Today Is The Second FPS Cease-Fire, In Recognition Of The Sandy Hook Massacre

After the Sandy Hook school massacre last year, Antwand Pearman of GamerFitNation organised a "cease fire" day during which gamers avoided first-person shooters and other violent games. Today is the second Cease-Fire, a statement against gun violence and supporting victims of it. The Cease-Fire lasts to midnight.

"It's an opportunity for gamers to show that the gun violence for which the media frequently criticises video games does not control them, and to symbolically pay their respects to victims of gun-related tragedies," Pearman writes.


Comments

    Am I the only one that notices that the tiles are checkered?

    Just a weird thing to notice.

      What do you mean checke.......

      ...oh....

        *casts hook for overly sensitive PC kids*
        But its ok, whitie still the centre of this weird brady bunch... higher evolution mayhaps?

    Nice sentiment, badly executed

    If there's no link between games and gun violence, why would this be relevant? All it does is passively accept a link between the two.

      I also agree that taking part in such an event may further perpetuate the unscientific correlation between violence and video games.

    This probably sounds really insensitive, but why should I be compelled to not play any shooting games, just because some nut job went on a killing spree. I play whatever I damn well want to (unless my 5 year old's around of course).

    I'm totally against gun, or any type of real life violence including war, but doing something like this is like saying you're not going to drive your car out of respect for drunk driving deaths, or you're not going to use sharp knives to prepare your dinner out of respect for stabbing murders.

      I find its more like acknowledging the idea that violent video games lead to violent crimes, which I happen to be fervently against.

        I argue the opposite, that violent crimes lead to violent games.

        Choosing not to play the latter, is enough to send a message that you are unhappy with the former.

        Of course there are those who will find a way to twist the action to support their cause, the Fox News' of the world will always be finding ways to back any argument they put forth.

          but it also sends a message, whether it is your intention or not, that you also aren't happy with the former.

          humans are funny animals, we don't often understand what others do in the way they want us to, so whenever someone does something like this you need to think about what message it sends to the people not involved, and to those people it sends a message that we don't condone violence in real life (which we don't) or in video games (which most of us really don't care about).

          and think of what you're saying (again intentionally or not) about the people who do choose to play these games, because if you want choosing not to play them to send the message that you don't condone violence you're implying that choosing to play these games in at the least an acceptance of violence.

          correlation cuts both ways, and I honestly don't believe there is any real correlation between mass shootings and FPS shooters, at least not inherently.

      Correlation does not equal causation.

      They are not suggesting that violent video games cause violent behaviour, it is merely recognising that a tragedy DID occur, and they want something to symbolise their acknowledgement of said tragedy.

      Let's step back from opinion for one moment, and look at things completely objectively. Take a look at what violent FPS games are. You are shooting and killing people, as a means of entertainment.

      Now, do I think that these games have any causal effect towards people becoming killers, no, I do not. Do I play these games and think that generally it's ok for anyone else to play them, yes. That being said, games are a reflection of our society, not the converse. If we want a way to reflect on and recognise an act of gun violence, then choosing to not play a simulated version of gun violence is a legitimate act.

      You don't have to take place, and I certainly wouldn't think any less of anyone who doesn't. People have different ways of dealing with and recognising tragedy in the community. I don't find anything wrong with people choosing to take place in this.

        Correlation does not ALWAYS equal causation but generally it's a pretty good place to begin an investigation. And as a person who enjoys videogames I don't want any admissions of guilt, keep the burden of proof on the accuser.

    Yep, do this. Save the children. Maybe you should donate to World Vision too and really change the world.

    I find the whole thing a bit of an empty gesture and a distraction from the real issue.

    Poor availability of mental health help, coupled with rampant gun fetishism makes for a terribly dangerous society. Nobody wants to fix either of those huge problems, so we all make a token gesture and feel good about ourselves.

    Did everyone hear about the shooting about a week ago? No? Something is pretty wrong when that kind of thing no longer rates as newsworthy.

      If you're talking about the attempted school shooting, you won't, because he was stopped by a teacher carrying a handgun. Can't have pro gun news leaking out can we..When confronted, he took his own life like all cowards do.

        If you think teachers carrying guns is a step forward, that just shows how far gone US society is. If people have to carry guns to defend against other people carrying guns, then that is not a solution, nobody should be carrying them in the first place, it's simply insane.

        He shot one student, she died yesterday after being on life support.

          Does that make it ok that it wasn't big news? He shot one student in the head with a shotgun at close range. He then fired randomly down hallways, before shooting himself dead. The fact that only two people died is a miracle and not something to be happy about. That's two more deaths than should have happened.

          Before anyone mentions it, yes. It is a tragedy that this young guy died. It's an even worse tragedy that he killed himself. It's an even worse tragedy that he took someone else with him in a fit of misdirected rage and it's very probable that he was in poor mental health. That doesn't make him a monster. It makes him as much a victim as anyone else.

        No, I mean the actual shooting in Colorado last week where students died and nobody gave half a fuck.

        But keep on dreaming that there's some anti-gun conspiracy and not a serious social problem that kills completely innocent people on a daily basis.

        Edit: I'd like to point out pre-emptively that I'm in favour of responsible firearm ownership. My father was a professional hunter and I learned to fire a rifle at a young age. It's a tool to be used and is not only capable of being misused to harm people, it is specifically designed to kill. We rightly worry about who can drive a car or buy a box cutter. But for some reason we should have laissez-faire on gun ownership and operation? That's abject insanity.

        Last edited 23/12/13 7:10 am

          Going by how half the people drive, i dont think we do worry about who drives a car..

            That's just deflection. You've given no counter point.
            We still require licensing. We tightly police who can drive what, when and where. We police what kind of mental and physical state they can be in while driving. We impose harsh punishments for those who breach these rules, even when no harm is done.

              You obviously have no idea about firearm licensing in Australia if you think it's any different or not as harsh as motor vehicle licensing.

                We are talking about the US. I know firearm licensing. As I said in one of my other posts, I've owned weapons all my life.

                The vehicle licensing in Australia and the US are similar enough to be comparable. The firearm licensing is not.

                Again, you choose a small thing and deliberately misinterpret in order to not actually have a point.

                  No worries, i thought you were comparing Australian firearm licensing.

          I just want to point out that there's an issue here when you guys are getting confused over which school shooting the others are referencing.

          But you know what they say, the only thing that will stop a good guy with a gun is a bad guy with a gun.

            There are so many shootings, that we have to make sure we are talking about the same one. Australia is much less cavalier about weapon ownership and we have a much less terrible reputation for mental services. The result is a population much less likely to be randomly shot by some middle class white guy on any given day.

              New Zealand, a country with the same moral beliefs and lifestyle as Australia, has nowhere near the restrictions we do. The evil semi auto firearm can be bought by anyone with a firearms license in NZ. No mass shootings there. Canada recently disbanded it's firearms registry, finding it made no difference at all to restrict it's residence access to firearms, no mass shooting there. I'm not saying the US doesn't have problems, but i blame the failing mental health system, not guns. I don't usually respond to anti gun sentiment and if you're anti gun that's fine, i just get sick of the hobby i enjoy being blamed. Gun laws only affect the law abiding gun owner, not the criminals.

                New Zealand has an incredibly small population and most people who own firearms do so for work purposes, as they live in rural areas. Canada has the lowest population density of any nation in the world and also has most firearms owned by people who live in areas where they are a necessary tool. Both countries also have comparitively good mental health facilities and more importantly don't have a culture of gun fetishism.
                North America has large population centres with millions of people, poor mental health services and (again) a serious, nationalistic fetishism for firearms. When you add the prevalence of weapons (and the increased risk of escalation in any conflict) to those other two factors, you get obscene gun violence.
                I'm not anti gun. I've said it at least twice before; I own and operate firearms. The problem is multi-faceted and whether you like it or not, the prevalence and social narrative of guns in the US makes the problem a hell of a lot worse.

                "Gun laws only affect the law abiding gun owner, not the criminals." - This is absolutely false. Criminals are always going to get guns if they want get them. If not guns, then knives. If not knives, then clubs. What a prevalence of guns does is make every situation where tempers get out of hand a potential shooting, and not a potential punching. It also means that through their ubiquity, accidents happen more often. If you take away the likelihood of shootings from those accidents and flared tempers, you get a drastically reduced gun fatality rate.

                  "Gun laws only affect the law abiding gun owner, not the criminals." - This is absolutely false.

                  Criminals are always going to get guns if they want get them.

                  Which one is it then? The gun laws restrict what i can buy, but not the criminals, how is it false then?

                  I must have upset someone, all my comments are awaiting moderation *rolleyes*

                  Can't reply. Too many inline comments.

                  Once again, you've ignored the bulk of the argument and nitpicked in order to deflect.

                  Both statements I made are true. Criminals will always be able to get weapons. Making it more difficult affects them. It stops all but the most desperate for a firearm from getting them. It does restrict them, but nothing will ever stop them entirely. Hence why I have stated several times that I am an advocate of gun laws and restrictions, the same way we restrict vehicles. I am not against responsible weapon ownership.

                  I am not against responsible weapon ownership.

                  I am not against responsible weapon ownership.

                  I am not against responsible weapon ownership.

                  Mental health improvements will lower the number of people with unstable mental conditions that can end in violence. Restricting the availability of firearms gives these possible violent outbursts much less opportunity to be deadly. On top of that, most gun deaths are in the form of accidents or heat of the moment altercations with otherwise mentally sound people. Once again, restricting access makes these less likely to happen.

                  Once again, I am not against responsible weapon ownership. I am for reasonable laws restricting who can own what and when. For the record I think the semi-auto ban is far less useful than restrictions on pistols. Pistols have little or no use in hunting or pest control. They are for shooting people. Up close.

    So a veiled attempt at getting people to support a non existent link between video games and real world violence in the honor of a politically staged and orchestrated massacre?

    'Merica.

    No. I don't want to acknowledge the myth that games cause violent shootings.

    So will those troops in actual war killing actual people "cease fire"?
    Will all the movies, TV, music and books "cease fire"?

    This is some bullshit again, attempting to put the blame on gamers instead of
    showing these are false flag staged events to change policy to remove peoples guns.

    Create the problem wait for peoples reaction offer a solution.

    Retarded. I played heaps of FPS today, and I hope the lobbyists get upset about it.

Join the discussion!