NRA draws heat over its new shooting game


#1

(CNN) -- A month after the deadly school shootings in Newtown, Connecticut, the National Rifle Association is taking heat again -- this time for releasing a mobile video game that lets players learn how to shoot at targets.

The game, "NRA: Practice Range," puts the user in a gun range, where they fire a variety of handguns and rifles at stationary targets and earn points for accuracy. Critics are questioning the timing of the game's release Monday -- a month to the day after the December 14 shootings -- and accusing the NRA of hypocrisy because one of its leaders recently blamed video games for stoking gun violence.

"It's outrageous. The NRA never seems to be able to amaze me," said Joel Faxon, a member of Newtown's Police Commission, who described himself as a longtime gun owner.

"There's no reason that they can't espouse safe, effective, appropriate gun usage," he said. "Why do they have to come out with something like this at a time when the nerves and emotions are so raw in Sandy Hook?"

cnn.com/2013/01/15/tech/gaming-gadgets/nra-shooting-game/index.html


#2

Has anybody looked at the game who has criticised it?

It has gun laws, safety tips etc which can improve safety in the real world, and you shoot at a shooting range. I have seen more outrage over the NRA commissioned game than video games where you shoot people


#3

The targets do look an awful lot like coffins…

https://news.google.com/news/tbn/NObPPN77DiQJ/6.jpg


#4

quote="bellasbane, post:1, topic:311610" -- A month after the deadly school shootings in Newtown, Connecticut, the National Rifle Association is taking heat again -- this time for releasing a mobile video game that lets players learn how to shoot at targets.

The game, "NRA: Practice Range," puts the user in a gun range, where they fire a variety of handguns and rifles at stationary targets and earn points for accuracy. Critics are questioning the timing of the game's release Monday -- a month to the day after the December 14 shootings -- and accusing the NRA of hypocrisy because one of its leaders recently blamed video games for stoking gun violence.

"It's outrageous. The NRA never seems to be able to amaze me," said Joel Faxon, a member of Newtown's Police Commission, who described himself as a longtime gun owner.

"There's no reason that they can't espouse safe, effective, appropriate gun usage," he said. "Why do they have to come out with something like this at a time when the nerves and emotions are so raw in Sandy Hook?"

cnn.com/2013/01/15/tech/gaming-gadgets/nra-shooting-game/index.html

[/quote]

Is it only available online or do you have to order it?


#5

Its in the itunes app store.


#6

[quote="bellasbane, post:5, topic:311610"]
Its in the itunes app store.

[/quote]

So my wife can order it and play it on her Ipad?

Wonder if it will work on my son's tab2.


#7

[quote="bellasbane, post:3, topic:311610"]
The targets do look an awful lot like coffins...

https://news.google.com/news/tbn/NObPPN77DiQJ/6.jpg

[/quote]

They, like actual shooting targets, are vaguely formed to have the appearance of a human silhouette. Oddly enough, coffins are also formed to have a vaguely human silhouette :p Of course the two things are going to look similar.


#8

[quote="SamH, post:6, topic:311610"]
So my wife can order it and play it on her Ipad?

Wonder if it will work on my son's tab2.

[/quote]

Yes and No. It appears they discriminate against android users.


#9

Interesting,

One organization releases a game where people shoot at paper targets, while receiving gun safety tips; and another group issues a game where you shoot people in the head ( kotaku.com/5976372/someone-made-a-game-in-which-you-shoot-the-head-of-the-nra)

And which one does CNN take the time out to criticize.?

Oh yea, and the game that shoots NRA President Wayne Lapierre, it has a bonus level planned where you get to play the role of the Sandy Hook Shooter?

Yep, I can see why the Police Commissioner chose to rebuke the NRA on it's game :rolleyes:


#10

Oh no, a game of target practice? quelle horreur.


#11

[quote="Cider, post:10, topic:311610"]
Oh no, a game of target practice? quelle horreur.

[/quote]

But they're coffin shaped! I suppose most CNN news analysts have never been shooting.

But no coverage of an online game where you get to shoot Wayne Lapierra at a press conference.

freerepublic.com/focus/f-chat/2978200/posts


#12

At least the NRA game is a bit educational. Shall we start a list of all the vile, evil, sick video games on the market which desensitize our youth to graphic violence? Hello? CNN cannot be serious, can they? You know the video games with realistic graphics that show REAL people (not paper targets).some of the ads for them are so disgusting I cannot watch. Where is the outrage and disgust over those games?

I totally agree with Brandon.


#13

And BTW I fully support the right to own guns. People who are mentally ill, who want to kill lots of people, will find a way to do that......regardless of whether or not guns are available.


#14

[quote="bellasbane, post:3, topic:311610"]
The targets do look an awful lot like coffins...

https://news.google.com/news/tbn/NObPPN77DiQJ/6.jpg

[/quote]

To those with no experience in competitive, Olympic caliber competitive shooting, it might first so appear. However, CNN's need to remain relevant, as well as their anti-NRA agenda is very easily detected by those attuned to such bias.

If I criticize something while knowing very little or nothing about it, I am considered ignorant. CNN is exempted from this, apparently.


#15

[quote="TigerKitty, post:13, topic:311610"]
And BTW I fully support the right to own guns. People who are mentally ill, who want to kill lots of people, will find a way to do that......regardless of whether or not guns are available.

[/quote]

The State of Connecticut needed only to control one such person to save the lives of 20+ others. Is this so difficult? So unreasonable?


#16

[quote="po18guy, post:15, topic:311610"]
The State of Connecticut needed only to control one such person to save the lives of 20+ others. Is this so difficult? So unreasonable?

[/quote]

Guns are used defensively to prevent crimes an estimated 1-2.5 MILLION times per year in the US alone. If you want to trade numbers, how many homes need to be invaded, how many people assaulted, beaten, and murdered, and how many defenseless women raped would it take you to realize that depriving people of the legitimate means of defense is the unreasonable position to take?

And what we need is NOT gun control... what we need is to realize that every school mass shooting since Columbine has been committed by people who were doped up on anti-psychotic, personality altering drugs, all of which have a side effect of causing violent outbursts. Why aren't we controlling THESE people instead of depriving law abiding, sane, and peaceful citizens the God given right to defense of their life, liberty, and property?


#17

[quote="Actaeon, post:16, topic:311610"]
Guns are used defensively to prevent crimes an estimated 1-2.5 MILLION times per year in the US alone. If you want to trade numbers, how many homes need to be invaded, how many people assaulted, beaten, and murdered, and how many defenseless women raped would it take you to realize that depriving people of the legitimate means of defense is the unreasonable position to take?

And what we need is NOT gun control... what we need is to realize that every school mass shooting since Columbine has been committed by people who were doped up on anti-psychotic, personality altering drugs, all of which have a side effect of causing violent outbursts. Why aren't we controlling THESE people instead of depriving law abiding, sane, and peaceful citizens the God given right to defense of their life, liberty, and property?

[/quote]

Correct. Also, per what I've just heard, 14 and 15 year olds were killed recently in Chicago, Chicago had about 500 homicides last year. Why aren't we hearing about these as much as what happened at Newtown??


#18

[quote="Actaeon, post:16, topic:311610"]
Guns are used defensively to prevent crimes an estimated 1-2.5 MILLION times per year in the US alone. If you want to trade numbers, how many homes need to be invaded, how many people assaulted, beaten, and murdered, and how many defenseless women raped would it take you to realize that depriving people of the legitimate means of defense is the unreasonable position to take?

[/quote]

Nobody has suggested depriving people of anything. That's just what the right-wing nuts want you to believe. Honest decent people will pass background checks and nobody needs a semi-automatic with a 100 round clip to protect them from intruders.

[quote="Actaeon, post:16, topic:311610"]
And what we need is NOT gun control... what we need is to realize that every school mass shooting since Columbine has been committed by people who were doped up on anti-psychotic, personality altering drugs, all of which have a side effect of causing violent outbursts. Why aren't we controlling THESE people instead of depriving law abiding, sane, and peaceful citizens the God given right to defense of their life, liberty, and property?

[/quote]

psychotic young-adult white male = yes, but I don't think they were all on drugs. In fact, I'd say it would have been better if some of them had been on anti-psychotic medication.


#19

[quote="bellasbane, post:18, topic:311610"]
Nobody has suggested depriving people of anything. That's just what the right-wing nuts want you to believe. Honest decent people will pass background checks and nobody needs a semi-automatic with a 100 round clip to protect them from intruders.

[/quote]

Can you tell me where "needs" or "intruders" are listed in the 2nd Amendment?

Leftists (and I don't use this term loosely, but I can't think of any other term to use for the President's supporters, at this point) have created false notions regarding "hunting", "protection" and "needs" in the 2nd Amendment. Those notions never have, and never will be part of its wording, or intent.

Do you really "need" free speech? Freedom of religion? They are no less part of our Bill of Rights, which aren't government granted, and aren't "needs" based.

I see the same argument regarding the tax issue. You don't "need" all of the money you earn, so fork some over.

I find the concept that you (or President Obama) can determine the "needs" of another absurd and offensive, especially when it's in direct opposition to our Constitution.


#20

[quote="bellasbane, post:18, topic:311610"]
Nobody has suggested depriving people of anything. That's just what the want you to believe. Honest decent people will pass background checks and nobody needs a semi-automatic with a 100 round clip to protect them from intruders.

[/quote]

Classy language.

psychotic young-adult white male = yes, but I don't think they were all on drugs. In fact, I'd say it would have been better if some of them had been on anti-psychotic medication.

This information is guarded but we know James Holmes was under the care of a psychiatrist and police reports say his eyes were dilated. Jared Loughner seemed to be suspect for the use of the drugs and Adam Lanza we know was under threat of being committed.


DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.