News EA ceases all gun-brand licence deals

Uh

Colt and Bushmaster are two separate brands.. but whatever.

 

You can buy a Sniper Rifle in the US?! What kind of self defense argument is there to own a Sniper Rifle?!

 

It's just like those people who have anti air artilery in the back garden.

We are though talking about a country that allows a 5 year old to shoot guns, and be able to kill his sister with that gun.

Civilians do not need Sniper Rifles or Assault Rifles etc but since the American Goverment seems to think that mass shootings are not a problem, it will never change.


Article about 5 year old from The Guardian

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/video/2013/may/03/five-year-old-shoots-toddler-sister-rifle-video

Sorry but it can be prepared for by not giving a 5 year old a gun let alone a loaded gun.

 

Doesn't everyone prefer crazy made up guns anyway? The AR2's way more satisfying to fire than some generic call of duty thing with a name like a fridge/freezer.

 

Not that you should need an argument, but you'd buy a precise long ranged rifle for hunting or sport.

Pretty sure killing children is still illegal... overexhaggerate much?

How many of the recent mass shootings were done with "sniper rifles" or "assault rifles"?

Oh god what am I doing it's another gun law discussion on a tech site.

 

Hmmmm. Your username tells me that you are completely unbiased.

 

Does this mean that Valve have always refused to pay up? I've always wondered why the CS guns have different name.

 

from a gamining POV this may mean we get more weapons in games.......


hurahhh

 

This thread escalated away from the subject quickly :/

 

Sandy Hook. How many more do you need?

 

http://www.ijreview.com/2013/01/30208-nbc-admits-no-assault-rifle-used-in-newtown-shooting/

Even if he had used the rifle, all reports mention an AR-15 "style" "assault weapon" which is just a semi-auto, not an assault rifle.

Yes, I have some experience in the subject matter, that kinda comes in handy when arguing about something, wouldn't you agree? For one thing I know what the legal definitions are for various weapon types in the US. "Assault weapon" has no real meaning, it's just a media buzz word that describes a scary military-looking firearm regardless of its function.

 

All weapons used in anger are by definition 'assault weapons'.

/pedantry

 

Really? What does being angry have to do with it? (I'm being pedantic too)

I think you are deliberately confusing two linked but slightly different meanings, one is "Make a physical attack on. Make a physical or verbal attack on someone" while the other is "A military attack, such as one launched against a fortified area or place. The concluding stage of an attack in which close combat occurs with the enemy."

You can 'assault' someone with a large inflatable banana, but inflatable bananas make poor 'assault weapons' if engaged in a military assault.

If a military commander ordered his troops to launch an assault on an defended building, he's not asking them to go up to it and kick it about a bit.

And don't get me started on discussing whether or not assault is a verb or a noun as it's very clear that the answer is 'yes'.

 

You can't quite generalize buying guns in the US because you can't buy a sniper just anywhere you want. I prefer to think of the country as more of 5 or 6 separate countries under 1 name - mostly in a cultural perspective. Many of the negative stereotypes only apply to the southern and mid-western states (and Alaska). The southern states are where it's the easiest to buy a gun. You can go to Wal Mart and buy a gun there. As far as I'm aware, you don't need a license to buy most guns down there, just an ID. In some areas, it's uncommon to find a household that doesn't have one. However, in a state like Massachusetts, where I'm from, it's the complete opposite. You'll be lucky if you can even own a handgun, and you need a license for pepper spray - a relatively expensive license. Interestingly, MA has some nasty crimes due to the fact that criminals know people have no way of defending themselves.


Anyways more on topic, while I hate EA, I think it's a shame they had to be accused of such things. I don't think creating a fictional weapon is going to make a teenager (who, according to the ratings, shouldn't be playing most of these games anyway) less inclined to buy a gun if he really felt like it, just as much as violent video games are as unlikely to encourage a kid to shoot up a school.

 

This is simply EA saying F U, If you want more money, come take us to court. Now if it were Activision doing this first I bet there could be a court battle pretty quickly based on how many Remington branded guns there were in MW3 for instance...

There will only be an issue if all the gun makers band together to push this through the courts otherwise I can't see this going anywhere...

As for the whole U.S.A.+ guns argument, easy way to solve the issue, force everyone applying for a gun licence to sit an IQ test before hand, at the very least, it'll stop idiots buying them legally.

I have one question for the (other) pro gun nuts, why in the name of all that is (un)holy do hunters need a .50 Cal anti-materiel rifle for deer hunting? I mean, did all the deer line up nicely so they could kill em all with a single bullet? :}