Anyone who’s worked in a gun store knows that guy. He’s in his early 20’s and usually comes in with a couple of friends. They want to see specific guns: the Deagle, the M4, the SCAR, anything in “fifty cal.” Most of all, they’d love a chance to fondle the ever-elusive ACR.
Soldiers on leave? Procurement agents for law enforcement? Well-heeled NRA High-Power competitors? No.
These are the Call of Duty generation.
Once handing them the gun used to kill the terrorists in Level 7, you’ll spend a good ten minutes reminding them with increasing sternness not to sweep other patrons with the muzzle. They’ll usually pull out a cell-phone and take pictures of their friends posing with it. They’ll tell you it’s the most “badass” gun in the whole game, and how they totally own the noobs with it.
Goofy as they might be, I’ve never dealt with one whom I considered to be the least bit dangerous. Though there’s a certain fetishism at work, they don’t seem to idolize the weapon for its destructive potential. They simply think it’s a neat artifact in and of itself.
Thus arises the question of overlap between shooters and gamers.
I know many shooters who are also avid gamers. We’re healthy people and have no problem understanding the difference between the imaginary violence of video games and the responsible use of real-world firearms.
In Borderlands, I have a level 37 Tediore Equalizer revolver that shoots 11.5 shots/second, inflicts 1558 points of damage with each shot, and causes explosions on impact. In fact, the smoke and flare effects are so intense that the frame-rate of the game actually drags for a couple of seconds when I fire it. It’ll make mincemeat out of just about anything, except those annoying Claptrap robots.
It’s the coolest thing ever, though it might require a Form 4 in the real world.
I’ve caught myself engaging in some really sloppy muzzle discipline in video games. Heck, I’ve nicked squadmates with a few stray rounds. It’s no big deal, of course: a health pack or a few seconds’ rest, and they’re fine.
It’s all well and good, because I don’t get that sort of thing confused with real-world firearms handling. Neither do most folks.
Yet, as with shooting, video games have been blamed for being a cause of violent behavior. I’ve frequently seen the two equated by agenda-driven media elements. What’s nice is to see a balanced report arguing the quite the opposite:
Of all the gunners and gamers I interviewed for this article, most answered my questions in roughly the same manner. Shooting is fun; gaming is stimulating. Not quite what you’d expect to hear, and certainly not what many anti-gun and gaming advocates would lead you to believe. In fact, most people who neither shoot nor play games assume that people who engage in those activities do so for the opposite reasons, and the mere suggestion that gamers might also own guns brings to mind the horrific images of the shootings at Columbine, perpetrated by two boys who were videogamers and firearm fanatics.
Yet in talking with the gunners and gamers, it becomes clear that these are not members of the lunatic fringe. In fact, those who are most serious about gaming and gunning are probably the least dangerous people you’ll ever meet, and less likely to harm themselves or others. (…) Enthusiasts who share a passion for both games and guns are generally well-educated, well-trained and well-practiced in the detailed minutiae of how to engage in their hobby safely.
In a media culture that cut its teeth castigating gun owners as smoldering crockpots of potential rage, it’s nice to see the needle swinging back to center for once.
Who knows, perhaps the whole Call of Duty thing will bring a few new shooters into the fold. And it’s certainly better for you than Facebook.