Sections

Gearbox believes NRA should be advocating gun laws instead of pointing fingers at games

Saturday, 2nd March 2013 21:28 GMT By Stephany Nunneley

Violence in video games is a hot button issue in some circles, with pundit going as far as to blame gun violence on crimes committed around the world, and most recently in the US. One of the most vocal accusers of late, is the EVP of the National Rifle Association, Wayne LaPierre, who in the wake of the school shooting in Connecticut called the video game industry a “callous, corrupt, and corrupting shadow industry that sells and sows violence against own people, through vicious violent video games.” His opinion, is not one which Gearbox president Randy Pitchford shares.

Speaking with GI International during DICE 2013, Pitchford said he has mixed feelings on including gratuitous violence in games, but at the same time it’s important to “stand up for anyone’s ability to explore ideas and to express.”

“I have mixed feelings. I don’t think there are thought crimes,” he said. “I think the evidence is that the more a culture can share an experience and understanding through informational media, that the more mature and safe and secure and nonviolent that culture actually becomes.

“That said, as a creator and as a consumer, you can see true bullshit. I don’t really have a lot of respect for that. If you’re going to do something gratuitous just to get my attention and there’s no other value to it, I’ll see right through it as a customer.”

Pitchford said before casting blame or stones in another direction, the NRA would benefit more from taking a page out of the ESRB’s playbook.

“Think about the world’s relationship and the game industry’s relationship with the ESRB,” he said. “The ESRB is our self-regulated ratings body; the industry created this body to put labels on games. Most publishers, we pay for the ESRB, but we also have this high tension relationship. They’re really good at their jobs – they hold the industry accountable to fitting within the guidelines of whatever the label is and they will label appropriately. If you cross a line they will put you in a different spot, whether you want to be in that spot or not. And compared to the movie rating system, they have the best awareness and understanding of what their rating system is, and they have the best enforcement. Retail participates.

“Imagine if the NRA was actually advocating for gun laws; imagine if the NRA had the same relationship with the gun industry that the ESRB has with the game industry. Instead of the NRA saying don’t make any laws, now it would be like, ‘Fuck, the NRA’s making me do all this so my guns are safer, and I get why they’re doing it but it’s kind of a pain in my ass.’ That’s how the game industry’s relationship is with the ESRB.

“We love that it’s there but we’ve got to deal with shit; we have to go through a process to get the rating. If we don’t the retailers won’t stock us, and when some of the content pushes the line a little bit they’re going to call us on it and we have to deal with that. Imagine if the NRA had that same relationship with its industry, they could be good guys.”

The full interview can be read through the link.

Latest

16 Comments

  1. Hirmetrium

    I believe Gearbox should be patching Aliens: Colonial Marines and investigating/explaining what happened, rather than putting out opinions on gun laws.

    #1 2 years ago
  2. DarkElfa

    THE NRA is outdated and full of asshats.

    Just like Gearbox.

    #2 2 years ago
  3. Panda

    cute :)

    #3 2 years ago
  4. rusty_shackleford

    I’ve played 100s of hours of BL1 and 2.

    “If you’re going to do something gratuitous just to get my attention and there’s no other value to it, I’ll see right through it as a customer.” – Randy Pitchford

    I’m now watching the demos for duke nukem forever and aliens colonial marines on youtube. I paid full price for those games. SCREW YOUR GEARBOX.

    “but at the same time it’s important to “stand up for anyone’s ability to explore ideas and to express.”” – Pitchford

    I am all for open discussion, I support the 1st Amendment, but when the ideas being discussed are about taking away ANY of my rights, the idea isn’t one worth pursuing. But hes obviously against the 1st amendment as well if he supports the ESRB.

    I would think the man behind the game originally advertised as ‘the game with a gazillion guns’ would atleast understand the absolute necessity of the 2nd amendment. I guess not.

    #4 2 years ago
  5. DSB

    Right. Only the Tea Party knows how to read the constitution.

    It must be so hard for you guys to be surrounded by idiots like us, durrrr.

    #5 2 years ago
  6. Phoenixblight

    I would go far as to say that anyone that actually supports the 2nd amendment hasn’t even read it. It mentions nothing of the fact of private citizens owning a weapon. It’s entire point is about a local militia having weapons to prevent tyranny. SO all those with guns are somehow a part part of the national guard?….Oh wait they aren’t.

    #6 2 years ago
  7. rusty_shackleford

    “A Well regulated militia, being neccessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.”

    http://www.english.illinois.edu/-people-/faculty/debaron/584/584reading/guns%20and%20grammar.pdf

    The right to bear arms belongs to the people, not the militia. The national guard is not a militia. Please go look up the definition of a militia.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Militia

    “Militia generally refers to an army or other fighting force that is composed of non-professional fighters; citizens of a nation or subjects of a state or government that can be called upon to enter a combat situation, as opposed to a professional force of regular soldiers”

    So its pretty clear the national guard is NOT a militia. They are professionals.

    The right to bear arms belong to individual citizens, not the ‘militia’. The right to bear arms is a requirement for the right to form a militia.

    There is also the “shall not be infringed” part that everyone ignores. There is no linguistic debate to be made against it. Its 100% clear. Any gun control is against the constitution. Period.

    I do not support the tea party. I do not support any current political party. I just believe in the ideals America was founded on, the individual freedoms laid out in the constitution. The first and second amendments are required to maintain the rest of our rights.

    #7 2 years ago
  8. DSB

    … And nobody’s challenging them. That’s just your own misguided paranoia.

    Freedom of speech also includes the freedom to remain silent, and the right to bear arms is still just a right. It doesn’t exempt anyone from the responsibility of ensuring that they don’t fall into the wrong hands.

    It’s not a right to prevent anyone from giving a fuck about all the people getting slaughtered as a result of that amendment.

    #8 2 years ago
  9. rusty_shackleford

    No one has died as a ‘result’ of the 2nd amendment.

    The 2nd amendment doesn’t give anyone the right to go slaughter people.

    Its about the right to bear arms for defense.

    Random slaughter of innocents has been frowned upon since the dawn of civilization.

    Almost all mass shootings are done in ‘gun free zones’ where the right to bear arms was taken away from those being slaughtered and they are left helpless.

    The 2nd amendment was created to defend ourselves from being slaughtered. If more citizens understood this and exercised their right to bear arms most mass shootings would never happen.

    Look at those mass shooters. They are nerdy kids. You think they’d be able to kill all those people if even one of them pulled out their own gun and shot back? it’d instantly change the dynamic from a full on, one-sided slaughter to a shoot out between an angry, disturbed person and a rational gun owner with 1 clear target?

    I know its hard to believe, but guns can be used to save lives as well as take them. Its all about intent, and someone with criminal intent will commit criminal acts with or without a gun. Taking guns away doesn’t solve the underlying mental health problems plaguing our society. Criminals already don’t follow the law. Most gun crime is already commited with illegally obtained guns. The people following the law are the only ones who will be worse off.

    #9 2 years ago
  10. DSB

    “No one has died as a ‘result’ of the 2nd amendment.”

    Uhuh. Somehow I think most of hundreds of thousands of people killed with legally produced and purchased firearms would beg to differ with you on that.

    Although I’m sure some of those died hooting and hollering, ever thankful for the privilege of owning a gun.

    #10 2 years ago
  11. rusty_shackleford

    The 2nd amendment is a sentence on a piece of paper. It hasn’t killed anyone. PEOPLE have killed PEOPLE, and killers were around long before the guns or 2nd amendment.

    And even if you take away the 2nd amendment, again, its just a sentence on a piece of paper, taking away that sentence doesn’t remove the ‘gazillion’ guns already out there. The criminals and the killers will never hand over their weapons, only the law abiding, non killers.

    When you remove guns from law abiding citizens, only the criminals will have guns. Go take a look at the inner city of chicago. its full of illegal guns and shootings happen every day. And guess what? Chicago has the tightest gun control available. Look how well that turned out, only the criminals have guns.

    #11 2 years ago
  12. DSB

    Let’s just cut the bullshit.

    It’s a sentence on a piece of paper that has placed millions of deadly weapons into the hands of entirely random people. Let’s not try to run from the subject whenever it becomes uncomfortable.

    As to the notion that legislation wouldn’t work, it already has worked.

    Australia did it in the 90′s, and thousands of lives have been spared as a result.

    New York has enacted legislation, and they’re now enjoying the lowest murder rate in 50 years.

    #12 2 years ago
  13. rusty_shackleford

    Show me one life, let alone 1000s, that have been ‘spared’ as a result of gun regulation in Australia. All you can cite are hypothetical ‘lives saved’

    New York is safer because they have one of the largest private police forces in the world. And all those private police carry guns. And all those police with guns go around commiting illegal ‘stop and frisk’ searches on innocent civilians in new york. The excessive amount of illegal searches carried out by armed private police in new york is what reduced ‘crime’.

    They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety. Benjamin Franklin

    #13 2 years ago
  14. DSB

    All you can cite are hypothetical ‘lives saved’

    I don’t see anything hypothetical about the fact that fewer people are dying as a result of gun violence, following that legislation. I would say that’s pretty well substantiated.

    And the mayor of New York begs to differ with your analysis. Far be it from me to judge who has the best data and the best overview, but in this case I think I’m gonna go with Bloomberg.

    #14 2 years ago
  15. rusty_shackleford

    Ok, go with Bloomberg, 20th richest man in the world posing as a public servant, running New York like some corporate fascist straight out of Robocop, passing illegal law after illegal law. He is the epitome of a modern day robber baron ‘too big to fail’.

    #15 2 years ago
  16. DSB

    @15 I know, what a retard. He must really suck at everything.

    #16 2 years ago

Comments are now closed on this article.