Gun obsession in video games

[Danpascooch]

Guns are not the only weapons (or even the first) that were made from the ground up to kill humans,

Swords were the first.

Actually, the sword is the only weapon that has no viable purpose save killing people. If you want to hunt, for example, you would be far better served bringing a spear or a bow. A sword asks you to get far too close to deliver a strike, and with many animals, such proximity can be fantastically dangerous. Trust me when I say you do not want to be anywhere near a wild pig that you've managed to piss off by stabbing it.

I don't know, my years of fencing have made me really good at hitting the buttons on the tv with my foil when I'm too lazy to walk up to it.

 

[Kwaren]

Guns are not the only weapons (or even the first) that were made from the ground up to kill humans,

Swords were the first.

I think that honor goes to a rock tied to a stick

 

[GenericAmerican]

Because you don't want to run off to war in real life, and you use video games as a pale imitation.

I'm all for guns, I think everyone should have one; but they must be properly trained in how to handle it.

Look at it this way, you're Mr. robber, and your looking to go mug someone for the paper in their wallet.

Too your left is a county that has strict fire-arm laws, no one is allowed to carry other than the police. Mr. Robber can go there, mug someone at gunpoint and in most likelihood not worry about retaliation as long as you can get away before someone informs law enforcement. (Unless you're as dumb as some criminals and hand you're gun to the victim while you count the money.)

Too your right is a county that is notorious for the number of people who carry weapons. I don't even have to go into detail; anyone with any amount of common sense would go and try evil things in the other county...you're not going to risk getting shot over a couple bucks.

They are a deterrent, but if the need arises, they give you the capacity to defend yourself.

I believe in the far future, the same discussion will be going on about lazer rifles and other things.

And a thousand years ago they were saying the same things about swords and bow...wait no, people back then weren't such freaking wusses.

 

[bl4ckh4wk64]

It's easy to say "Oh yeah, a kitchen knife could kill someone too. Guns aren't much different la la la la"

But I agree with the OP: I was on holiday in Arizona once and we went to a firing range for the craic. I fired a Glock-17 (the 'pop gun' of most FPSes -- I wanted to use a P90 but they advised me against it). The thing was so loud and exploded with such force, I thought someone had handed me a Desert Eagle by accident. It was incredible. There's nothing akin to it in everyday life. It was a highly sobering experience.

Trust me, you'll know if you've fired a Desert Eagle. 9mm doesn't actually kick that much... Why did they advise you against a p90? Yea, it fires a 5.7, but the gun itself is made to be able to be controllable.

OT: Do you get terrified every time you get behind the wheel of a car? Do you get terrified every time you hold a kitchen knife? Do you get terrified every time you walk across the street, or hold a pillow? All of those actions could result in the death of you or any random person. I hope you realize that guns aren't the monsters that people make them out to be. Guns are tools, they don't kill people. People kill people. Just train more with them, you'll get over your fear and realize that they aren't that bad. Hell, they're not bad at all. In fact, going to the firing range helps deal with everyday stress. It's something about how your adrenaline and testosterone get moving and it subsequently releases endorphins.
Guns can be very useful training tools. Hell, they teach you one of the most important things in life, Responsibility. You have to learn how to properly maintain them and clean them every time you use a firearm. This in turn will teach you how to be responsible for not only guns but for everything else.

For me, guns are the things that actually draw me away from the FPS's. I find the lack of understanding that is very common amongst the players to be rather infuriating. Then they claim to be firearms experts because "This gun rocks in CoD!" However, I can understand how people who have never fired a gun like to do so in games. Shooting a firearm gives you a sense of power and worth. The knowledge of that power can make someone feel good and depending on what their character is, they will act accordingly. People who have no chance of ever firing a gun, or never want to fire a gun are still amazed and perplexed by the ability most firearms can give someone.



On a side note: What gun did he get and what is it chambered in?

quoted just to get your attention

 

[razelas]

I wanted to pose a question to some folks on the forum. What, exactly, is so appealing about shooter games? And by that, I mean the shooting in general. I enjoy a good shooter as much as the next person but Ive sort of realized something since christmas. My dad bought a sidearm for christmas (its going to be his new hobby) and it was the first time I ever held a firearm. It terrified me. The clip was empty but the knowledge that I held something in my hand that could end a life really terrified me more than I thought it would. Probably a good percentage of people who play shooters are like me, in that they have never even held a real gun before, and yet there is a huge obsession with them.

So basically, why do you think there is such a love of guns in video games.

Personally, firearms (and weapons in general) are tools for me to achieve an objective, whether that be getting from point A to point B with X number of obstacles, or neutralizing X number of targets. As a pacifist, I don't revel in the violence and animosity of shooter-games, but rather the intellectual side of war, i.e. tactical and strategical competition with humans and AI. Entertainment from a shooter for me doesn't come from pwningn00bz or blasting enemies into chunks of meat, but rather from the intellectual exercise of learning the game through experimentation and opposing interaction.

 

[Outright Villainy]

There's most likely a gun obsession in games for 2 main reasons:

a) People like seeing killin' stuff, and destruction.
b) Shooting makes a lot of sense as a means of using skill in games. You need quick reactions, and controls are well suited to point in specific places to put death on man. It's an immensely satisfying feeling, and it's one of the purer genres out there. Pokemon snap is one of the few games that capitilised on that mechanic without all the death, and it's unfortunate more games don't try and find other ways of making point and click skill games that don't involve killing.

[sub]Shooting pikachu in the face with an Rpg would be cool though...[/sub]

 

[JohnnyDelRay]

My obsession with guns in games has actually a lot to do with the feel of firing them. Hearing that crack, muzzle flash and recoil, has a large factor on how "good" that game is to me. Although now I've fired all kinds of real firearms that are featured in games, I had this obsession *before* firing any gun. Some games just seemed to get it right. Counter-strike, Call of Juarez, Soldier of Fortune, Rainbow 6: Vegas etc.

Others, although popular, let down my enjoyment slightly because the guns felt too much like a game, and no real consequence to the lead coming out, like firing the sniper rifles in MW2. It's like, "really? that just killed something?"

 

[manaman]

...it was the first time I ever held a firearm. It terrified me... the knowledge that I held something in my hand that could end a life really terrified me more than I thought it would...

A hammer can end a life. I think you need to conquer your unfounded fear of firearms. It's a lifeless hunk of metal, it's the wielder you only need ever worry about.

A hammer can fix things, build things or destroy things. A firearm is designed to place a hunk of metal into a target at high speed; a function that by and large will not do anything other than maim or kill.

Guns were designed to kill things, thinking anything less is delusional.

A gun is a tool, I agree, however it has a singular purpose.

Sorry, but I have to disagree with you. A gun has a singular function, not purpose. A gun is designed to fire a projectile. Squirt guns and nail guns are not called guns because they look like pistols. Anyway I know we are talking about firearms which have the singular purpose of delivering energy on Target through a projectile. Assuming that the only possible thing you can do with that is kill people would seem a bit more delusional to me.

How about entertainment, like a trick shooter. How about as a hobby, providing sustenance, self defense, etc. singular function does not make for a singular purpose.

 

[Gordon_4_v1legacy]

...it was the first time I ever held a firearm. It terrified me... the knowledge that I held something in my hand that could end a life really terrified me more than I thought it would...

A hammer can end a life. I think you need to conquer your unfounded fear of firearms. It's a lifeless hunk of metal, it's the wielder you only need ever worry about.

A hammer can fix things, build things or destroy things. A firearm is designed to place a hunk of metal into a target at high speed; a function that by and large will not do anything other than maim or kill.

Guns were designed to kill things, thinking anything less is delusional.

A gun is a tool, I agree, however it has a singular purpose.

Sorry, but I have to disagree with you. A gun has a singular function, not purpose. A gun is designed to fire a projectile. Squirt guns and nail guns are not called guns because they look like pistols. Anyway I know we are talking about firearms which have the singular purpose of delivering energy on Target through a projectile. Assuming that the only possible thing you can do with that is kill people would seem a bit more delusional to me.

How about entertainment, like a trick shooter. How about as a hobby, providing sustenance, self defense, etc. singular function does not make for a singular purpose.

Singular purpose, multiple possible applications of that purpose.

Again I don't disagree that shooting as a hobby can't be fun. I'm sure it can be, and I'd love to try it.

I'm respectfully wary of the power a gun can hold; nothing much more than that. My opinion, negative or otherwise, should not infringe on the right of someone else to own one.

 

[Hulten]

Well... I guess it is cause killing people and shooting guns is something most can't get away with in the comfort of their own home. In reality anyway. Or it could just be a deep seeded lust to do such things. Or maybe people just like having the power over virtual life and death as perceived through a man with a gun? Obviously this varies from person to person and the things I have listed are just my thoughts and may not even be true for most normal people.

I honestly play shooters because I think it is fun to make cherry pie all over the wall... Behind that guy..... That I shot.... With a gun..... Think I might play some COD tonight.

 

[WolfEdge]

First of all, OP, you need to conquer that fear of guns. They only kill things when they're asked to kill things.

Regardless of whether or not it's currently being called on to perform the task of killing the whole essence of a gun is focused on its ability to snuff out life. That is the length and breadth of its purpose. You can talk about how cool it is to fire them on a range or out on the farm but that doesn't change their nature. This is a tool we humans have made to kill each other with.

I fail to see why the OP's trepidation at holding such an item is unwarranted. To me it seems very wise to be afraid when touching a gun for a first time. After all, a gun is the culmination of the very worst aspects of human nature and it can be jarring to be confronted with that fact in such a physical way.

I think you're confusing fear with respect. Fear causes irrationality, instability, and panic. You should NEVER fear a weapon, you should respect it. Respect and understand it's power, the responsibility of shouldering that power, and the absoluteness inherent in wielding it. A gun is a tool, a powerful and potentially grave one, but a tool nonetheless.

To fear a gun is to fear your own two hands, in that both are capable of great evil. But you can't let that fear rule you, or you'll never find out what else they're capable of.

 

[Heathrow]

Calling firearms 'the culmination of the very worst aspects of human nature' is objectively wrong.

Your opinion, though blustering and indignant, is not objective.

I suspect that you are closer to understanding than you think you are, after all you have made note of the dichotomy between any item which can be used to kill and tools designed for killing.

Can you not take one further step and see why the force that motivates our race to create tools used for the express purpose of annihilating life might be justifiably frightening? Or do you draw comfort from a world where such a tool is common and mundane?

That is the only bridge to cross, if you find death in anyway abhorrent you should be able to stand where I do.

The fact is that the fear the OP felt by simply holding an unloaded gun was irrational. There is absolutely no logical reason to fear a hunk of harmless metal.

The fear of a gun is a fear of the reason and purpose behind the weapon. The metal, as you rightly point out, has no inherent meaning.

What I'm getting at here is that the whole structure of violence that many people seem to perceive as a quirk of human society or a globally-reinforced lie is in fact a very real, biologically reinforced truth.

If you wish to have a discussion on the nature and causes of conflict perhaps we should remove to another venue? I'm not sure that line is strictly relevant to this thread. Suffice to say, I do not think you have as much cause to be pessimistic as you might think.

I think you're confusing fear with respect. Fear causes irrationality, instability, and panic. You should NEVER fear a weapon, you should respect it. Respect and understand it's power, the responsibility of shouldering that power, and the absoluteness inherent in wielding it. A gun is a tool, a powerful and potentially grave one, but a tool nonetheless.

Fear is a useful emotion, it raises our wariness of threats and leads us to be cautious. Respect should be reserved for what we hold in high esteem. I do not think guns have yet earned humanity's respect although there may yet be a virtuous use for them some day.

As to a gun being simply a tool. I have pointed out several times in this thread and twice already in this post that it is the fact that is a tool designed simply to destroy life which is the root of the fear. It is my fondest wish that I will not have to explain this again.

Edit:

even if there is no reason for anyone to be each others enemies people will still be cruel and kill each other.

I'm sorry, I missed your beleaguered little comment in all the hullabaloo.

Insofar as there will still be people with various psychopathies which lead them to believe that they need to kill people then, yes, you are correct for the time being. But that is the smallest fractional percentage of our race. The lion's share of use are forced into conflict by the various combinations of our environment and our will to survive. Not just a nameless inner void which pulls us into cruelty and hate.

 

[Volkov]

Video games, and shooters in particular, use tons of guns not because of peoples'/developers' obsession with guns, but because shooting guns is a very easy to implement, well-polished, very popular gameplay element.

Now, why is that a popular gameplay element? Again, not because of peoples' obsession with guns, but rather, I think it's because of the fast pace of an FPS and because of a predisposition to immersion that even an average FPS offers. Maybe other reasons too I suppose.

To summarize: guns are in games because FPSs are popular, FPSs are popular because of their pacing.

In non-FPSs, ranged combat in general is the only type of combat that really allows you to dodge (think Mortal Kombat. You can block, but you really can't include dodge as a core element of gameplay), and to make gameplay slightly more varied than JUST attacking, dodging is included, which restricts you to ranged combat. Without dodging, combat is either all melee, or point-and-shoot style of early 90s (think Mad Dog McCree). Dodging introduces necessary variety into gameplay, and helps immersion.

To summarize: guns are in non-FPS games because dodging can only exist in ranged combat, and dodging is necessary because without it gameplay loses a major component.

 

[DeadEy3]

I love shooters. I don't care much for the guns in the game(whether they are realistic or fictional). I love it because it is a fun, competitive and, sometimes, team genre(e.g. Battlefield series). There are few genres that can do this. I like racing but there is no team work in it. beat em' ups has no team work. RTS are fun but there are not many players playing on one map(unless it is DotA. Love DotA HoN and LoL) and it is not very noob friendly. I think sports games stands on even ground with FPSes.

About the gun obsession.
Shooters usually have load outs(like bf and cod) and that basically becomes gun porn. When players get together they discuss guns, red dot sights, perks etc. thus the obsession.

 

[OCAdam]

I think you're confusing fear with respect. Fear causes irrationality, instability, and panic. You should NEVER fear a weapon, you should respect it. Respect and understand it's power, the responsibility of shouldering that power, and the absoluteness inherent in wielding it. A gun is a tool, a powerful and potentially grave one, but a tool nonetheless.

Fear is a useful emotion, it raises our wariness of threats and leads us to be cautious. Respect should be reserved for what we hold in high esteem. I do not think guns have yet earned humanity's respect although there may yet be a virtuous use for them some day.

Maybe a firearm should be both feared AND respected? Yes, guns have the ability to be used for the killing or destruction of something (ie, animal, car, door), but they generally aren't designed to discharge unless something pulls the trigger. This may give some people an inherent idea to be fearful of what they hold. However, some weaponry have a long history behind them, while all of them generally have a higher level of intricate mechanisms that lend to being respectable.

Take a Mosin Nagant, for example: It has a very long history, dating back to 1891. It's been through both World Wars, plus a few other wars. So yes, it has been proven highly effective at being a tool of war (more crudely: killing). So what you may hold in your hands just might have been used by someone who did indeed use it for war, thus adding something of a fear aspect, knowing what you hold likely has claimed life.

On the other hand, what you hold is also a testament. A testament to both the level of human ingenuity of design and engineering, and a testament to the history of mankind itself. From a pure mechanical standpoint, it is one of the most specific objects we have created, requiring a generally high level of exacting tolerances. About the only thing I can think of that makes a firearm look like untoleranced **** is a Formula 1 machine (seriously, down to 1/4 a micrometer with F1 tech, but I digress).

From a historical viewpoint, many a firearm have been used/are being used for revolutionary warfare. This is nothing new in the history of mankind. Many wars and many rebellions have used/are using deadly machines to accomplish their objectives, wide and varied as they were/are. Simply put, firearms were the next step in war tech. However, without war or revolution, we wouldn't be where we are today (this goes for the entire world, from Africa to Australia, from Britain to Japan, nothing excluded).

 

[Baby Tea]

I suspect that you are closer to understanding than you think you are, after all you have made note of the dichotomy between any item which can be used to kill and tools designed for killing.

Can you not take one further step and see why the force that motivates our race to create tools used for the express purpose of annihilating life might be justifiably frightening? Or do you draw comfort from a world where such a tool is common and mundane?

That is the only bridge to cross, if you find death in anyway abhorrent you should be able to stand where I do.

Quickly: I find it interesting that you claim my opinion isn't objective, yet you type "That is the only bridge to cross".
Seems a bit hypocritical.

"Death" isn't abhorrent.
Death is a natural part of life, regardless of what philosophy, religion, or worldview you subscribe to.

"Killing" can be abhorrent, but it's naive to assume that all killing is.

If I watch a bear kill a deer for food, one can hardly call that abhorrent, unless you are sheltered enough to not understand whats at work there. That's the beauty and wonder of nature at work, and yet: It's killing. It's death. The bear is struggling to survive, and is doing so by it's means. As the deer is also struggling to survive.

Both the deer and the bear have a right to life, so who lives?
If the deer is 'allowed' to live, then the bear dies.
If the bear is 'allowed' to live, then the deer dies.
In both cases, death and killing are present. Neither are abhorrent (Again: barring some naive, sheltered worldview).

Humans having tools for the purpose of killing isn't abhorrent, either. I don't "take comfort" in such tools existing, but I understand their purpose and use. Like a bear's claws, or a shark's teeth, humans have made tools for killing so that they may live. Be it a bow, a snare, a spear, or a firearm.

Now: The abhorrent part comes when man sets upon each other in violence. Believe it or not, I'm actually a bit of a pacifist. I don't like fighting, I don't like war, I abhor (To steal a word from you) murder. Man killing fellow man out of revenge, a lust for power, a self-centered idea of justice, ANY idea of justice (I'm against the death penalty)...all those things are, as you say, abhorrent.

The difference here isn't the tools used, but the intent behind them.
Again: Firearms aren't to blame for the evil, ignorance, or neglectful use of the wielder.

 

[Pyode]

The fear of a gun is a fear of the reason and purpose behind the weapon. The metal, as you rightly point out, has no inherent meaning.

First of all, you're projecting. You are assuming that the reason the OP fears guns is exactly the same as yours when you have no reason to believe that. As a matter of fact, the OP specifically says why he feared the gun...

The clip was empty but the knowledge that I held something in my hand that could end a life really terrified me more than I thought it would.

This fits perfectly with my reply because what he had in his hand couldn't "end a life." At least not in the way that he feared.

Also, you completely ignored the rest of my post so I will ask you more directly. Do you feel the same way about swords, bows, crossbows, combat knives, spears, etc.? If not, you are a hypocrite with a bias against guns.

What I'm getting at here is that the whole structure of violence that many people seem to perceive as a quirk of human society or a globally-reinforced lie is in fact a very real, biologically reinforced truth.

If you wish to have a discussion on the nature and causes of conflict perhaps we should remove to another venue? I'm not sure that line is strictly relevant to this thread. Suffice to say, I do not think you have as much cause to be pessimistic as you might think.

Considering the entire basis for your argument is that death is "abhorrent" and he is giving his opinion why it isn't, I think his point is perfectly valid and you should respond to it.

I think you're confusing fear with respect. Fear causes irrationality, instability, and panic. You should NEVER fear a weapon, you should respect it. Respect and understand it's power, the responsibility of shouldering that power, and the absoluteness inherent in wielding it. A gun is a tool, a powerful and potentially grave one, but a tool nonetheless.

Fear is a useful emotion, it raises our wariness of threats and leads us to be cautious. Respect should be reserved for what we hold in high esteem. I do not think guns have yet earned humanity's respect although there may yet be a virtuous use for them some day.

As to a gun being simply a tool. I have pointed out several times in this thread and twice already in this post that it is the fact that is a tool designed simply to destroy life which is the root of the fear. It is my fondest wish that I will not have to explain this again.

You are using respect incorrectly in the context of what he was saying. Respect (as used here) has nothing to do with liking or agreeing with something. It means understanding what it is and treating it properly based on that understanding. In this case, respect for the weapon is much more useful than fear.

As for your point regarding it being a tool designed solely for killing, this may be true for the first guns, but that is no longer it's sole function. We have trick shooting and marksmanship competitions, we have people who collect rare and exotic guns purely for display and we have tranquilizer guns used to put animals to sleep (in some cases used to save the lives of injured wild animals).

You obviously have a very narrow minded view of what guns are and what they are for.

Edit:

even if there is no reason for anyone to be each others enemies people will still be cruel and kill each other.

I'm sorry, I missed your beleaguered little comment in all the hullabaloo.

I don't think "beleaguered" means what you think it means. I fail to see how his comment has been harassed or "beset with difficulties."

Insofar as there will still be people with various psychopathies which lead them to believe that they need to kill people then, yes, you are correct for the time being. But that is the smallest fractional percentage of our race. The lion's share of use are forced into conflict by the various combinations of our environment and our will to survive. Not just a nameless inner void which pulls us into cruelty and hate.

So you agree that killing is more complicated than a simple mindless evil act. That is a step in the right direction I suppose.

As for the couple of points that I skipped, I felt the others had already sufficiently addressed them.