Slashdot Mirror
UK To Mull High Video Game Taxes — To Fight Knife Crime
chareverie writes "The Prime Minister of the UK is being urged to impose high taxes on violent video games in an effort to reduce the number of knife-related crime. The request comes from Richard Taylor, who argues that young people 'feel that the law has no control over them. They just feel that they can go on the streets and do whatever they like.' He doesn't have a definitive number on how much to tax on the offensive video games, but says that they should be 'very high.' Rap music is also voiced to be a concern due to the alleged negativity and language. Taylor's son, Damilola Taylor, was killed in November 2000 at the age of 10 by knife stabbing."
Unfortunately, most idiots who spout drivel like this don't even have a strong correlation in the first place. Sales of violent video games may be up, and knife crimes might be up, but is it even the kids playing the games committing the crimes?
It's worse than that. Knife crime is down. The number of people injured by knives and other sharp instruments is down (although not by as much as was previously reported). Incidence of violent crime in general is down.
This hysteria and panic is caused by, well, nothing. Except the fact that for some unknown reason over the last 5 years the media has become much more likely to report each and every incident of violence with a knife that they get to hear about.
So, if there is any correlation, it's a negative one: more video games, less knife crime.
In 2005, there was a major layoff of teachers from the public school system of Minneapolis. That same year, there was a dramatic surge in the number of hurricanes to hit the Gulf Coast.
As such, either
1) Laying off teachers causes hurricanes
2) Hurricanes cause teachers to be laid off
3) Teacher get laid off in Minneapolis for the same reason hurricanes form, namely, warm water and air currents off the east coast of Africa moving toward the colder central Atlantic ocean
Correlation implies absolutely nothing without substantially stronger evidence to tie the threads together, and no, anecdotal evidence doesn't count.
Firearms have no particular cultural or constitutional significance in Great Britain. US law may be based on English common law, but the reverse isn't true. The right to bear arms in English Law has always been restricted to those weapons that were suitable for the purpose of self-defence. In a society where the probability of encountering a gun-wielding assailant is very small there are few individuals for whom a handgun is a suitable defensive weapon. Gun ownership has never been widespread in Britain and most people would prefer to keep it that way, regardless of constitutional controversies in foreign lands.