Video games in the Boondocks

by Kevin Kelly { Nov 12th 2006 at 5:00PM }

Today's The Boondocks comic by Aaron McGruder deals with the trend of politicians going after video game developers and publishers. It's a great summary of the problem, simply rendered in comic strip form. Perhaps Jack Thompson will read this strip and it will change his life. We can hope, can't we?

Let's hope they get tired of this soon, because the next step will be coming after parents for buying the games, and gamers for having the audacity to play 'em. Later, if you even look at a game, it could be a possible fine of up to $250 and one week of mandatory congressional aide duty.

Stop the insanity before it goes too far.

[Thanks, Ethan]

Tags: adult swim, Boondocks, comic strip, Comics, politics, Video games

Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)

LordMinogue @ Nov 12th 2006 5:05PM

Quick Question:

How do I send something into Joystiq to be posted?

cheese @ Nov 12th 2006 5:12PM

LordMinogue, you'd probably just want to email the info to one of the bloggers. That's my guess.

Ethan @ Nov 12th 2006 5:14PM

You're welcome Joystiq.

oh, and lordminogue, you just hit the link on the right hand side that says "Send us news tips".

SteveZ @ Nov 12th 2006 5:20PM

lol this strip is a good one but unbelievably old

i remember reading it in the paper years ago, and that was before all this jack thompson/Rockstar crap

Riemann Lebesgue @ Nov 12th 2006 5:29PM

Oh, yes, go after the gun dealers and manufacturers. People who also aren't responsible for the violence. That makes a whole lot more sense.

It's always the blame game. Blame video games even though they come with ratings. Blame gun dealers even though they don't sell to minors. Blame TV. Blame the Dr. Scholl's shoe inserts. But, oh no, never admit that the person who pulled the trigger is the one who should be getting the blame. And certainly don't blame the parents who weren't watching their kids very well.

mgroves @ Nov 12th 2006 5:38PM

I think there are two flawed arguments here.

1. Going after the gun companies for gun violence doesn't make any more sense then going after Louisville Slugger for baseball bat violence or Clorox for Super Soakers full of bleach.

2. What's wrong with going after parents for not being responsible for the media (video games in this case) their kids are consuming? They should be the first line of defense, not lawyers and congressmen. A parent who lets their kids watch Lucious Lesbians 8 or Hostel is just as irresponsible as one who lets his kids play GTA or Manhunt.

WamBam @ Nov 12th 2006 6:02PM

There's actually an article in Salon this week about Bully and video game violence.

http://salon.com/news/feature/2006/11/11/bully/

It's easy to blame things like video games and guns as having a detrimental impact on society and I'm willing to believe that both do have some sort of influence. But you rarely hear politicians talking about the real causes of violence: poverty, poor education, unemployment and inequality. For them to do this, they would have to take some measure of personal responsibility.

Until politicians and the American people are willing to sober up and get real about these issues we'll continue to blame guns, games, music, movies, Mexicans, gays, Canada, Al Qaeda and whoever else is the scapegoat of the moment.

OTAM @ Nov 12th 2006 6:12PM

"Going after the gun companies for gun violence doesn't make any more sense then going after Louisville Slugger for baseball bat violence or Clorox for Super Soakers full of bleach."

That's exactly the point,it doenst make any sense going after videogame companies for violence,it's not the games that are doing it.

Judd @ Nov 12th 2006 6:44PM

Yes, obviously the person that ultimately pulls the trigger is responsible, but there is a huge difference between the right to engage in fake violence, and buying a gun. The baseball bat comparison is not the same thing. 99% of the time somebody buys a baseball bat they are using it for baseball. When you are buying a gun you are buying it for the purpose of causing harm. Now you may use it to cause harm to animals, or you may use it for protection. And yes some people can collect guns and some people may go to firing ranges shooting at posters. However, ultimately many people who are buying guns are using it for the purpose of, threatening or acting on, the killing or serious harm of a living thing. And you know what, if someone lives in a dangerous area or they just like to go hunting that's their right. It's not like a knife which has a practical home use of cutting up your steak. Nobody is using a gun in their house to take apart their furniture. Don't get me wrong I'm ususally for personal rights such as the right to play any video game, but their is nothing wrong with politicians making sure that gun manufactures aren't advertising certain guns to appeal towards minors. And you know what, if someone just likes to go hunting (as long as they have a license, follow all laws involving safety's, wait 90 days or whatever the required time is, are of age, and American citizens) that's their right. But don't think that just because there are laws that minors, foreigners, and criminals can't buy guns, that they aren't able to. And maybe if there weren't some many gun lobbyists in Congress, the government could crack down on their occurences, instead of an issue they pretend to give a shit about.

Riemann Lebesgue @ Nov 12th 2006 7:04PM

Judd,

Guns are NOT advertised towards minors. Look at any gun magazine and you'll see how boring and plain the ads are, and those that are a bit flashier are advertised towards OLDER people by bringing in bits of nostalgia.

The idea if that there weren't as many "gun lobbyists" then the government could crack down is garbage also, because it doesn't represent the reality of the situation. There are plenty of laws in place already, and yes, they are stricly enforced.

It doesn't matter if it's video games or gun manufacturers. You're blaming someone who has nothing to do with the problem. When kids get access to guns, they are NOT getting them from gun dealers or manufacturers, but from one of the following:

1. Their parents.
2. Black market sources.
3. Via theft.

Laws exist against the latter two and in cases of the first one the rule is generally restricted to hunting and even then their are still limits.

Some areas do have a parental responsibility law: If you let your child use your gun, and then he commits an illegal act with it, then you will be held partially responsible. That's about the only regulation that makes sense in that respect.

In short, blaiming gun manufacturers, gun lobbyists, or gun dealers is as irrational as blaming game developers.

Riemann Lebesgue @ Nov 12th 2006 7:02PM

"That's exactly the point,it doenst make any sense going after videogame companies for violence,it's not the games that are doing it."

The problem with the Boondock strip is that McGruder simply substituted one scapegoat for another.

Riemann Lebesgue @ Nov 12th 2006 7:15PM

Oh, how I wish there was an edit function. "they are NOT getting them from gun dealers or manufacturers" should read: "they are NOT getting them from gun dealers or being encouraged to do so by manufacturers"

Mulliga @ Nov 12th 2006 9:16PM

Speaking as an avid gamer and gun owner:

I think gamers might have to get organized. More restrictive controls might be put into place simply because of FUD - video games are still kind of mysterious for many people (like Reggie Fils-Aime's comment - we all know someone who's never actually played one) and what is unknown is easy to demonize. Much like gun rights organizations like the NRA and GOA, gamers need someone to represent them and tell those Congresscritters votes are riding on whether they vote "aye" on that shiny new piece of legislation proposed by Lieberman et. al.

Also, re: marketing to minors, when was the last time you saw a gun ad in a non-gun-related magazine or TV show? Compare that with how many times you see ads for alcohol in mainstream media. If you took all the manufacturers of the "nefarious gun industry" and put them together, they'd have much less revenue than, say, Home Depot.