The NRA Strikes Back: by Pointing Fingers

The debate about rifle ownership is just starting, at least I hope it is.  We cannot keep sweeping this under the rug.  It seems to be a serious debate this time, considering the usual suspects are turning against each other.   

Yesterday I came across an interesting political post over at game informer.  Yes, a political article at one of the video gaming industry’s premier magazines.  From time to time there are politics involved in the video gaming industry.  Since the shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Connecticut, we have seen a debate spark up about who is responsible for young men turning into mass murderers; video games, guns, or both.  As if these are the only culprits in a complex problem.


First, Tim Turi of gameinformer.com points out that the National Rifle Association executive vice president Wayne LaPierre says that violent video games like Mortal Combat and the Grand Theft Auto series are partly responsible of the violence we are seeing all too often.

"There exists in this country, sadly, a callous, corrupt and corrupting shadow industry that sells and sows violence against its own people," LaPierre says. "Through vicious violent video games, with names like Bulletstorm, Grand Theft Auto, Mortal Kombat and Splatterhouse. And here's one: It's called Kindergarten Killers. it's been online for 10 years. How come my research staff can find it, and all yours couldn't, or didn't want anyone to know you've found it?" said LaPierre while also pointing to movies like American Psycho and Natural Born Killers as catalysts for real-life violence.

Then Matthew Kato writes about the response from Jennifer Mercurio, vice president & general counsel for the Entertainment Consumers Association (ECA).

"We agree with the Supreme Court's decisions, and the volumes of scientific research, which all clearly state that there is no causal link between media violence and real life violence. As we are all learning increasingly through the news, this is a situation of the perpetrator's mental disorders, and his family's inability to adequately deal with them in time. Our hearts remain with all those suffering in the aftermath of this horrendous crime" says Mercurio.

It was only last year when the Supreme Court Ruled in Brown v. Entertainment Merchants Association (2011) that California’s law banning the sale of violent video games to minors was unconstitutional.

Of course there is two sides to every story, but on words alone, the First Amendment of the United States Constitution is much clearer than the Second Amendment.  I know you probably already know these but I will post them anyways for those of you that want to say “no way, you’re stupid” or something along those lines.

First Amendment of U.S. Constitution 

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

Second Amendment of U.S. Constitution 

A well-regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

Now outside of what the Supreme Court has ruled, can you really say for sure what these exact words mean for Second Amendment?  Sure some will say they can, but that is why it is still debated today.  

The meaning of the sentence is not self-evident, and has given rise to so much debate about it, but a limited amount of Supreme Court decisions.  I find it amusing when either side says they know exactly what these words mean.  The courts have ruled on this issue, but it is far from settled. 

We know the Supreme Court ruled in District of Columbia v. Heller (2008) that the Second Amendment protects a person’s right to possess a firearm, even if they are unconnected to service in a militia and to use that arm for lawful purposes, which means self-defense within the home.  

Even though this was a Conservative Court, the ruling seems fair to me.  It was not until McDonald v. Chicago (2010) that the court determined that the Second Amendment also applied to individual states and reaffirmed that some restrictions can be placed on owning firearms such as those owned by "felons" or the "mentally ill" and "laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms."

Even though in McDonald v. Chicago, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled for the first time that the right to keep and bear arms did in fact extend to individuals in each of the 50 U.S. states; by also saying that there can be limits placed upon this freedom, they opened up for later laws that could in fact ban some forms of these weapons.  I find it interesting that the words seem to be geared towards these fire arms being in the home for protection, which is not really at issue.  

"It cannot be doubted that the right to bear arms was regarded as a substantive guarantee, not a prohibition that could be ignored so long as states legislated in an evenhanded manner,” Justice Samuel Alito wrote for the majority.  


Does the U.S. Constitution say anything about the mentally ill or felons not being allowed to have fire arms?  I do not see it, but the government has spoken.  Even with this we did not see a smooth transition.  

After the Virginia Tech shooting Congress passed the NCIS Improvement Amendments Act of 2007.  The law made it a requirement that all states submit mental health records to national databases to be maintained by the FBI.  The Federal Government would then pay for this to happen.  The NRA would not allow this to happen without stipulations added.  First they wanted to make sure what "mental defective" was and they wanted to make sure a "Relief from Disabilities" program was added to the bill.  This made it so a judge could take a simple doctors note and give a banned person their weapons back.  Plus tax payers foot the bill to lawyers that are fighting to get guns back to people that may or may not really be healed. 

John Flowers wrote that "the fact that the NRA could extract anything —particularly more gun rights for the mentally ill in a bill that’s supposed to better police the mentally ill’s access to guns—tells us how effective the NRA is at lobbying." 

Lets get back to the legality of banning hand guns.  I suspect many people do not realize what the Second Amendment really says, or that it could be changed if the people demanded so.  Not all courts have always agreed to what the current Supreme Court has said the Second Amendment really means.   

Lets remember earlier cases that the Supreme Court decided seemed to point towards allowing the federal government to ban certain types of weapons.  In United States v. Miller (1939),  Jack Miller and another person where once indicted for transporting a sawed-off shotgun across states lines.  The gun was not registered.  This violated the National Firearms Act of 1934.  In court Miller argued that the section of the National Firearms Act that regulated the interstate transportation of certain firearms violated his Second Amendment Right.  The U.S. District Court for the Western District of Arkansas agreed with Miller.  

The case was then appealed right to the Supreme Court.  This Supreme Court reversed the district courts ruling reading the "Second Amendment in conjunction of the Militia Clause in Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution, and concluded that '[i]n the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a [sawed-off] shotgun . . . has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument.”'

This ruling seems to have pointed towards allowing the federal government to ban items not used for the single purpose of being in conjunction with a militia.            

That Supreme Court had decided that the public safety was more important than the gun lobby's view of the Second Amendment. 

Point being that not until recently did any clarification come to the Second Amendment through the courts.  And even then, we can and should make laws limiting the kind of arms people have.  The only real question seems to be where to draw the line at.     

Let’s get back to the video game debate for a second.  The NRA would love for us to look at the Second Amendment as being more important that the First Amendment.  I would not put more importance on either of them, they are law and need to be followed until changed. 

Problem is, the First Amendment is pretty clear.  The Supreme Court has also been clear when it comes to the First Amendment right to free speech.   In Brandenburg v. Ohio (1969) the Supreme Court established the modern version of the "clear and present danger" doctrine, which meant that the state could only restrict speech if it is designed for “inciting or producing imminent lawless action, and is likely to incite or produce such action.”

Can we say video games meet this description that the court laid out?  I’m sure a case could be made.  But studies have shown no link.  Would banning video games really stop these kids? I am no expert, but I can say that I agree with making sure my kids are old enough to play these games (when in fact I have some kids).  The government cannot police them for you. 

My worry is that the right wing will see video gaming as an easy scapegoat for gun violence.  The religious right would like to do it.  Like I said, there is little to no link to video games causing gun violence.  

Max Fisher of the Washington Post says that “It’s true that Americans spend billions of dollars on video games every year and that the United States has the highest firearm murder rate in the developed world. But other countries where video games are popular have much lower firearm-related murder rates. In fact, countries where video game consumption is highest tend to be some of the safest countries in the world, likely a product of the fact that developed or rich countries, where consumers can afford expensive games, have on average much less violent crime.” (His article is actually very interesting)

Joseph Lawler of Real Clear Politics makes a similar case here.

“Gaming critics, however, need to account for the fact that the evidence points against a link between playing video games and violence” says Lawler.  

If you think that politicians wanting to ban gaming are not real, look at what Mitt Romney once said. 

Mitt Romney once said he wants "to restore values so children are protected from a societal cesspool of filth, pornography, violence, sex and perversion," which would of likely meant video games could have been under attack if he would have won the presidency.  That is not fact, but we all know social conservatives are only small government until they need a bigger one to push their social agenda.

When we have politicians saying stuff like this it becomes sort of a fairy tale that entertainment such as movies and video games causes violent acts. 

What about music with violent lyrics?    

According to the American Psychological Association “Violent song lyrics increase negative emotions and thoughts that can lead to aggression, according to a study published in the May issue of the Journal of Personality and Social Psychology (Vol. 84, No. 5).” 

A study done by Iowa State University and the Texas Department of Human Services discovered that aggressive music lyrics cause an upsurge in “aggressive thoughts and feelings,” and this can enable “aggressive behavior and have long-term effects, such as influencing listeners' perceptions of society and contributing to the development of aggressive personalities.”  (You can find the study here)

Why would music be any different than video games?  I am not sure it is, but the law is clear on free speech as we have already noted.  Maybe video games do cause violent tendencies.  I’ve never wanted to be the cop killer from Grand Theft Auto; however, I have wanted to be the Dragon Born from Elder Scrolls: Skyrim.  Music stars are often seen as cool and are highly respected as individuals.  Maybe that has something to do with it. 

When it comes to speech or the right to carry weapons of war, it is easy for me to identify which one can clearly be pointed towards as having a higher kill count.  We should be trying to find out the long term effects of violent video games.  We know the effect that assault rifles have on a violent situation; they allow someone with murderous intentions to carry out the act with greater efficiency, and oftentimes a larger kill count will result.  Those that say these weapons do not act in this manner are kidding themselves or are flat out deniers.  Ask yourself, why they would make assault rifles if not for their increased rate of fire and larger magazine capacity; ending with a greater killing capacity. 

I also find it interesting that the NRA blames video games and movies but says nothing about music.  They would have had a stronger case if they would have brought up music.  The NRA has every reason to want to blame video games.  No one wants to see music banned, it’s a battle that has been won over and over again.  I doubt video games will end up any differently, but it is where many on the right seem to be going. 

Another point to make is who is to say that videos games have not kept more people from committing violent acts.  Sort of like a punching bag when a person is angry.  I have no evidence to confirm this hypothesis (it’s not really); it just works for me sometime when I am frustrated.