Mocking the assault weapons ban through video games?

[Mazryonh]

A long time ago, I saw an advertisement for a computer graphics card saying "Don't hold your games back," with a picture of a blonde female elf from the first Everquest game (from 1999) frequently featured in that game's promotional art holding a magical staff that had clearly fizzled and was smoking. I then thought of the possible assault weapons ban and was wondering if anyone has tried to draw attention to the ban by modelling its effects in video games (in essence holding the ingame characters back in a similar way).

I've been playing Left 4 Dead 2 recently and was imagining just how difficult a "civilians defending themselves from hordes of zombies" game would be if all ingame characters had to use assault-weapons-ban-legal weapons. It'd be pretty difficult in that game (and many others like it) if players were forced to defend themselves against the unending zombie hordes with 10-round-capacity handguns, 10-round capacity rifles, and 4-round-capacity shotguns, with no option for fully-automatic or burst-fire modes. (In fact, aren't high-capacity firearms with "tacticool" accessories and styling often marketed with references to future zombie apocalypses as a way to indicate their suitability for taking down many targets in a short time, as would be the case in a hypothetical zombie apocalypse?)

I know it's fairly easy to change the ingame capacities of guns in games, but I haven't seen anyone yet do it with the express purpose of mocking the potential new assault weapons ban. It could be a challenge for those games and a way of mocking what many people don't consider very funny.

[funkychinaman]

Originally Posted by Mazryonh

A long time ago, I saw an advertisement for a computer graphics card saying "Don't hold your games back," with a picture of a blonde female elf from the first Everquest game (from 1999) frequently featured in that game's promotional art holding a magical staff that had clearly fizzled and was smoking. I then thought of the possible assault weapons ban and was wondering if anyone has tried to draw attention to the ban by modelling its effects in video games (in essence holding the ingame characters back in a similar way).

I've been playing Left 4 Dead 2 recently and was imagining just how difficult a "civilians defending themselves from hordes of zombies" game would be if all ingame characters had to use assault-weapons-ban-legal weapons. It'd be pretty difficult in that game (and many others like it) if players were forced to defend themselves against the unending zombie hordes with 10-round-capacity handguns, 10-round capacity rifles, and 4-round-capacity shotguns, with no option for fully-automatic or burst-fire modes. (In fact, aren't high-capacity firearms with "tacticool" accessories and styling often marketed with references to future zombie apocalypses as a way to indicate their suitability for taking down many targets in a short time, as would be the case in a hypothetical zombie apocalypse?)

I know it's fairly easy to change the ingame capacities of guns in games, but I haven't seen anyone yet do it with the express purpose of mocking the potential new assault weapons ban. It could be a challenge for those games and a way of mocking what many people don't consider very funny.

I REALLY hope no one has plans to use "possible zombie apocalypse" as a defense against the new AWB. I'm praying no one does.

The cartoon "Drawn Together" made fun of it a few years ago, if I recall. ("N.R.A.Y RAY" S03E05)

[Mazryonh]

Originally Posted by funkychinaman

I REALLY hope no one has plans to use "possible zombie apocalypse" as a defense against the new AWB. I'm praying no one does.

I wasn't proposing people do that, but it would be funny in an odd way (and a good way to draw attention to the matter) if gamers had to play with virtual versions of assault-weapons-ban-friendly firearms.

Still, "hordes of looters and malcontents" arising after a breakdown in law and order isn't very far from a "zombie uprising" amongst the minds of "preppers" everywhere, and a much more realistic possibility. Sadly, a similar situation arose in Algiers Point, New Orleans in the aftermath of the Katrina storm, and it didn't end well for those on the wrong side of people who merely thought they had come to the town to pillage and loot.

[S&Wshooter]

Originally Posted by Mazryonh

Still, "hordes of looters and malcontents" arising after a breakdown in law and order isn't very far from a "zombie uprising" amongst the minds of "preppers" everywhere, and a much more realistic possibility. Sadly, a similar situation arose in Algiers Point, New Orleans in the aftermath of the Katrina storm, and it didn't end well for those on the wrong side of people who merely thought they had come to the town to pillage and loot.

They neglect to mention in the article that the situation in Louisiana got much worse after the authorities began confiscating civilian-owned firearms. I know many people who would have been harmed or killed in the aftermath if it were not for their guns and the guns of those around them, and while my father was up there as a Search & Rescue volunteer, his Colt AR-15 convinced a group of young men in New Orleans that continuing to try to rape a young woman and hack her brother to death with machetes would be incredibly hazardous to their health. While what happened at Algiers Point was an entirely avoidable tragedy, such an event is not an accurate representation of the way armed citizens behaved during the disaster.

[SPEMack618]

Nor do the Korean shop-keepers, who took to arms, scary black ones to boot, to defend thier shops during the LA Riots.

[Mazryonh]

Originally Posted by S&Wshooter

They neglect to mention in the article that the situation in Louisiana got much worse after the authorities began confiscating civilian-owned firearms. I know many people who would have been harmed or killed in the aftermath if it were not for their guns and the guns of those around them, and while my father was up there as a Search & Rescue volunteer, his Colt AR-15 convinced a group of young men in New Orleans that continuing to try to rape a young woman and hack her brother to death with machetes would be incredibly hazardous to their health. While what happened at Algiers Point was an entirely avoidable tragedy, such an event is not an accurate representation of the way armed citizens behaved during the disaster.

On a side note, New Orleans actually appears in Left 4 Dead 2 as a virtual location.

The problem I see there is that the government tried to contain the potential damage panicked and/or ill-informed people could have caused with their firearms by firearms confiscation, but failed to back that up by sending enough police/military troops to secure the area (by no means their only failure in that disaster). Assuming your story is true, your father saw one of the benefits of that bungled policy; the would-be rapists were not armed with their own firearms.

If your father was by himself (you don't mention if he was), and each of the aggressors had handguns (for the sake of argument), it would have been far likelier that he would have been shot ("It's us against you. So, cracker, what are you going to do about it?"). If your father had decided to "go tactical" and shoot from hiding (whether directly at the aggressors or just over their heads), it would not have been difficult for the aggressors to take the woman along with them (inadvertently or purposely turning her into a human shield). If he made like John Wayne and killed all the would-be rapists, word would eventually get out and likely be the cause of more racial violence (never mind that he'd have to answer for that one way or another).

It is not difficult to get a group of people to believe irrational or manifestly harmful things. Give them guns and the danger gets all the worse.

[S&Wshooter]

Originally Posted by Mazryonh

The problem I see there is that the government tried to contain the potential damage panicked and/or ill-informed people could have caused with their firearms by firearms confiscation, but failed to back that up by sending enough police/military troops to secure the area (by no means their only failure in that disaster). Assuming your story is true, your father saw one of the benefits of that bungled policy; the would-be rapists were not armed with their own firearms.

Yeah, this was before any kind confiscation took place, so it had nothing to do with the thugs being armed only with machetes. Even then, the confiscation only targeted lawfully armed citizens, having little-to-no effect on the amount of firearms that the local criminal element possessed. It's just plain fact that most of the roving gangs were armed with things like machetes and blunt objects before and after any firearms were confiscated, and that all confiscation did was severely harm the ability of the populace to defend themselves against said roving gangs and others who decided to use the disaster as an opportunity to prey upon their neighbors.

The confiscation of civilian owned firearms WAS NOT intended to make anyone safer, it was just an excuse to get away with taking away normal folks' guns, of which very few (if any) were returned to their rightful owners afterwards, with those owners not receiving any kind of compensation whatsoever for the property UNLAWFULLY SEIZED from them by the state.

[SPEMack618]

To change the topic a little bit, but still related, pursue this article and the following comments when you get a chance...

http://www.bob-owens.com/2013/02/no-russian/#more-2875

I've read LTC Grossman's On Killing and made my views about that level well known here.

Interesting read.