Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

Walmart no longer selling video games (Discussion)

123468

Comments

  • AlBQuirkyAlBQuirky Member EpicPosts: 5,429
    lahnmir said:
    Sandmanjw said:
    lahnmir said:
    Iselin said:
    Jesus Christ, WTF is wrong with you people? That first shooting happened in a fucking Walmart and as the memo clearly indicates for anyone with a grade 1 reading comprehension, they are trying to show some sensitivity and respect by cutting out any game or movie or even sporting goods hunting video display depicting violence or shooting.

    I swear to god this place is becoming one of the dumbest fucking places on the whole internet.
    Except that the response makes no frigging sense if you keep selling the stuff actually making the murders possible (its the guns you know), it makes their motives seem dishonest and nothing to do with sensitivity or respect, just a knee jerk reaction.

    Weird and angry comment btw, inappropriate.

    /Cheers,
    Lahnmir
    Ignorant people...guns do not make crazy people do crazy stuff. Guns do not roam the world murdering.

    That is people. Same ones that use planes,bombs,trucks...and any and every other thing that they have to do crazy stuff.

    All this talk about taking away peoples access to guns does absolutely nothing and never will.

    Just more ignorant people thinking that taking my gun will stop any crazy or power mad people from doing crazy things or killing with or without a gun.

    All so amazing how ignorant people are. There are mass shootings in many countries that it is almost impossible to own a gun in. Has that stopped any of them? Here is a hint...NO.

    Do any of you saying to stop selling LEGAL guns have any clue what it would take to really make that happen? The answer is obviously not. You are just repeating the same old dead talking points you hear. 

    If anyone actually thinks you could ever get 2/3 rds of america to ratify a change to the Constitution  to make something like that happen...more nuts around than i thought there were.

    Never gonna happen and no other way to stop the selling of guns. I am sure that Walmart and other gun sellers can live quite comfortably with having 2/3 rds of America as customers that are ok with them selling LEGAL  guns to people.

    People need to stop being ignorant and spouting nonsense. All this crap over a company trying to be a little sensitive and see what they get? Even more fruit cakes come out making demands that they take the blame for crazy and or otherwise disturbed people. 

    I am so sure that if this had been a semi truck driven through the store that we would also have these people demanding that they stop making semi's right...right???


    There is a difference. Guns are made with one purpose only and that is to hurt or to kill, the rest of the items you mentioned aren’t. If every man and his dog could easily buy and walk around with a flamethrower, would there be more fire related incidents? Of course there would.

    The  USA and its obsession with the right to bear arms isn’t some worldwide accepted, normal thing. Many countries shake their heads in confusion and disbelief (as do many Americans). Taking away guns won’t stop murder sprees from happening, it will drastically lower the number though. What you need a gun for anyways, to stop the other guy with a gun? You don’t need to protect yourself with that if the other party also doesn’t have guns now do you?

    /Cheers,
    Lahnmir
    And when "that other person" has a gun, because... you know... they don't abide by laws, what then?

    PS: I'm only page 3, so sorry if already addressed in the next 3 pages :)
    Orthelian

    - Al

    Personally the only modern MMORPG trend that annoys me is the idea that MMOs need to be designed in a way to attract people who don't actually like MMOs. Which to me makes about as much sense as someone trying to figure out a way to get vegetarians to eat at their steakhouse.
    - FARGIN_WAR


    (And now Burger King has MEATLESS burgers!)

  • AlBQuirkyAlBQuirky Member EpicPosts: 5,429
    foppotee said:
    Walmart does this with games but keeps selling the firearms lol no logic whatsoever.
    Hunters.

    - Al

    Personally the only modern MMORPG trend that annoys me is the idea that MMOs need to be designed in a way to attract people who don't actually like MMOs. Which to me makes about as much sense as someone trying to figure out a way to get vegetarians to eat at their steakhouse.
    - FARGIN_WAR


    (And now Burger King has MEATLESS burgers!)

  • LawlmonsterLawlmonster Member UncommonPosts: 1,085
    Aeander said:
    I was already recently shifting my shopping away from my local walmart for locking so many of its regular products behind anti-theft glass (inconveniencing EVERYONE just to cut down on theft).

    This just gives me a legitimate political/personal reason to boycott the company outright. 
    Do you work retail, or have you worked retail? Is your position that a retailer should account for a certain percentage of theft when there's a perfectly reasonable solution to prevent it? Whatever inconvenience you suffer from requiring to ask those cases be opened so you can make a luxury purchase, the jobs of low level employees are protected from inventory discrepancies, who are the ones who often pay the price for theft. That is, they lose their jobs for something they didn't do, or have no control over, unless they can find a way to prevent the items from being stolen, and believe me, locking them up in cases makes a huge difference in what can and can't be hijacked.

    Such a terrible inconvenience. 
    AlBQuirkyPhaserlight

    "This is life! We suffer and slave and expire. That's it!" -Bernard Black (Dylan Moran)

  • AlBQuirkyAlBQuirky Member EpicPosts: 5,429
    Utinni said:
    Ungood said:
    tawess said:
    The "it is in my constitution" bit does not really fly tho...

    That was put in back when there was not proper system of law enforcement nor military for the most part as a way to safeguard that there is always a standing militia should someone try to re-colonize the United states. It was also very handy for home protection in a time when "hailing a cop" could entail a ride of an hour with no guarantee of anything. 

    Tell me how that is relevant in this day and age... A: The US has a standing army as well as a several organized semi active branches... B: It has a functioning police force... And should for some reason the British try to colonize you.. they would be nuked back to the roman era. 

    Now.. I agree just banning the guns and thinking it will solve anything will do jack shit. But it has to start someplace... Even if it is a 20-30 year process to change public opinion. Now as others have pointed out investing in mental and physical healthcare would be the best start. *points to the tangerine in chief* But people does not seem to be interested in that path.. In fact they voted for a person who said he would do the exact opposite... 

    So what the flying f do you suggest people should argue... If people can´t play nice and be constructive... They will have their toys taken away. 
    Ok. I have heard this argument before, but keep in mind, these people just came out of a war, where they were oppressed by England, and never wanted to go back to that situation.

    Hence the Bill of Rights to start with (Which was a very unique document) and was not part of the Original Constitution, it was added in as a safeguard to ensure Liberty and Freedom of the people.

    With that said, keep in mind that Thomas Jefferson is credited with saying "When a government fears its people there is liberty", this sentiment was mirrored by the likes of Benjamin Franklin, and George Washington. 

    So the 2nd was not simply to stop home invasion, which is why it was "Arms" not just guns, the original framing of the Constitution put no limits on what a citizen could purchase, because again, they believed that an Armed Public was a Free Public. What that means is, if someone wanted to buy a fully automation gatling gun (Sometimes called Minigun) or a L.A.W. the 2nd would fully allow them to do it. Notice though legislation, similar to how the government has hamstrug the 1st, US citizens can no longer do this.

    In short the 2nd by its original purpose meant that if the people wanted to revolt and overthrow their government because they felt it had become corrupt, they should be sold the means to do so.

    Now notice now you talk of a full standing army, and a legion of police, which means, the the government is now in full control of the people, not the people in control of the government, which, by every metric of the writers of the Constitution and Bill of Rights, liberty and freedom are dead in the United States, and we are simply living in an illusion of such, till our government feels it is time to openly take it away.

    So no, a Police force and a Military do not make the people safe, as they serve the politicians and the government, not the people. So if the government becomes corrupt the police and military will; still do their bidding, and destroy anyone that opposes them... in short, you may think you are safe from an outside threat, but you are at the total mercy of a threat from within.. which was what the 2nd was all about combating.

    Did that clear that up for you?
    You only need guns if you're scared. If you can't sleep at night without knowing you could instantly kill someone then perhaps you should see a doctor.
    My current Government (USA) scares the CRAP out of me. How many more freedoms can they take away before we're all just puppets? Hell, they want to tell us how to think and feel, now.

    - Al

    Personally the only modern MMORPG trend that annoys me is the idea that MMOs need to be designed in a way to attract people who don't actually like MMOs. Which to me makes about as much sense as someone trying to figure out a way to get vegetarians to eat at their steakhouse.
    - FARGIN_WAR


    (And now Burger King has MEATLESS burgers!)

  • OG_ZorvanOG_Zorvan Member EpicPosts: 1,858
    edited August 11
    What some tend to forget are guns also serve to level the field. If a 20-something with a knife or baseball bat breaks in to rob an 80 year old man or woman, that 80 year old man or woman's firearm takes away that youngsters advantage.
    AlBQuirky


    MMORPG.COM took away my swinging cheerleader butt .gif.

  • NibsNibs Member UncommonPosts: 287
    AlBQuirky said:
    For those wanting "more gun laws", let me give you a little insight. Gun laws are obeyed by law abiding citizens. NO law will ever get rid of these kinds of incidents. People with mental troubles will do what they want with whatever is at hand.

    The killer was NOT a law abiding citizen. Gun laws would have affected his actions not at all. They were mentally unstable and ANY weapon (steak knives, baseball bats, lawn darts, their hiking boots applied to someone's head, a rock) would have done the trick.

    It just gets me that with incidents like this, a lot of vocal people scream "MOAR GUN LAWS!11!!!1!" Get a grip, please, and keep the knee jerk reactions to a minimum. I get it that these people HATE guns. That's cool. Don't use them.

    Blaming guns is as "rational" as blaming video games.
    That explains all the mass killings by steak knives, baseball bats, lawn darts, their hiking boots applied to someone's head, a rock you've read about in the news...

    Killing someone with a gun is quick and easy. Killing something with a melee weapon is less so. Physically and psychologically.

    Here's a quick thought for you: How many people do you think you could gun down in a given location before the cops eliminate your threat? Now, how many people do you think you could bludgeon to death with a baseball bat before someone eliminates your threat?

    As general pleb in the street, I hear gun shots, I run the other way. My mates run the other way. Anyone with any sense runs the other way. You see a nut job swinging a bat at people, far more chance that the man on the street is going to step in.

    Easy access to guns IS the problem. Would Nutty McNutJob have been able to so easilly get a gun in the UK, or France, or Sweden? No, of course not. When all the guns are either in the hands of the criminals, or police/miltary, or a small number of private citizens that are regularly auditted for how they store them, it becomes a LOT harder for the nutters to just snap, pick up a gun, and go on a killing spree. Nobody is saying strict laws would 100% fix America's problem. But they would be bloody great step in the right direction.
    Hawkeye666Kylerangunklacker
  • OrthelianOrthelian Member UncommonPosts: 1,028
    Walmart was still selling video games?
    AlBQuirky

    Favorites: EQEVETOR | Playing: No MMOs since 2014. Mostly VR and strategy | Anticipating: CUPantheon
  • AlBQuirkyAlBQuirky Member EpicPosts: 5,429
    edited August 11
    Nibs said:
    AlBQuirky said:
    For those wanting "more gun laws", let me give you a little insight. Gun laws are obeyed by law abiding citizens. NO law will ever get rid of these kinds of incidents. People with mental troubles will do what they want with whatever is at hand.

    The killer was NOT a law abiding citizen. Gun laws would have affected his actions not at all. They were mentally unstable and ANY weapon (steak knives, baseball bats, lawn darts, their hiking boots applied to someone's head, a rock) would have done the trick.

    It just gets me that with incidents like this, a lot of vocal people scream "MOAR GUN LAWS!11!!!1!" Get a grip, please, and keep the knee jerk reactions to a minimum. I get it that these people HATE guns. That's cool. Don't use them.

    Blaming guns is as "rational" as blaming video games.
    That explains all the mass killings by steak knives, baseball bats, lawn darts, their hiking boots applied to someone's head, a rock you've read about in the news...

    Killing someone with a gun is quick and easy. Killing something with a melee weapon is less so. Physically and psychologically.

    Here's a quick thought for you: How many people do you think you could gun down in a given location before the cops eliminate your threat? Now, how many people do you think you could bludgeon to death with a baseball bat before someone eliminates your threat?

    As general pleb in the street, I hear gun shots, I run the other way. My mates run the other way. Anyone with any sense runs the other way. You see a nut job swinging a bat at people, far more chance that the man on the street is going to step in.

    Easy access to guns IS the problem. Would Nutty McNutJob have been able to so easilly get a gun in the UK, or France, or Sweden? No, of course not. When all the guns are either in the hands of the criminals, or police/miltary, or a small number of private citizens that are regularly auditted for how they store them, it becomes a LOT harder for the nutters to just snap, pick up a gun, and go on a killing spree. Nobody is saying strict laws would 100% fix America's problem. But they would be bloody great step in the right direction.
    Drugs are illegal, too, yet they exist. What makes you think that guns will be any different? Also, the UK has ZERO guns in the country? I see quite a lot of hunting rifles about on BBC shows.

    [edit]
    I wanted to add that I watch quite a few BBC police shows (on America's PBS stations) and every time I see police without guns, I get a "Demolition Man" flash in my head ;)

    - Al

    Personally the only modern MMORPG trend that annoys me is the idea that MMOs need to be designed in a way to attract people who don't actually like MMOs. Which to me makes about as much sense as someone trying to figure out a way to get vegetarians to eat at their steakhouse.
    - FARGIN_WAR


    (And now Burger King has MEATLESS burgers!)

  • OrthelianOrthelian Member UncommonPosts: 1,028
    edited August 11
    mbrodie said:

    nice theory, except basically none of these mass shooters are ever stopped by good guys with guns, they are almost always apprehended or killed by police later, you know why....
    Except that's not at all true. They are attempted in areas where armed civilians are present, and they are stopped with few to no casualties. Far fewer than when they have to wait around getting shot until police arrive...

    Of course it's understandable you wouldn't know about it, because only major incidents typically make national news, and the whole point here is that they were prevented from becoming major incidents. But they are documented, if you look into it. Here's an FBI report for just 2016-2017, for instance.

    Then one day there's huge casualties in a gun-free zone where people are free to just get mowed down defenselessly, and somehow we're surprised.
    AlBQuirky

    Favorites: EQEVETOR | Playing: No MMOs since 2014. Mostly VR and strategy | Anticipating: CUPantheon
  • ash667ash667 Member UncommonPosts: 28
    https://www.theverge.com/2019/8/9/20799310/walmart-denies-violent-video-games-taken-off-shelves-report-el-paso-shooting-trump 
    looks like you guys got fake newsd how can they stop selling videogames cmon its too much money 
  • Shana77Shana77 Member UncommonPosts: 278
    So funny, here in Europe we play the same violent videogames yet mass shootings are extremely rare. Hmmm wonder why that is?
  • ash667ash667 Member UncommonPosts: 28
    A sword in hand is a sure sign of a violent mind; but one does not become non-violent merely by throwing the sword away. Vinoba Bhave
    A sword never kills anybody; it is a tool in the killer's hand. Lucius Annaeus Seneca
    this quote is from 30 ad thats how long they been debating it 
    does guns kill people or are people violent and the gun is a tool we need to use dialectic reasoning to find this answer we need to connect the dots so it makes sense 
    A time will come when a politician who has willfully made war and promoted international dissension will be as sure of the dock and much surer of the noose than a private homicide. It is not reasonable that those who gamble with men's lives should not stake their own. H. G. Wells
    we dont need to make life up on the spot with so many good ideas already done we needed to just listen not reinvent the wheel
    A lot of people are living with mental illness around them. Either you love one or you are one. Mark Ruffalo
    gad bless u guys 
  • OrthelianOrthelian Member UncommonPosts: 1,028
    Of course. Gad bless.


    Kyleran

    Favorites: EQEVETOR | Playing: No MMOs since 2014. Mostly VR and strategy | Anticipating: CUPantheon
  • ash667ash667 Member UncommonPosts: 28
    it took me like 2 mins but then i get it n i lold 
  • ElonMuskElonMusk Member UncommonPosts: 64
    Why does anyone care about whats being sold in Walmart stores?
    Slapshot1188Kyleran
  • ash667ash667 Member UncommonPosts: 28

    When you talk about violence, what do you mean by it? It is really quite an interesting question, if you go into it deeply, to inquire whether a human being, living in this world, can totally cease to be violent. Societies, religious communities, have tried not to kill animals. Some have even said, “If you don’t want to kill animals, what about the vegetables?” You can carry it to such an extent that you would cease to exist. Where do you draw the line? Is there an arbitrary line according to your ideal, to your fancy, to your norm, to your temperament, to your conditioning, and you say, “I’ll go up to there but not beyond?” Is there a difference between individual anger, with violent action on the part of the individual, and the organized hatred of a society which breeds and builds up an army to destroy another society? Where, at what level, and what fragment of violence are you discussing, or do you want to discuss whether man can be free of total violence, not a particular fragment which he calls violence?

    We know what violence is without expressing in words, in phrases, in action. As a human being in whom the animal is still very strong, in spite of centuries of so-called civilization, where shall I begin? Shall I begin at the periphery, which is society, or at the center, which is myself? You tell me not to be violent, because it is ugly. You explain to me all the reasons, and I see that violence is a terrible thing in human beings, outwardly and inwardly. Is it possible to end this violence?

  • BakgrindBakgrind Member UncommonPosts: 398
    Shana77 said:
    So funny, here in Europe we play the same violent videogames yet mass shootings are extremely rare. Hmmm wonder why that is?
    A 2018 report disagrees https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/united-states-lower-death-shootings/

    2016 report https://crimeresearch.org/2016/01/compared-to-europe-the-us-falls-in-rank-for-fatalities-and-frequency-of-mass-public-shootings-now-ranks-11th-in-fatalities-and-12th-in-frequency/ 
    AlBQuirky
  • ash667ash667 Member UncommonPosts: 28
    Violence is a form of energy; it is energy utilized in a certain way which becomes aggression. But we are not for the moment trying to transform or change violence but to understand it and comprehend it so fully that one is free of it; the mind has gone beyond it - whether it has transcended it or transformed it, is not so relevant. Is it possible? - is it not possible? - it is possible - these words! 
  • ash667ash667 Member UncommonPosts: 28
    How does one think about violence? How does one look at violence? Please listen to the question: how does one know that one is violent? When one is violent, is one aware that one is violent? How does one know violence? This question of knowing is really complex. When I say, `I know you', what does `I know' mean? I know you as you were when I met you yesterday, or ten years ago. But between ten years ago and now you have changed and I have changed, therefore I do not know you. I know you only as of the past, therefore I can never say `I know you' - do please understand this simple thing first. Therefore I can only say, `I've been violent, but I do not know what violence is now.' You say something to me which irritates my nerves and I am angry. A second later, you say, `I've been angry.' At the moment of anger you do not recognize it, only later do you do that. You have to examine the structure of recognition; if you do not understand that you will not be able to meet anger afresh. I am angry, but I realize I am angry a moment later. The realization is the recognition that I have been angry; it is taking place after I have been angry - otherwise I do not know it as anger. See what has happened: the recognition interferes with the actuality. I am always translating the present actuality in terms of the past.
  • ash667ash667 Member UncommonPosts: 28

    So can one, without translating the present in terms of the past, look at the response anew, with a fresh mind? You call me a fool and my whole blood comes to the surface and says, `You're another.' And what has taken place, in me, emotionally, inwardly? I have an image about myself as something which I think is desirable, noble, worthwhile; and you are insulting that image. It is that image that responds, which is the old. So the next question is: can the response not be from the old? - can there be an interval between the `old' and the new actuality? - can the old be hesitant, so as to allow the new to take place? I think that is where the whole problem is.

    Are we saying that all violence is just the division between what is not and what is?

  • ash667ash667 Member UncommonPosts: 28
    No, sir. Let us begin again. We are violent. Throughout existence, human beings have been violent and are violent. I want to find out, as a human being, how to transcend this violence, how to go beyond it. What am I to do? I see what violence has done in the world, how it has destroyed every form of relationship, how it has brought deep agony in oneself, misery - I see all that. And I say to myself, I want to live a really peaceful life in which there is deep abundance of love - all the violence must go. Now what have I to do? First I must not escape from it; let us be sure of that. I must not escape from the fact that I am violent - `escaping' being condemning it or justifying it, or the naming of it as violence - the naming is a form of condemnation, a form of justification.
  • ash667ash667 Member UncommonPosts: 28
    I have to realize that the mind must not be distracted from this fact of violence, neither in seeking the cause nor in the explanation of the cause, nor in naming the fact that I am violent, nor in justifying it, condemning it, trying to get rid of it. These are all forms of distraction from the fact of violence. The mind must be absolutely clear that there is no escape from it; nor must there be the exercise of will which says, `I will conquer it' - will is the very essence of violence.
  • ash667ash667 Member UncommonPosts: 28

    Are we then trying to find what violence is by finding the order in it?

    No, sir. How can there be order in violence? - violence is disorder.

    There must be no escape from it of any kind, no intellectual or explanatory justification - see the difficulty of this, for the mind is so cunning, so sharp to escape, because it does not know what to do with its violence. It is not capable of dealing with it - or it thinks it is not capable - therefore it escapes. Every form of escape, distraction, of movement away, sustains violence. If one realizes this, then the mind is confronted with the fact of `what is' and nothing else.

    Slapshot1188
  • ash667ash667 Member UncommonPosts: 28

    How can you tell whether it is violence if you do not name it?

    When you name it you are relating it through the name to the past, therefore you are looking at it with the eyes that are touched by the past, therefore you are not looking at it afresh - that is all. Do you get the point?

    You look at violence, justifying it, saying that the violence is necessary in order to live in this monstrous society, saying that violence is part of nature - `look, nature kills' - you are conditioned to look with condemnation, justification or resistance. You can only look at it afresh, anew, when you become aware that you are identifying what you see with the images of what you already know and that therefore you are not looking at it afresh. So the question then arises: how are these images formed, what is the mechanism that forms images? My wife says to me, `You are a fool.' I do not like it and it leaves a mark on my mind. She says something else; that also leaves a mark on my mind. These marks are the images of memory. Now when she says to me, 'You are a fool', if at that very minute I am aware, giving attention, then there is no marking at all - she may be right.

    So inattention breeds images; attention frees the mind from the image. This is very simple. In the same way, if when I am angry I become completely attentive, then there is not that inattention which allows the past to come in and interfere with the actual perception of anger at the moment.

  • ash667ash667 Member UncommonPosts: 28

     Is that not an act of will?

    We said: `Will is in essence violence.' Let us examine what will is: `I want to do that' - `I won't have that' - `I shall do that' - I resist, I demand, I desire, which are forms of resistance. When you say, `I will that', it is a form of resistance and resistance is violence.

This discussion has been closed.