• deanna.morono - January 16, 2013 1:29 p.m.

    He can ban assault rifles in real life, but he'll never be able to ban them in video games...... or can he? dundundunnnn
  • Ilyere - January 16, 2013 12:59 p.m.

    I think everyone should read the full article to get a clearer view on things.
  • pusur - January 16, 2013 12:58 p.m.

    I believe that people who blame video games for violence, is rather narrow minded. They don`t see that if a person plays a video game he have to be crazy from before to go out and kill people. That a person have played a video game before he killed lots of people, don`t have anything to say at all. This research will only result in....... nothing
  • rick-parks - January 16, 2013 12:55 p.m.

    I understand the outrage here at the idea of games being investigated in this way, but two things: Most commenters are overestimating the relative value of $10M. $10M from the federal government is not going to help the police in the entire country, or even the most violent cities. The second thing is that a lot of you guys are underestimating the good a government funded and overseen study could do here. When the government finds no real correlation between video game violence and real violence, we won't ever have to have this stupid discussion again. There will be no doubt as to the validity or objectivity of the study.
  • Hydr0ponicK - January 16, 2013 12:38 p.m.

    All I have to say is, banning weapons doesn't stop violence. Violence needs no weapon to take effect.
  • Rub3z - January 16, 2013 2:31 p.m.

    Yes, but it can sure as hell help to curb violence tremendously. There's only so much an extent of violence you can enact with a particular weapon, and one doesn't even need to have played video games to know this. I mean, really... how many people in a particular room do you think a madman can kill or injure if they walk into the room with only one of these weapons: a semi-auto, a bolt-action, a knife, or a stick? I mean, really, with any of the latter three options it would be relatively easy for some brave soul to step in and tackle him and relieve him of their weapon before they can do much harm. With the possible exception of this madman also being an actual ninja master. Like, a real ninja. Seriously, who is a ninja master? I need to lay off the video games... lol
  • Hydr0ponicK - January 17, 2013 2:23 p.m.

    It only took boxcutters to hijack a plane and kill over 2,000 people...
  • Doctalen - January 16, 2013 12:37 p.m.

    If a video game can influence someone to commit murder, then that person has even larger problems than their video games. Murder has existed since the dawn civilization and killing has existed since life moved away from sunlight has it's energy intake. All that has changed in the past 50 years would be the media and their blood sells philosophy. Carnages like this are always devastating and must be punished but they are not new.
  • jackthemenace - January 16, 2013 10:47 a.m.

    "If there's even one thing we can do to reduce this violence, if there's even one life that can be saved, then we've got an obligation to try," And yet banning guns is still too much. Thankfully, at least, he's finally agreed background checks are necessary, but the harder you make getting firearms, the easier it'll be to stop stuff like Sandy Hook happening again. There are far better places to spend $10 million than researching whether something that's already been shown numerous times to have no effect on violent crimes has an effect on violent crimes. Like, say, the police force, or the medical system. With so many countries in debt, places like the UK WISH they had £6 million to spend on research that's already produced negative results.
  • Bloodstorm - January 16, 2013 10:51 a.m.

    The US doesn't have the money to spend on it any more than any other country, but we are going to blow the money on fruitless endeavors like this regardless it seems.
  • ultimatepunchrod - January 16, 2013 11:02 a.m.

    I'm pretty sure this is just a political move so that they can get the NRA to at least bend on some aspects of the plan by pointing out things other than guns. Biden didn't seem too worried about violent games' effects on real world violence last week, so I doubt that they really consider games the problem now.
  • Moondoggie1157 - January 16, 2013 11:19 a.m.

    Banning guns affects no one but responsible gun owners... Look at what happened in Australia when they banned guns. I like the direction these regulations are going though. There is no real way to stop people from losing their shit and taking it out on others... Whether it's a knife, a gun, a car, fire, or even a rock, if someone feels like hurting people, they are going to do it regardless of the weapon. There won't be a significant correlation between violent media and actual acts of violence, the gov't just wants to seem thorough in the search for who to blame when it comes to people going nuts. I think we all forget that in the end we are still animals, and some of us will lash out and go berserk, it's a shame, but it's the truth.
  • Emb3rSil - January 16, 2013 12:34 p.m.

    Fairly true point w/r/t video games, but your Australia bit has been debunked time and time again (
  • Moondoggie1157 - January 16, 2013 12:46 p.m.

    Wow, goes to show how much effort I put in to research haha
  • RedHarlow - January 16, 2013 12:34 p.m.

    Not necessarily true - Over a 10 year period in Califonia gun sales quadrupled, but in the same time frame gun injuries decreased by 20% and gun deaths dropped by 15%
  • jameseagle - January 16, 2013 12:42 p.m.

    Actually, banning firearms was also part of his list of proposals today, but what, you expect a site explicitly about gaming news to list every other thing he talked about?

Showing 21-36 of 36 comments

Join the Discussion
Add a comment (HTML tags are not allowed.)
Characters remaining: 5000


Connect with Facebook

Log in using Facebook to share comments, games, status update and other activity easily with your Facebook feed.