cause mass shootings in the hands of people who legally bought them and we can call it a day.

 

[TotalInsanity4]

This has been my point the whole time.

I worded it poorly, but what I'm trying to get across is that while, no, banning heavy firearms isn't going to completely get rid of crime, it WILL stop at least a portion of it and will make it easier for law enforcement to move in earlier.

 

[ThisIsDaAccount]

I worded it poorly, but what I'm trying to get across is that while, no, banning heavy firearms isn't going to completely get rid of crime, it WILL stop at least a portion of it and will make it easier for law enforcement to move in earlier.

This is my argument as well, with the added point that it's actually the route that will violate the least Second Amendment rights.

 

[kuwanger]

Banning a weapon wont stop people from shooting up people were ever they choose.

If the only acceptable solution is one that's 100% foolproof, I guess we shouldn't worry about North Korea having nuclear weapons*. For that matter, we shouldn't even bother to guard are only stockpile of nuclear weapons. Or ban civilians from owning nuclear weapons, since everything in your list would apply there. Same with most weapons. I can only imagine the joy of a video game that was all about collecting the various makes and models of nuclear weapons and delivery devices. So long as we don't see any blood, we can launch WWIII and it can be G rated!

* For the record, I think North Korea has as much right to nuclear weapons as the US, Russia, France, the UK, India, Pakistan, and Israel. For all the efforts to reduce the nuclear arms stockpile, the history of first surface "tests" of nuclear arms to the repeated situations where WWIII nearly happened, to the concerns of what sort of mental instability it would take to actually launch a nuclear weapon--be it the President down to the actual person at the bottom--, it's disturbing how many people don't recognize how close we still are to midnight. Oh, and yea, the people with the launch keys are supposed to go through extensive training and checks for mental illness. Funny how we've yet to have an accidental launch from that but mental checks for guns is just a non-starter. Then again, if there have been instances where one mentally unstable person tried to launch and their partner stopped them, do you think the government would acknowledge it?

 

[Navonod]

Not everyone has access to the black market, so it will stop some people. The majority, in fact. All of the past mass shooters who used them bought them legally.

Furthermore, the same can be said for everything you're advocating for. If you force mental checks on every purchase, you won't stop them all, and you'll block some legitimate citizens from purchasing due to false positives. Furthermore, routine checking amounts to a violation of privacy.

I'm not saying to ban all guns. I would hate that to happen. Just ban the ones that cause mass shootings in the hands of people who legally bought them and we can call it a day.

The way I see it, if you're acting out of the ordinary you need to be monitored. And seriously there are cameras at every stop light or anywhere else you could imagine. Your internet is being monitored as well. Also I never said mental checks would be needed for every gun purchase. Maybe around a license renewal and if they want to be butt hurt about it then so be it. You can't make everyone happy.

 

[Randy95354]

I dont see what the big deal is sounds like hes just saying some games are too violent for kids and they are wouldnt want my 8 year old playing games cussing and dismembering bodies so they need to be more restricted like porn makes sense.

 

[Navonod]

If the only acceptable solution is one that's 100% foolproof, I guess we shouldn't worry about North Korea having nuclear weapons*. For that matter, we shouldn't even bother to guard are only stockpile of nuclear weapons. Or ban civilians from owning nuclear weapons, since everything in your list would apply there. Same with most weapons. I can only imagine the joy of a video game that was all about collecting the various makes and models of nuclear weapons and delivery devices. So long as we don't see any blood, we can launch WWIII and it can be G rated!

* For the record, I think North Korea has as much right to nuclear weapons as the US, Russia, France, the UK, India, Pakistan, and Israel. For all the efforts to reduce the nuclear arms stockpile, the history of first surface "tests" of nuclear arms to the repeated situations where WWIII nearly happened, to the concerns of what sort of mental instability it would take to actually launch a nuclear weapon--be it the President down to the actual person at the bottom--, it's disturbing how many people don't recognize how close we still are to midnight. Oh, and yea, the people with the launch keys are supposed to go through extensive training and checks for mental illness. Funny how we've yet to have an accidental launch from that but mental checks for guns is just a non-starter. Then again, if there have been instances where one mentally unstable person tried to launch and their partner stopped them, do you think the government would acknowledge it?

You're just escalating what I said. Good try though. There is a really good reason people shouldn't have nukes or any weapon of mass destruction. lol
Nukes are built with the intent of death and destruction and have no other use with out harming the planet.

 

[ThisIsDaAccount]

The way I see it, if you're acting out of the ordinary you need to be monitored. And seriously there are cameras at every stop light or anywhere else you could imagine. Your internet is being monitored as well. Also I never said mental checks would be needed for every gun purchase. Maybe around a license renewal and if they want to be butt hurt about it then so be it. You can't make everyone happy.

Everything that you mention is a flagrant violation of the constitutional right to privacy, and should not be happening (regardless of whether it is currently happening, some of which it is). It's a bigger slap in the face to law abiding citizens than just banning semi automatic rifles.

Just out of curiousity, which of these do you think should be banned for personal use and commercial sales:

-machine guns
-bazookas
-tanks

 

[Xzi]

I dont see what the big deal is sounds like hes just saying some games are too violent for kids and they are wouldnt want my 8 year old playing games cussing and dismembering bodies so they need to be more restricted like porn makes sense.

We've already got the ESRB and it's on parents to keep kids from playing M rated games. So in other words he's proposing no change, and is trying to point the finger for gun violence at games while simultaneously sucking off the NRA.

 

[TotalInsanity4]

We've already got the ESRB and it's on parents to keep kids from playing M rated games. So in other words he's proposing no change, and is trying to point the finger for gun violence at games while simultaneously sucking off the NRA.

That

 

[kuwanger]

You're just escalating what I said. Good try though. There is a really good reason people shouldn't have nukes or any weapon of mass destruction. lol

The same could be said for machine guns. Or land mines. Or bombs in general. Or armored tanks. And I'm talking all people, include the military. Seriously, it's unclear to me why we consider some chemicals, some biological life, et WMDs. Sure, hypothetically they could be. They're more uncontrollable area of effect weapons with potential chain reaction areas. Strap a machine gun to a robot and you have something similar. Strap a machine gun to a mentally unstable enough person, and it's questionable what you have.

Nukes are built with the intent of death and destruction and have no other use with out harming the planet.

You do realize that's the argument behind what guns are for, right? Besides, they could be used for a variety of things without "harming the planet"--think things like extreme fracking. Not that we actually care about "harming the planet". We sometimes care about harming life on the planet, but usually only if it'll effect us. But if we really care about it, we'd get rid of nuclear weapons because inherently the only way to verify a nuclear weapon is to do some degree of actual testing of the actual nuclear device. Ie, we set off one out of every 100 or 1000 every so many decades. Everything else and we're just crossing our fingers that our computer models and diagnosis tests are accurate. If all we've got is potential duds that we can't ever verify, then why are we even bothering with the ruse and spending all the money?

Regardless, if you can acknowledge that nukes shouldn't be owned by civilians, then really any argument on a purpose of guns to overthrow a corrupt government go out the window. Same thing with the use of nukes merely as a deterrent because if it supposedly works against other governments, it should work between civilians and government. At some level, their existent hinges upon the notion that the collateral damage from their potential use is acceptable because "the other" would be perfectly willing to use them. Well, that's also why we can't ban guns, right?