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."

20 of 615 comments (clear)

  1. Please correct my logic by pembo13 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    People spending more time playing video games have less time to stab people.

    --
    "Thanks for all the money you paid to us. We've used it to buy off ISO among other things" -Microsoft
    1. Re:Please correct my logic by vishbar · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I wonder if this will have an opposite effect than intended. Now instead of being able to vent their frustration on the Helghast, that knife on the kitchen table looks mightily attractive...

      Plus, if you've gotten to the point that you want to stab someone, you have a mental problem...sucks that the UK government is punishing the citizenry for the acts of a few disturbed individuals.

      --
      Ride the skies
    2. Re:Please correct my logic by Shakrai · · Score: 5, Insightful

      You erroneously assume that logic comes into play with government.

      Fixed that for you ;)

      --
      I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
      We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
    3. Re:Please correct my logic by Bralkein · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Outlawing hate speech would probably make "almost everyone" happy as well but that isn't a good justification to start infringing on civil liberties, IMHO.

      Not at all. Outlawing hate speech (or any speech, for that matter) is a very controversial idea here, and there are significant efforts by civil rights lobbyists to prevent such things. That doesn't mean the government won't try to do it, like I said, I don't agree with them a lot of the time. But with guns the situation is much simpler.

      In any case you reap what you sow -- your citizens are virtually defenseless against criminals wielding "weapons" that you'll never be able to take away unless you ban the consumption of meat. Congratulations.

      I don't understand how introducing guns into the equation is magically going to make this situation better. If guns are more widely available then surely the criminals will have them, too? I don't really fancy my chances in a shoot-out! Even most police officers here don't carry a gun.

      Don't get me wrong, British society has plenty of problems, not least with its government what with all of the CCTV and the war in the Middle East and the economic issues etc. but the gun policy we have here works for us and I don't really think you should be so disdainful about it. As I said before the US (which I assume you're from, if not then sorry and insert your country as appropriate) is its own place and is entitled to its own policy on the matter. I wouldn't want to pass judgement on the internal affairs of a country of which I have no great understanding.

    4. Re:Please correct my logic by Haeleth · · Score: 4, Insightful

      your citizens are virtually defenseless against criminals wielding "weapons" that you'll never be able to take away unless you ban the consumption of meat. Congratulations.

      We're also virtually defenceless against ICBM strikes, raptors, and armies of mutant zombie pirates. Oh noes! How will we ever defend ourselves!

      Fact is, all the sensational stabbings the press have reported in the last year or so have had one thing in common: easy availability of guns would not have prevented them. It would just have meant that we'd have had a bunch of sensational shootings instead. I'm sure that would have been a real improvement.

    5. Re:Please correct my logic by mdwh2 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Indeed - the problem is that in this country, having a murdered son or daughter apparently gives you the right to pass a law banning whatever you like in your dead child's name. You'll get national media coverage for your campaign, and if the Government agrees, they'll use you as an emotional figurehead, promoting you as the emotive reason why Something Must Be Done.

      I saw it with Liz Longhurst and her crusade to criminalise possession of porn she doesn't like, which has now passed. Even now, she continues to pop up in the media again and again giving her uninformed one-sided views, whilst individuals, organisations and academics who opposed the law have had to fight to get even a slim amount of coverage. Anyone who dares criticise her is accused of being disrespectful, whilst it's okay for her to tell those who risk being criminalised "hard luck".

      Grieving parents shouldn't be given additional media attention for political campaigning, over anyone else, and they are the last people we should be consulting for an unbiased and unemotional viewpoint on lawmaking.

  2. HUH? by trdrstv · · Score: 5, Insightful

    If raising taxes is a method of fighting crime (it's not, but supposing it is) then why not raise taxes on the sale of knives ?

    1. Re:HUH? by DrVomact · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Um, yes, why not do that? If the sale of knives creates some danger in society, than it should be taxed equal to that danger and the funds should go toward extra police or similar.

      Raising taxes can indeed be a way of fighting crime.

      Oh really. Do you have any examples or argument for this astonishingly fatuous assertion? To the extent that taxes affect crime, it is that they create an opportunity for it. If you raise taxes on a commodity enough, it becomes profitable to bypass the tax—in other words, a black market springs into existence to satisfy the economic imbalance created by the tax. Of course, outright prohibition works even better at creating crime, because people must necessarily pay the going price for outlawed commodities. And that means profit. Or did you think that people would say, "oh no, coke is too expensive now because it's illegal, so I guess I'll stop using it". (Substitute substance of your choice, if you like.)

      I suppose one could argue that the British prohibition of civilian gun ownership has had an effect: instead of "gun crime", they now have hysterics over "knife crime". But I would like to think that the true objective of the British government was to stop violent crime; I would like to think that the commodity to be limited was violence, not firearms per se. If so, they would have to admit the failure of their prohibitive laws. I would be naive if I really believed anything of the sort, of course.

      I suppose that when they ban knives, they will have "club crime" and "rock crime". (Sounds like a new sort of music, doesn't it?)

      --
      Great men are almost always bad men--Lord Acton's Corollary
  3. Why not tax by internerdj · · Score: 4, Insightful

    , you know, knives?

  4. They would be better off by Cro+Magnon · · Score: 5, Insightful

    if they would put police on the street. Apparently, spy cameras don't deter knife crime unless someone actually gets arrested for it.

    --
    Slow down, cowboy! It has been 4 hours since you last posted. You must wait another few hours.
  5. Re:Correlation... by mr_mischief · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Obligatory xkcd for you, and it's even a recent one: correlation.

    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?

    Giving adolescents more productive things to do is the best way to fight teen crime. If they're busy earning money, cleaning the parks as volunteers, acting in community theatre, playing music, dancing, painting, or playing organized sports they're less likely (and have less free time) to go out and commit crimes.

  6. Plus by msobkow · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Plus there is the minor side issue that most video games use guns, not knives to inflict damage. It sounds like the proponent of this tax are yet another example of knee-jerk reactionaries with a hate-on for video games and rap music. Why is it that such nutbars are even heard by government, much less seriously considered?

    --
    I do not fail; I succeed at finding out what does not work.
  7. Misleading Summary by Shrike82 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Far be it from me to suggest that people RTFA or question the correctness of a summary title, but the father of a murdered boy urging the Prime Minister to tax violent games is a pretty big fucking step from the "UK To Mull High Video Game Taxes - To Fight Knife Crime " in the summary title.

    Just for clarity - the UK government aren't doing anything like what's being implied. One man, rightly or wrongly, is suggesting this.

    --
    You can advertise in this sig from as little as £99.99 a month!
  8. Re:Correlation... by vishbar · · Score: 4, Insightful

    If it's anything like the US, then the kids buying video games are probably not the ones going around stabbing folks. Violent crime tends to correlate with a lower income bracket...whereas a kid who buys lots of violent video games for his next-gen console and HDTV probably comes from a higher-income family.

    --
    Ride the skies
  9. Alternatives. by senorpoco · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I propose a 278% tax on all history books. History has long been known to contain scenes of bloody violence, sexual deviance and disregard for authority. It is time that the government and parents started to take a stand against the corruptive influence of history.

  10. Re:Is anyone surprised? by ObsessiveMathsFreak · · Score: 4, Insightful

    What is a person supposed to do now against someone who has a knife? Ask politely for them to stop?

    In fact, the victim has a Duty to Retreat, sometimes even within their own homes. It is laws like these that have made the public scared and powerless. For the convenience of the government, it is better for ordinary people to simply lay down and die when face with criminal activity.

    People have the right to stand their ground and yes, use violence when they are in danger. While I don't agree with "shoot first" laws that some American states have implemented, it is not always the case that the first person to use violence is in the wrong.

    It's not just guns and knives. People have been seriously injured, permanently disabled and even killed by bare hands and boots. It may be more legally clear who is in the wrong if your attacker strikes first, but that will not help you much if you have to walk with a limp for the rest of your days. Unfortunately, modern legal systems do not recognise this, and will judge the honest man who strikes first far more harshly than the career criminal who does so.

    It's not a question of being armed. Arming people won't help. You have to give people the right to defend themselves. The real right. Not a clause that only comes into effect when they've already been rendered unconscious.

    --
    May the Maths Be with you!
  11. Re:Correlation... by ShieldW0lf · · Score: 4, Insightful

    No, people (you, for example) like to pretend that it's a simple problem because they're terrified by the knowledge that the world is complicated. They tell themselves the comforting lie that if they pick a scapegoat and attack it, everything will magically get better.

    Ahh, the "It's too complex for you to know that, how dare you hold me responsible" argument. I've never heard "THAT" one before...

    --
    -1 Uncomfortable Truth
  12. Re:Correlation... by ShieldW0lf · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Right off the bat, there's some serious overgeneralizing in that statement. However, if it is the case, then the solution is simple in concept but difficult in execution. Show young people that the system can work for them. That involves thousands of hours of education in basic finance, civics, and law. Show young people that the system can work against them. That involves an effective police force and appropriate punishments.

    Question for you:

    If the majority of the population are retired, and they vote for the young minority to work double shifts to support them, and the police enforce the will of the majority vote, is that freedom, or is it slavery?

    --
    -1 Uncomfortable Truth
  13. Re:Correlation... by ShieldW0lf · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Seriously, thought, we're suffering from massive unemployment, not lack of manpower.

    You mean, the people who own all the resources that you could very easily go and do productive work with are comfortable and have no desire to allow you permission to work them. But you can go stand in front of their box of stuff and say "Cash or Credit, I'm sorry sir, you'll have to pay for that" all day, and they'll feed, water and house you like the animal you are...

    It's not unemployment, its disenfranchisement. While the disenfranchisement continues, the employment or lack of it are rather irrelevant.

    --
    -1 Uncomfortable Truth
  14. Let me get this straight by damburger · · Score: 4, Insightful

    They destroyed industrial communities. They gave the police virtually unlimited powers to stop and search young people. They established a foreign policy of might-makes-right and went out of their way to antagonize and alienate immigrant communities. They lied, took bribes, started wars, incited racism, crushed civil liberties, and they are still standing trying to talk like statesmen.

    And computer games are to blame when the kids go berserk? Fucking retarded.

    --
    If we can put a man on the moon, why can't we shoot people for Apollo-related non-sequiturs?