Walley said:
oh I read it..
but whether I believed it or not is a different story.
that article to me just reeks of opinions and scarce on sources. there was nothing I saw there that convince me otherwise.
Poisoning the well fallacy. I can see you're trying to discredit the source based on speculative opinion - but your views are just that, opinion. You will find numerous sources will back up the fact games companies do pay arms manufacturers royalties.
You'll have to provide proof to the contrary given I've already supplied some rather than your unsupported 'doubts'.
Walley said:
but really, setting that aside, even if gun manufacturers where making and selling pc games themselves.. what does it matter in a country so full of guns and attitudes that every citizen needs and should carry weapons on them at all times?
and that they have a right to carry weapons in public places.
they don't have to promote it or advertise..
I thought you were a Canadian?
Or are you turning this into an anti-American sentiment which isn't even relevant, given the games industry is a worldwide community?
Red herring fallacy. I'm British. These games are purchaseable in places besides America, say, the whole of Europe?
Walley said:
do you really honestly think that if all shooting games and advertising was banned, that gun sales would go down? or R&D is going slow down?
they just want them to buy their gun instead of a competitor, but someone buying a gun is gonna buy one.
Strawman argument fallacy. Nowhere in my post does it say "shooting games and advertising" should be "banned" (nowhere does it say advertisement, actually).
You're also appealing to an imaginary funder of guns who would fill in this 36 million (or 100 million) black hole, but without providing evidence as to who would 'fill in' this drop in finances. Please be aware the US military is making spending cutbacks, and the US government is in excess of $16 trillion debt and has already had one government shutdown recently due to financial issues. Speculative opinion is not an actual iron-clad guarentee they could recoup such losses instantly or immediately.
By your own arguments logic, you might as well murder someone because if you don't do it, someone else will do it for you. Likewise, you're arguing that if you don't help cover the arms industry's costs, someone else will do it for you.
Appeal to popularity: you don't have to do what other people do. There's a game like that, called Lemmings.
Walley said:
here in Canada, we play the same games and we see the same ads pushing brands, yet it hasn't affected sales or availability of them around here..
lately in the news here we have been hearing of the rise in gun issues at the American border. the more time passes since 9/11 and the security measures put in place since then, the more they seem to forget. on a daily bases Canadian border guards find Americans trying to drive across the border with loaded guns in the car. not only that, but they protest and think they have a right as if Canada is just another state and they cannot comprehend why they aren't aloud. as if everywhere else in the world is in a police state like they seem to be.
This is more anti-American sentiment which isn't relevant to my point.
My point is gamers should not be funding any kind of arms technology.
For the record, Beretta are Italian.
Several other arms manufacturers are German (EG Heckler and Koch), and British.
Here's a complete list of arm manufacturers and their locales:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_modern_armament_manufacturers
Walley said:
but don't blame video games, TV or movies or rock & roll..
You've made another strawman argument. The argument is not 'do games cause Americans to be loaded to the teeth', it's 'gamers should not fund the arms industry'. Especially if they want to condemn other people for using weapons, or wars.
Again, irrelevant anti-American diatribe (not based on facts so much as overgeneralised stereotypes not even pertinent to the debate). You've not even disputed that the funds go into the arms industry, but appealing to a helpless dog sentiment that you have no impact.
Can you, conscienciously, as a person, feel okay, with knowing that funds used on a game you've purchased, has gone to an arms industry unit who, in their effort to win government contracts, will use that money to produce better weapons to government spec (IE better at killing people) and thus produce events like "collateral murder" (the shooting of reporters and children which is viewable on youtube if you wish to ascertain for yourself)? Not 'what if my government' pays them, not if some 'mysterious financier' pays them, but you?
It's not whether or not someone else will somehow fill the void with questionable economic practices, it's not if gaming is right or wrong, but whether or not you can sleep soundly knowing your funds aids weapons that kill - classically innocent - people?
Doesn't matter if it's games. If it was sweets that paid royalties, or a book that paid royalties my argument would be the same. You need to phase out of the 'games kill people' mentality and focus on the 'my money I'm paying to games is killing people'. Not the game per se, it's who gets paid by it.
Remember, my solution was to boycott non-compliant games (not ban shooting games). As pointed out, it's not even necessary for games to pay those royalties if they just use generic terms in guns. Rename the guns and don't pay royalties. Play the same game.
And just so you know where I sit, I have a games programming degree.
