http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/2013-02-01-shooters-how-video-games-fund-arms-manufacturers This is an extremely well written and researched piece, highlighting the fact that while *violence* between guns and videogames may not be linked, videogames are effectively used to market guns to children in the same way that cigarettes used to be. my favorite bit:
Great article, thanks. A couple years ago, when I became interested in guns again after about 15 years, I was surprised to see that that the vast majority of interest in guns these days seems to revolve around the AR15 platform and a lot of the other military style "black" polymer-based rifles rather than the wood and steel guns I grew up with and loved. I asked a few different gun store owners why this was, and none of them hesitated to tell me that it is because the newer generation of gun enthusiasts grew up on and still play the military themed shooters that featured these guns, so that's what a gun is to them, whereas I grew up with much older style rifles that were often designed 100 or more years ago, so that's what a gun is to me. I absolutely see how manufacturers benefit greatly from video game licensing. Edit: at no point did their reasons involve home defense or real or perceived superiority for such usage, which is counter to the justification that I often hear from owners. Have I raged about what a terrible shot my stereotypical AR tactilol owner is? If I see a guy half prone shooting a target at 10 yards with optics, 9 times out of ten he will have a tricked out AR, and he won't be sighting in his optics.
I have a buddy who decided he wanted an "M4". He got an AR-15, but constantly talks about it as an M4 and how it's his favorite gun ever even before he ever had shot one in real life. I always assumed it was because he had played a lot of Counter Strike.
It doesn't just apply to firearms- I would totally buy a Beatco Big Frigger power fist if I could. DAMN YOU BLACK ISLE STUDIOS
The thing I've always found weird when it comes to weapons is that they don't require the developers to model them realistically when it comes to performance. I guess the same is true of branded cars though.
Something I'm curious about, the part where they say that the licensing fee is usually 5 to 10 percent of the retail price. Is that based on the game's MSRP, or whatever each specific copy of the game is sold for? Such as when it's on sale for $29 or less. I was wondering why the Call of Duty series is never heavily discounted, and I guess this is part of the answer.
A couple months ago I was at the range and the guy at the stall next to me had a KRISS Super V pistol (there's also a Non-Restricted version with an 18.5" barrel). He said the reason he bought it was because it was cool looking and kids would recognize it from games like Call of Duty. Sure enough a bit later a father brought his young son (probably around 12-years-old) to the range and the kid saw the KRISS Super V from playing Call of Duty. I hadn't known about the gun until I saw it that day and now I would love to get one (albeit the Non-Restricted version).
I dunno, I'm not really disturbed our outraged by this. High performance cars are much the same thing, and your average 13 year old isn't going to get his hands on one of them either. Does it influence what gun someone might purchase, sure, but they still have to want to purchase a gun in the first place. And if they are of age, and the weapon is legal and they have all the required permits, then I don't see a problem. It's not like shooting a gun is bad for your health. (When done safely) Unlike say, cigarettes, where there is no way to safely smoke one.
It's not for you to be disturbed or outraged. It just shows that it's pretty much bullshit for the NRA or whoever to view video games as the problem when they're using them as the vector.
If you're gonna be wielding a stupid-looking gun, it might as well be one of these: Because then you can:
What I'm implying is that it's all just fantasy stuff. Sure it might help sell merchandise, but I'm not worried little timmy is going to go out and steal a gun because one was featured in a game or movie. If you wanted to argue that the laws aren't strong enough to stop said kid from getting a gun or something, sure, but I just don't see the outrage because a game has real gun models in it. Unlike advertising cigarettes to kids, guns are not addictive, and owning and firing one doesn't harm your health. (Unless you use it incorrectly, but if you wanted to quibble about gun safety and/or training that's something else.) It's even more of a non-argument if you consider that the games with real life weapon models also tend to be rated 18+
17+ unless you are a filthy euro, and even then, ain't no store going to deny a 14 or 15 year old with cash. Also, I'm pretty sure you didn't read the article.
Really? Because it looks a lot less stupid than a P90 (Though I will admit that the guy in that picture is holding it pretty stupidly. That stock should be against your body, dude.).
Sure, I'm surprised any time a single store does it. But the reality is that it still doesn't matter.
I did read the article, though honestly a good deal of it is useless padding, like the history of the Barret company and the rifle, I don't see what that has to do with the authors point.
It's one of the rare new firearm designs to come out in years. The way it works is that it takes the blow back kinetic force from the fired cartridge and diverts it downward so there's little to no upward kick, which is great for the full-auto version. Here in Canada because uses Glock .45 pistol magazines it uses the 10-round pistol magazines as opposed to 5-round rifle magazines.
I fired a civilian version of the P90, the semi-automatic PS-90 with a 18.5" barrel (thus classified as Non-Restricted but still has a 5-round maximum capacity magazine (out of 50 rounds)). It's goddamn expensive (around $3000) because of importing fees and such and the ammo is just as expensive (around $1/round) due to only one Canadian importer. There is no kick.
Yes. I'm sure it's a fine enough gun. Probably the dumbest one I've ever seen. All great news! Still looks dumb. If I'm looking for a weird looking gun, I'm gonna go for the pp90m1.
It may be dumb looking but it's ergonomic and ambidextrous. In Jagged Alliance 2 we had the Calico rifle, which seems even more unwieldy than the PP90.
Bah, for weird looking rifles, I think the Steyr Aug takes the cake. There was even a chinese movie (I think it was the Black Mask) where the bad guys shot weird magic beams from it:
Every gun-related thread that involves US citizens inevitably devolves into talking about the kind of guns they'd like to own. Which ties into video games as gun marketing perfectly.
Eric is Canadian, so I'd like to see a little more shared responsibility in terms of agents provocateur.
All the guns I listed I wouldn't want to own. The Steyr Aug being the closest to worth owning, but the double barreled pistol or the zip gun? No thanks. I wouldn't mind having a nail gun though.
I am so damn jealous. Most of my love is how unbalanced it was in the Fallout 2 because they fucked up the ammo modelling.
Yes, I agree. 5 rounds only in a 50-round magazine (not "clip" :P) seems to be a waste especially when each round is about $1 each. But that's the law here... At the range guns like the PS-90 are called the "Range Queens" because they are rare and look desirable but can only be seen at the range.
Books influence people. Theater influences people. Music influences people. Art influences people. Discourse influences people. How can we claim that games do not influence people? I believe that violent video games inspire violent acts. We can't admit to it lest we be deprived of our favorite gore porn. But we are dishonest. I love me some JA2 and so I have held the hand that pulled the trigger at Columbine. At Newtown. Je m'accuse.
