back to article NRA: Video games kill people, not guns. And here's our video game

Just weeks after the vice-president of the US National Rifle Association blamed video games for gun crime, the outspoken organisation has released an iPhone video game. NRA: Practice Range is a first-person shooter available from the iTunes Store as a free app for iPads as well as Apple smartmobes. It incorporates a live feed …

COMMENTS

This topic is closed for new posts.

Page:

        1. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          @Alpha

          Military and self defence targets with the purpose of helping a soldier or someone who wishes to be prepared to defend themselves/family to get a good grouping in the right areas to stop an assailant.

          Personally I prefer knock down targets and paper targets with scoring rings to improve my accuracy as I go to the range for a relaxing shoot. Something I find very good at relieving stress. Not because I can shoot something to bits, that will only work you up. But instead to control your breathing, improve your concentration, practice hand-eye coordination and do so in a respectful and enjoyable environment.

          If any gun nutters come in (never seen one) they are directed to the door. Instead I see people who shoot for a variety of pleasant reasons as a social event in a nice environment.

          1. Skizz

            Re: @Alpha

            "Personally I prefer knock down targets and paper targets with scoring rings to improve my accuracy as I go to the range for a relaxing shoot. Something I find very good at relieving stress."

            Well, if that's all you want to do, then why not leave the gun at the range? No need to take it home with you. You get to keep the right to let off a few rounds, everyone else gets the right to stay alive - sorted!

            1. Matt Bryant Silver badge
              Facepalm

              Re: @Alpha

              "......Well, if that's all you want to do, then why not leave the gun at the range?...." And what if you bought the gun for self-defence - going by statistics, in the States the place you're least likely to need to defend yourself is the range!

              1. Anonymous Coward
                Anonymous Coward

                @Matt B, Re: @Alpha

                "......Well, if that's all you want to do, then why not leave the gun at the range?...." And what if you bought the gun for self-defence - going by statistics, in the States the place you're least likely to need to defend yourself is the range!

                Am I the only one noticing that you just completely ignored the point Alpha was making? He simply stated that people who just have guns for the explicitly stated purpose of making holes in innocent targets on a range could leave the gun there. In many countries this is actually the preferred approach to gun ownership, but it does present other problems (cleaning, storage, extra security against burglaries etc).

                As for needing a gun to "defend yourself at home", that's exactly the kind of circular argument that the NRA continues to promote against the evidence of other nations where registration and even reduction of ownership was brought in, knowing full well that more uncontrolled guns means the chances of an armed assault increase, thus conveniently fuelling sales. Not exactly a surprise.

                Incidentally, why do you need to defend yourself at home? No police around? Bad place to live (above the statistical mean)? Have you considered moving as an option? Expecting terrorists?

            2. Anonymous Coward
              Anonymous Coward

              @Skizz

              Great idea if you know nothing about guns. I mean that honestly because it does sound like a great idea at first. But a range is open for a limited amount of time and you go to do what you went for, to shoot.

              If you cant take the gun home then you require the club to have additional facilities for cleaning and maintenance. While a lot of people will just clean, there are those (still quite a few) who will need to disassemble the gun. We can all buy the tools but then more storage is needed, or tools can be supplied but thats a lot of variations of various tools for various model guns from various countries.

              Then there are customisations which people do to the trigger/sights/etc. Sometimes the gun needs taking to a shop/workshop other times its a home job. If your comfortable pulling apart and rebuilding the gun you may not be comfortable not doing it yourself. Just as a mechanic may service his own vehicle.

              So I appreciate the idea but it doesnt work.

              Then there is the right to self defence in the US. People still die through many ways to die, but criminals still shoot people and more violent crimes are committed as is often the way when only the criminal is allowed to be armed. Wanting to disarm potential victims is counter intuitive.

              1. Mooseman Silver badge

                Re: @Skizz

                @ AC

                Are you then saying that in states where carrying concealed weapons is permitted there is no criminal gun activity?

                1. Anonymous Coward
                  Anonymous Coward

                  Re: @Mooseman

                  No but in the UK we have gun crime and really sick home invasions where old people are raped/robbed/harmed. We have people killed in their own homes but generally we dont want to discuss the lack of home defence. Instead we call in the police after the event.

                  We also have issues with other weapons because they are easier to obtain, but we have victims with no hope of self defence.

                  The argument can be made very simple- will it stop crime by disarming potential victims and make them easier to harm/rob/rape? The police are necessary but they dont stop these crimes. They come in after the crime. So who is going to save you when the criminal is already illegally armed and your legally disarmed. Who survives? Who has the best chance to survive?

                  1. Alpha Tony

                    Re: @AC@Mooseman

                    Are you genuinely from the UK AC? I'm not convinced you really are, but if so then you are in a really, really tiny minority. British people are overwhelmingly in favour of strict gun control and I guarantee you that if you asked 1000 at random ~99% would say that relaxing gun control here would make them feel less safe.

                    1. Anonymous Coward
                      Anonymous Coward

                      @Alpha Tony

                      I am in the UK but I do know I am in the minority. A friend introduced me to shooting and I admit to having the same clueless numpty beliefs that they were gonna be nutters with huge guns wanting to blow shit up. However I have been to a few ranges and have yet to see a single nutter. Not one person I expected to see has yet materialised and the story is the same for a lot of people who got introduced to shooting.

                      In the UK we are badly misinformed. We see stories of shootings but much less about the many violent crimes we have come to accept. But thats ok because its not a gun and guns are bad coz thats the general consensus.

                      I feel bad having a go at those anti-gun without a clue (most against shooting) people because its just that they havnt a clue and regurgitate the rubbish they have been told. A very good example is of my family. None of them shoot and are absolutely against it except my grandad who was in the army and my grandma (other side) who has handled air guns (but wont shoot). My mother is absolutely blind, like a lot of anti gun nutters, and assumes only nutters go shooting and its too scary for her to think of shooting. My dad disapproved on similar grounds until after 3 years of offering he went. I think he expected to prove me wrong but when he came back it wasnt the experience he expected.

                      He has been to the range twice with me and isnt really interested, because he found my semi-auto air pistol more enjoyable than having to reload the rifles each shot. However he actually tries to persuade my mother to go because she is so badly wrong it is shocking.

                      So I agree with you about what you say. But I know the reason why it is true and why it is wrong. Imagine the country being 99% creationist and you are part of the 1% who know better? This is why I recommend people go to the range before commenting. There will still be people against guns, but they will actually have a reason. There will also be a massive relaxation as people realise that what they oppose is a monster under the bed that exists in their minds.

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        I wasn't aware pixels, textures, and models were considered "people" now.

        No wonder old people look so jaggy, flat, and talk about the war so much. They were probably in Wolfenstein 3D.

  1. Shonko Kid
    Go

    "the most authentic experience possible"

    If it's that good, you won't be needing real guns anymore.

    Problem solved.

    1. Matt Bryant Silver badge
      FAIL

      Re: "the most authentic experience possible"

      ".....you won't be needing real guns anymore...." I'm told Second Life is a perfectly good environment for those that can't hack it in the real World, so I asume my pointing that out means we'll be spared anymore comments you?

  2. David Webb

    I been gaming for years, including the hyper violent "Worms" series of games, can't recall ever going out and killing anybody though, could be a bit on the difficult side to kill someone with a game though, unless the disc was really sharp like a shiruken. Guns don't kill people, bullets kill people, so they should keep guns legal (as is their right) but make bullets illegal, problem solved (over the next 100 years, 12 million Americans will die because of guns, compared to less than 1,000 Japanese......)

    1. Flawless101
      Joke

      Worms is probably a bad example, have you never felt your blood boil like you had just seen the white whale when one of the NPCs hits you with a bazooka while you are in a cave, with two S bends then a hairpin at the end.... then they do the same with a grenade.

    2. Sorry that handle is already taken. Silver badge

      Shurikens!

      Out of boredom I once used a hole punch on the entire edge of a CD. It turned out to be a little more dangerous than I'd expected.

    3. Crisp

      Re: Hyper violent "Worms"

      Send in an exploding sheep.

      Problem solved.

    4. JDX Gold badge

      >>I been gaming for years, including the hyper violent "Worms" series of games, can't recall ever going out and killing anybody though

      Your argument is like a nonagenarian smoker claiming that because they haven't developed cancer, smoking doesn't kill.

      1. The BigYin

        Wassa matter JDX, get out of the wrong side of bed this morning?

        1. Dave 126 Silver badge

          @JDX

          'Worms'... its a variation on Scorched Earth with small cute worms and tongue in cheek references to war films. In terms of graphic violence, its on a par with plastic toy soldiers. However, it might tempt you to smack the smirk off your mate's face after he's just bungie-roped across the map to uppercut your last worm into the sea.

      2. Law
        Trollface

        @ JDX

        It's getting to be like this almost every article. :)

        http://www.quickmeme.com/meme/3slapk/

    5. Matt Bryant Silver badge
      FAIL

      ".....over the next 100 years, 12 million Americans will die because of guns...." Far more people will die from automobile accidents, so I presume you'll be swallowing your own medicine and walking everywhere form now, right?

      1. David Webb

        @Matt Bryant - fuck no, I'm a motorbikerist, walking is for car owners. Anyhow, I figured I'd look at some figures.

        In 2011 a massive 32,367 people in the US died due to automotive accidents. By 2015 it's estimated that deaths by firearm will top 33,000 (cars get safer, guns get more deadly) so over the next 100 years as cars get safer (and start to drive themselves improving safety again) the number of people dying will steadily drop so over 100 years.... far less people will die from car accidents than will die from firearm related incidents, including but not limited to, using a gun as a hammer.

        1. Sir Runcible Spoon

          Fatal flaw in argument

          Are a lot of 'fatal automobile accidents' a result of someone hitting a pedestrian with a car?

          1. David Webb
            Coat

            Re: Fatal flaw in argument

            No sir, most of them are the result of people shooting the person driving the car which then causes it to crash (statement may or may not be true or false.....)

          2. Matt Bryant Silver badge
            FAIL

            Re: Fatal flaw in argument

            Of course there were plenty of pedestrians killed by cars, 5600 killed and 80,000 injured each year in the US alone (one half are under the age of 15). If you meant "how many were DELIBERATELY run over" then please try and pretend there has NEVER been a case of anyone using a car as a weapon (I'm guessing there's a lot of pretence going on in your life). Ignoring road-rage incidents alone, we have plenty of premeditated use of vehicles as weapons - http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/police-release-full-details-of-14-victims-of-hitandrun-rampage-through-cardiff-that-killed-woman-32-8218877.html, http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/crime/7734033/Minicab-driver-deliberately-ran-down-pedestrian-who-squirted-drink-at-his-cab.html, http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1389183/Driver-deliberately-ploughed-nightclub-crowd-injuring-20-jailed-indefinitely.html

            Please think more before tryping.

            1. Sir Runcible Spoon
              Facepalm

              Re: Fatal flaw in argument

              Matt, are you suggesting then that all the other road fatalities are deliberate in order to be counted? Or that all gun killings were deliberate? Perhaps you like building straw men in your spare time.

              "I'm guessing there's a lot of pretence going on in your life"

              Seriously, just fuck off with the personal diatribe, admittedly you are a first class troll but you are also just plain boring, you have no style.

              "Please think more before tryping."

              FFS :)

              1. Matt Bryant Silver badge
                Happy

                Re: Fatal flaw in argument

                "Matt, are you suggesting then that all the other road fatalities are deliberate in order to be counted? Or that all gun killings were deliberate?...." No, I was merely pointing out that more people died in car accidents, so if the whole idea of banning guns is to save lives then banning cars is even more appropriate. Well, that's if you're a politician pretending the whole thing is about saving lives. You might even wipe away a pretend tear at the press conference.

                ".....you have no style....." Touchy, aren't we! Let's try some Obambi-style politician speak:

                I am deeply and profoundly disturbed to find that you are struggling to deal with the complex issues raised by the realisation that not everyone shares your disregard for the rights of legal gun-owners. Whilst it is not the time or place to talk about failures and responsibilities, I know that high emotions often lead to disagreemnt when discussing such fundamental issues as the topic in hand. I empathise with your struggle to comprehend and I am moved to say that I will personally ensure that I will do everything in my power to ensure your discomfort doesn't last a moment longer than the situation requires.

                Is that complete brush-off stylish enough for you?

            2. Psyx
              Holmes

              Re: Fatal flaw in argument

              "Please think more before tryping."

            3. James Micallef Silver badge
              Facepalm

              Re: Fatal flaw in argument

              "how many were DELIBERATELY run over"?

              I'm sure SOME were deliberately run over, but a lot less automobile deaths are deliberate than accidental. With firearms, only a few casualties are accidental and most are deliberate.

              Also, people need a license and insurance to drive a car, so why not to own firearms?

            4. Chad H.

              Re: Fatal flaw in argument (Cars...)

              The difference of course with Cars is that Cars are designed to minimise the risk of injury to both bystanders and occupants

              The same cannot be said for those targeted by a gun.

              1. Matt Bryant Silver badge
                Happy

                Re: Fatal flaw in argument (Cars...)

                "The difference of course with Cars is that Cars are designed to minimise the risk of injury to both bystanders and occupants...." Going by the accident figures, there are still more people dying in car accidents than are kileld by guns in America, so if your only concern is saving lives then cars would seem the obvious one to ban. Or would that upset too many voters?

        2. Matt Bryant Silver badge
          Facepalm

          ".....and start to drive themselves...." So you'll only be walking until they start driving themselves then?

          1. BorkedAgain
            Trollface

            Another difference with cars...

            ...is that cars are designed to carry people and payloads from one place to another. That's their purpose, and it's what they do well. If used as a weapon (or even if causing injury through accident) it's as a side-effect of their primary purpose - the fact that they are heavy and move fairly quickly and hence have potential to do damage.

            Guns are designed to kill people. That's what they're for, and it's what they do best. Okay, you can use one to hammer a nail into a wall, or to abseil down a ventilation shaft, or to scratch an itch in the small of your back, but you're not using the tool to its best effect. It's designed to be used to kill people with the greatest ease and efficiency possible.

            There you go, Matt. More lovely troll food. Mmm...

          2. David Webb

            ".....and start to drive themselves...." So you'll only be walking until they start driving themselves then?

            As I pointed out, I don't drive cars, nor do I shoot people, or own a gun, but I have no desire to actually get my car licence (I'm happy with my motorbike licence). Your argument was that more people die in car accidents in the US and that over 100 years more people would have died from car accidents than from shooting accidents. My counterpoint was that in 2 years more people in the US will die from gun related incidents than from car related incidents.

            Your entire argument about cars is a moot point, cars are getting safer and safer all the time, hopefully within 100 years the annual fatalities from motor vehicles will be in the triple or even double digits in the US whilst the gun related fatalities will still be in the six digits per year. Or in other words, the argument about cars killing more people doesn't hold any water and is about as logical as blaming videogames for violence.

        3. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          Car safety??

          @David, as cars get safer (and start to drive themselves improving safety again)

          You're on a tech site and utter the assumption that v1 of that software will be bug free? That's almost as brave as not wearing a bullet proof vest when Matt is around :)

      2. Naughtyhorse

        12 million Americans will die because of guns

        it's not anough i say!

        only serious

      3. Psyx
        Facepalm

        "Far more people will die from automobile accidents, so I presume you'll be swallowing your own medicine and walking everywhere form now, right?"

        What kind of straw man kind of argument is that?!

        1. Matt Bryant Silver badge
          Boffin

          Re: Psyx

          ""Far more people will die from automobile accidents, so I presume you'll be swallowing your own medicine and walking everywhere form now, right?" What kind of straw man kind of argument is that?!"

          A perfectly valid one if you are pushing a handgun ban as a way to save lives.

          1. Psyx
            Mushroom

            Re: Psyx

            No, Matt: It's not.

            It's a stupid, diversionary straw-man. At least try to remain vaguely coherent.

            And as an aside, we have a handgun ban here. Funnily enough there have been no mass shootings involving handguns since. So it seems to have worked.

      4. Mooseman Silver badge

        "Far more people will die from automobile accidents, so I presume you'll be swallowing your own medicine and walking everywhere form now, right?"

        I think you missed the important word in your own post there Matt - "ACCIDENTS"

        Life isn't 100% safe, we all tend to die of something. I would prefer it not to be some tw@t with a gun who thinks his right to bear arms is more important than other people's lives.

        1. Matt Bryant Silver badge
          FAIL

          ".....other people's lives." So the only "other people's lives" that count are the ones that get murdered? Wow, isn't that convenient. But doesn't it give the lie to the statement the idea of banning guns is to save lives.

  3. Flawless101
    Meh

    What irks me about their argument

    Here's a good read by Erik Kain,

    http://www.forbes.com/sites/erikkain/2013/01/15/killing-pixels-why-the-nra-shooting-range-app-wont-you-violent-but-neither-will-call-of-duty/

    If you can't be bothered to click through this is basically the crux of it,

    "My primary quarrel with the NRA on violent video games is simply this: violent video games are everywhere but the only place where regular mass shootings occur (at schools, theaters, etc.) is the United States."

    I just wonder what it'll actually take for culture to change.

    1. DJ Smiley
      Facepalm

      Re: What irks me about their argument

      Indeed.

      Israel. No mass shootings of children by raging teens for over 10 years!

      1. g e
        Coat

        Re: What irks me about their argument

        Only cos they're not allowed to drive tanks into Gaza at that age...

        1. Matt Bryant Silver badge
          FAIL

          Re: What irks me about their argument

          "Only cos they're not allowed to drive tanks into Gaza at that age..." So you base your denial of a verifiable fact on anti-Semitic prejudice? Great example of why the conversation should be left to the adults.

          1. James Hughes 1

            Re: What irks me about their argument @Matt

            I believe the Gaza comment was what's commonly known as a 'joke' *

            A bit like the NRA.

            * "something said or done to provoke laughter or cause amusement, as a witticism, a short and amusing anecdote, or a prankish act"

            1. Matt Bryant Silver badge
              FAIL

              Re: What irks me about their argument @Matt

              "I believe the Gaza comment was what's commonly known as a 'joke' ...." OK, so if black people were the subject - say something equally stupid and slanderous as "black kids don't stab white kids because they can't afford the busfare over to the white kids' neighbourhoods" (don't laugh, I actually heard that once in London) - you still wouldn't consider it as probably motivated by prejudice?

          2. funkymonkey
            Facepalm

            Re: What irks me about their argument

            Comedic criticism of Israel doesn't equal anti-semitism, muppet

            1. Matt Bryant Silver badge
              Facepalm

              Re: Re: What irks me about their argument

              "Comedic criticism of Israel doesn't equal anti-semitism, muppet" See my previous example of substituting black for Israeli, see how much you approve then.

          3. Naughtyhorse

            Re: What irks me about their argument

            how anti semitic?

            AFAIK hamas do not posess any tanks.

            if they did there would be peace in the middle east (no israel see)

Page:

This topic is closed for new posts.

Other stories you might like