I wasn't making any statement on either side of the argument, simply stating that I could understand how someone could come to EITHER conclusion.

My point was that those arguments shouldn't be discounted immediately without consideration of where the argument came from, regardless of personal experience.

Arguably, both sides have made perfectly good points, but won't admit that the opposing argument is valid. Nobody seems to be accepting of the fact that the only solution is going to have to be a compromise. There's no one solution that exists that will serve or satisfy everyone. You can't ban too many weapons,…

You can't expect everyone to have the same knowledge and experience that you have on all subjects. The same argument can be said about gun-supporters who talk about video games without knowing anything about them- but in both cases the lack of knowledge, while not irrelevant, means less than some might think.

Weather or not the term is accurate is a non-issue, and a distraction from any point trying to be made, in my opinion. The people "misusing" the term, those they're speaking to, and those being picky about the language all know what is being referred to- so if everyone understands, then who cares if the word isn't…

Unless you know everyone who commented personally, 0% of the information online accurately tells you what race someone is, and there's no way to know how much of the information people DO post about themselves is made up.

I get the feeling that at this point it's just argument for the sake of argument.

How often is your home specifically attacked by someone who's on a killing spree? Regardless of what you see in media, people don't generally just kill for the sake of killing. There's motivation, opportunity, etc. in place. Situations where any given person needs to kill someone to prevent other people's deaths…

It is ENTIRELY 100% wrong in any and every scenario where there's even a slight chance of an alternative. Why not injure or disable without killing? Whats wrong with rubber bullets or stun guns? Do you think the person you think you're defending yourself from is not also a person?

But there isn't just one incident. There's been a good handful reported on this site, and on others, I just used the most recent (and most obvious) example. I never said a gun can't be used for self defense. What I said was that guns were not made for that purpose specifically, and that self defense doesn't have to…

If anyone in video games has a conflict of interest, than so does anyone who's in any way associated with the NRA, weapons manufacturing, law enforcement, schools, movies, the news, books, ... etc.

The fact that people don't know the obvious answer to this is why the vast majority of people aren't mature/smart/ready to have guns.

No, the sole purpose of a gun is to launch a projectile that moves fast enough to cause significant damage to whatever is in it's path. You could just as easily defend yourself by other means without killing the person you think you're defending yourself from. This "guns are for defense" argument is a load of shit.

The key word in your comment is "compel". I don't think that anyone thinks killing happen as a direct result of games (I'm bored, lets shoot people!), or I at least seriously hope nobody thinks this. The argument is rather that regularly interacting with people in games in a violent way desensitizes them to similar…

I don't think this post was idiotic at all. The point wasn't to say "OH NOEZ I bought a phone only for gaming, but the games on it suck." There's commentary being made on how the low barrier to entry involved in selling, and the resulting low price of iDevice content, causes cheap games to be given more praise than…

If all it takes is to be "involved heavily in violent games", I'm surprised game developers aren't murdering everything they see.

I can't help but think that most people's opinions on this topic are based on assumptions. I have an opinion, but there's a good chance I'm completely wrong or off base, because there's too many unanswered questions and possible misconceptions.

When you include knifes, it's not a question of statistics, it's a question of availability. Knives and blunt objects are everywhere. Any random angry person can grab a sharp object and attack someone with it. So obviously, those statistics will be high. But you can't ban every sharp and blunt object, because…

I've certainly never been shot at. I'd like to keep it that way.

I don't disagree with you- BUT: