LogFAQs > #965390058

TitanusGodzilla posted...

I know.

Then you know that your analogy is fundamentally broken and you're back to square one as far as making a compelling argument goes. Please try again.

TitanusGodzilla posted...

I'm just saying, if video games contributed to the same amount of deaths as guns(and you csn add the wounded on top of that), I would not want my games to be regulated or banned.

If there's a conclusive causal link, then they absolutely should be regulated. That regulation, however, would most likely take the form of more strictly enforcing rules against selling T- and M-rated games to those under 13/17, as well as revisiting the rating criteria to make sure they reflect what's least likely to cause developmental harm instead of the largely arbitrary approach the ESRB takes now. That's not something that's likely to affect adults at all, so there's nothing to really worry about (unless you're under 17, in which case you aren't going to suffer for having to wait a couple years). An outright ban would be largely unnecessary.

TitanusGodzilla posted...

I love games far too much to give them up, especially in the name of saving lives.

If the death toll was say: 40,000 deaths, then I might consider it.

But not for 13,000.

I chose video games over that many lives.

If you're willing to knowingly sacrifice any number of lives for a leisure activity, you're either a terrible person or somebody who's dangerously addicted to that activity. Arbitrarily picking a larger number than reality doesn't change that, especially where we all know you'd just move the goalposts and pick an even larger number if a hypothetical 40k year were ever to happen.