Calif. Petitions Supreme Court On Violent Video Game Bill

eldavojohn writes "You know the drill, violent video game bill struck down because: "We hold that the Act, as presumptively invalid content-based restriction on speech, is subject to strict scrutiny and not the 'variable obscenity' standard from Ginsberg v. New York. Applying strict scrutiny, we hold that the Act violates rights protected by the First Amendment." Well, that didn't satisfy a PhD child psychologist turned Democratic California State Senator named Leland Yee who states in his press release that "California's violent video game law properly seeks to protect children from the harmful effects of excessively violent, interactive video games. I am hopeful that the Supreme Court — which has never heard a case dealing with violent video games — will accept our appeal and assist parents in keeping these harmful video games out of the hands of children. I believe the high court will uphold this law as Constitutional. In fact in Roper v. Simmons, the court agreed we need to treat children differently in the eyes of the law due to brain development." His appeal (in PDF) is here and you can find some industry reactions to the Supreme Court hearing at GamePolitics. Unfortunately Yee seems to be a bit more competent than old Jack Thompson, who is pushing a bill in Louisiana today."

Comments

I hate that I have to say this cliche comment

[ViennaSt]

But Michael Moore addressed this with Bowling for Columbine and he was right on. They have violent video games in Japan, yet Japanese teens gun prone to violence. Modify the gun laws.

Re:I hate that I have to say this cliche comment

[0racle]

Yet Canada has more guns per capita then the US, and the same video games but also does not have teens prone to violence.

Maybe there are deeper issues then just 'guns be evil.'

Re:I hate that I have to say this cliche comment

[ViennaSt]

Wikipedia usually doesn't steer us wrong
US has the most Guns per Resident"

Re:I hate that I have to say this cliche comment

[Archangel Michael]

Cars kill more people (42,000) in the US each year than do guns(30,000, more than 1/2 of those suicide), and there are more guns (200 million) in the US than cars(70 million). I know, why let the facts get in the way of a knew jerk reaction to guns?

Bowling for Columbine should be focused upon the Pharma industry, which has more to do with two kids going wacko than the guns and games did.

But that is MY opinion.

Re:I hate that I have to say this cliche comment

[ViennaSt]

In more news...
US Sitting at 8th Place with murders by firearms right between Costa Rica and Uruguay.

Re:I hate that I have to say this cliche comment

[Red Flayer]

They have violent video games in Japan, yet Japanese teens gun prone to violence

I misread that as "Japanese teen gundam prone to violence" and I thought, sheesh -- of course they're prone to violence, that's what they were *built* for.

And then I realized that it's no longer naptime, but apparently I'm still dreaming.

Re:I hate that I have to say this cliche comment

[thearkitex]

Except when it does.

Re:I hate that I have to say this cliche comment

[snowgirl]

And the List of countries by firearm-related death rate holds that the only country with more firearm homocides than the US, is North Ireland... yeah, where terrorists are bat-shit crazy.

Take this as another example. Australia recently banned guns, and had their firearm homocide rate TRIPLE!!! Yet, they were still well below half of the US firearm homocide rate.

US citizens have a mentality and a culture of "if I don't get caught", and an idea of a lack of responsibility to others. This is what caused the financial meltdown, this is what causes our murder rate to be so high, and this is why we're the only first world nation to not have social healthcare (or maybe we're one of two... has Israel implemented social healthcare yet?)

"Merica" is just too bat-shit crazy individualistic. Who gives a crap about anyone else, as long as I get my guns to shoot people whom I don't like.

Re:I hate that I have to say this cliche comment

[pcolaman]

They have violent video games in Japan, yet Japanese teens gun prone to violence. Modify the gun laws.

Not trying to be the grammar police, but that sentence makes no sense. Assuming I understand the point you are trying to make, it should read:

Japanese teens have violent video games, yet the Japanese teens are not prone to committing violence with guns. We need to modify the gun laws in the US.

Disclaimer - I'm against modifying the gun laws in the US, as it leads to a slippery slope towards an outright ban on guns. I am just trying to reform your thoughts into coherent sentence structure.

Re:I hate that I have to say this cliche comment

[ViennaSt]

Did you see the Jameson Liquor Add next to your referenced article? Haha, the Irish Times.

Re:I hate that I have to say this cliche comment

[thearkitex]

Would you prefer I get the Washington Post's take on the same event? Face it, Wikipedia is a hell of a lot less trustworthy as an information source than the Irish Times.

Re:I hate that I have to say this cliche comment

[Anonymous Coward]

You moron.

Banning guns won't stop people from killing each other (or themselves, as most gun-related deaths are suicides). It will stop people from using guns to kill, but it won't stop the killing.

In fact, by your own admission, it will make the occurances of violent crime worse. Furthermore, it will deprive the non-crazy upstanding gun owners of their ability to defend themselves from the criminals. What good will that accomplish?

What, exactly, are you trying to do here? Save lives, or encourage the use of knives?

Who gives a crap about anyone else, as long as I get my guns to shoot people whom I don't like.

Very nice straw man fallacy. Owning a gun doesn't suddenly make someone selfish or inclined to shoot anyone he doesn't like. You want to punish and harm the overwhelming majority of gun owners because you are afraid of the actions of criminals (who would take those actions even without guns).

You, sir, are a coward.

Re:I hate that I have to say this cliche comment

[iamacat]

It's not just how you die, it's how you live. If you are killed in a car accident, you have lived your normal life right up to that point. On the other hand, if you have an abusive spouse with a gun or a gang-ridden neighborhood, you have to live in fear for years until the time when it is possible realized. Besides, when someone dies by a gun, there is usually at least one other person who either spends life in prison or lives forever with regret.

Re:I hate that I have to say this cliche comment

[sbeckstead]

What?
"yet Japanese teens gun prone to violence."
What the F*** does that sentence mean?

Re:I hate that I have to say this cliche comment

[sbeckstead]

"Wikipedia is a hell of a lot less trustworthy as an information source than the Irish Times."
Citation Needed

Re:I hate that I have to say this cliche comment

[Jurily]

First Canada, than the US.

Re:I hate that I have to say this cliche comment

[phanboy_iv]

This is something I never understood. If you say, and truthfully so, that violent video games don't make killers, therefore banning them is pointless, the logical principal behind that tends to negate the argument that guns should be treated in that same manner.

And not to be pendantic, but it is rather obvious that even the outright banning of guns would not stop people or children from murdering others, and it is my personal convition that it wouldn't even make much of a statistical dent.

Re:I hate that I have to say this cliche comment

[sortius_nod]

>

Take this as another example. Australia recently banned guns, and had their firearm homocide rate TRIPLE!!!

[Citation Needed]

The only "evidence", if it can be called this, of an increase in violence are opinion pieces such as blogs and editorials. There are no statistics or research to back this up. As an Australian I am proud of our gun control laws and laugh every time I see some gun-nut claiming they've done harm.

This is just one site that shows how murders have NOT CHANGED and that gun related accidents have changed. They even state that assaults & other crime cannot be seen as a direct result of gun control laws.

http://www.gunsandcrime.org/auresult.html

Re:I hate that I have to say this cliche comment

[Archangel Michael]

So, what you are saying is that Assholes (Abusive Husbands) and Criminals are the problem, not guns.

And are you're saying that when people die in car accidents there is no living forever with regrets or prison?

I don't think you thought much about what you are saying.

Re:I hate that I have to say this cliche comment

[spyder-implee]

"Take this as another example. Australia recently banned guns, and had their firearm homocide rate TRIPLE!!!" As we say in Australia, 'you just pulled that out your arse.'

Re:I hate that I have to say this cliche comment

[Anonymous Coward]

Ok asshole, thanks for showing once again that statistics are bullshit & quoting wiki is dumb.

First of all, your list takes figures from different years for every country on there, so right off the bat it is worth jack shit.

Second, 2/3's of the firearm related deaths in the US, according to your list, are suicides not homicides.

Third, it makes no distinction as to if those firearm deaths were caused by citizens or law enforcement.

Fourth, the list is NOT one of 1st world nations, Russia for example isn't even listed. It's based on GDI per capita which is also horseshit.

and an idea of a lack of responsibility to others. This is what caused the financial meltdown,

No, that was mostly caused by people borrowing more money than they can afford, and banks using fake numbers for property/asset values. And it wasn't just in the US it was the whole 1st world that was involved in the scam.

this is what causes our murder rate to be so high,

No, our murder rate is so high because our foolish anti-drug policies have turned the inner cities into war zones between drug dealers.

and this is why we're the only first world nation to not have social healthcare

No, we don't have social healthcare because I don't want to foot the bill to replace your lungs & liver because you spent too much time smoking crack and drinking hairspray.

If anything, the majority of problems in our country stem from the sense of entitlement that people like you spout off about. Nobody owes you anything, so get off your high horse. It's nobody else' job to wipe your ass so quit expecting others to do so for you.

Re:I hate that I have to say this cliche comment

[Anonymous Coward]

Wikipedia usually doesn't steer us wrong

You mean like how Scientology is a valued, respectible religion and not a moneysucking, bank account draining ####
###CARRIER LOST.

Re:I hate that I have to say this cliche comment

[Thangodin]

Whether Canada has more guns than the U.S., the second point is valid. And we do have a lot of guns, and in Switzerland, where they have mandatory military service, everyone keeps the gun they trained with in their home.

The difference is the attitude towards guns and violence in general. In Canada, as in Switzerland, violence is recognized as a state monopoly. We leave that for the police in time of peace, and the army in time of war. The temptation to pick up a gun and use it on someone is regarded as criminal, period. If you want to join a militia, you join the army. If you want to learn to defend yourself, you take martial arts. Guns are for people working in official positions, and even they have to answer an inquiry when they do. When six poorly trained RCMP tasered a man to death in an airport, they got raked over the coals, and they're still getting raked over the coals.

Americans believe they have the right to defend themselves with firearms. But what constitutes self-defense? Who decides? Because if someone is carrying a gun, it becomes spur of the moment, and the guy with the gun decides on the spot. If he's none too bright (and that describes about 10 to 15% of any population) he may decide that shooting you for dissing him is self-defense. And he may decide that just looking at him is dissing him. Or he or she might just be scared, and act on that--my wife mentioned a night where she heard someone running up behind her, and spun to attack him. It was jogger, but she might have shot him if she'd had a gun. If you don't take the time to think--and stupid or scared people don't--you shoot. America's problem isn't just too many guns, it's the fact that people carry them around and feel that they have the right to use them. You have claimed a right which, in the hands of stupid or frightened people, amounts to a right to kill. Since you can't outlaw stupidity and fear, you have a problem.

As for video games, media has a negligible effect on normal people. What does influence them are other human beings. Even kids know the difference between fantasy and reality, much better than we think they do. The Columbine killers were not normal human beings: one was your garden variety psychopath, and the other was a lost kid who fell under the influence of a garden variety psychopath. They didn't do it because they were goths, gamers, the trenchcoat mafia, or any other such nonsense. And psychopaths remain psychopaths even if you treat them to a steady diet of Winnie the Pooh and Little House on the Prairie.

A psychopath is a person in your neighbourhood, as the old sesame street tune goes. And sooner or later, he's going to blow up. Not letting him have instant access to guns is a good start, but you cannot change his nature. He can't kill anyone with a copy of Grand Theft Auto or Call of Duty, and games may even give him an outlet for his madness. Tell your legislators to stop wasting your time and money on this crap.

Re:I hate that I have to say this cliche comment

[RedK]

If he's none too bright (and that describes about 10 to 15% of any population)

Except we're talking about the US here. Their percentage is closer to 51%, as shown by this scientific study : http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2004/pages/results/president/

Re:I hate that I have to say this cliche comment

[Doctor_Jest]

No. Why is it hard for you people to get? We uphold ALL the Bill of Rights. Not just the ones you like. I'll repeat it for the cheap seats, and you, since you might not be an American:

"A well regulated militia, being necessary for the security of a free State, The right of the people to keep and bear arms SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED."

And the Supreme Court has upheld this. It's pretty simple really. Michael Moore, Dianne Feinstein, etc. can hate guns all they want. It doesn't change our rights to keep and bear arms. If they don't like it, the freedom exists for them NOT to own any guns. Let's analyze that a little closer... The RIGHT of the people to KEEP and BEAR arms SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED. Period. End of story. You're free to be a gun-free zone at your house, car, closet, yard. But you have no right to tell me I can't carry/bear arms. (And forget the felon racket crap... felons broke the law, and half of the time they can't even vote.) Mod me troll if you must, but I'm getting TIRED of the broken record "modify the gun laws" "ban 'assault weapons'" nonsense. Get over it.

Pick another "feel good" cause and leave the guns alone. It's cliche, but bears repeating: "Guns don't kill people. People kill people." It may be a worn out phrase, but it's true. So stop the insanity and leave the Bill of Rights alone... God knows the government tries to assrape the Constitution every chance it gets... We don't need anti-gun morons gangraping the 2nd amendment under some nebulous "for the children" crap. Makes me sick and ashamed that people can actually be for this yet cry foul when the First Amendment is trampled, and when the 4th (even in the "new" Obama administration) gets gutted. We need to start standing up for individual liberty and stop this nonsensical garbage that undermines the very document that wrote down what we already should've known... I mean, really, folks. Is it that hard?

Re:I hate that I have to say this cliche comment

[Doctor_Jest]

No, we happen to have a little document called the Constitution that enumerates the rights we are born with so the government knows where it can't go. We the people allow the government to exist, and when we are tired of how they piss on our rights, we remove them. We can even do it by force (Read Jefferson if you don't believe the Founders were very clear on the role of government as subservient to the PEOPLE.. and not the other way around.) The handout crowd has missed that, and I fear we've lost that core belief. It's sad, really.

Individual liberty (or "individualistic" for the "it takes a village" crowd) is the hallmark of American society. Was it always practiced fairly? No. Is it essential to the continuation of this great nation? Yes.

Please tell me, why did the homicide rate (gun-related) in Australia tripled AFTER the ban was initiated? Please enlighten me on your logic for that little tidbit. Either you had a stroke halfway through your post or you really don't understand what that statistic means for your argument.

Re:I hate that I have to say this cliche comment

[misexistentialist]

Gun ownership has steadily declined in the USA along with everything else. The peak was sometime in the 70s before we outsourced all of our manufacturing and started this recession, which was done in the name of advancing the global community. While your assertion that individualism is a bad thing is quite debatable, Americans are still friendlier and more socially stable than socialist European states where riots are normal. While we don't have universal health care, most people still get care, and the poor generally do better than in countries with high VATs and low standards of living. And however batshit-insane we are, the stuff that came about through various Socialist movements in Europe and Asia was/is 1000x worse. The least batshit-insane people get to have the keys to the asylum. And the guns.

Re:I hate that I have to say this cliche comment

[shoemilk]

Hello from Japan! See Japan has this thing called "culture". The US also has the same thing, but wait for it! They're different! Japan is a country, it has people, and it has games, there for it's a horse!

Re:I hate that I have to say this cliche comment

[zik]

Australia recently banned guns, and had their firearm homocide rate TRIPLE!!!

That's not actually true. It's something a gun supporter made up and has been repeated by gun nuts ever since. Check the stats - it's just not true.

There are a few things wrong with this story. Firstly, Australia didn't recently ban guns. They've always been strictly licensed but legal here. On the other hand they did outlaw private ownership of semi-automatic weapons a few years ago - but there was no noticable change in firearm deaths, either up or down.

Re:I hate that I have to say this cliche comment

[MobyDisk]

I don't intend to defend the statement about Australia, but it would not be inconsistent with what statistics show about other nations.

The statistics that were quoted on Wikipedia are from a more detailed survey that also cataloged gun ownership and gun control laws across those same countries. In college, I read the entire thing, but I can't find it online anywhere. The results show that legal gun ownership is not proportional to non-suicide gun deaths. Interestingly, if you throw education into the mix, there is a very close correlation between education and non-suicide gun related deaths.

Really it makes sense: Criminals use guns to kill people, and gun laws do not affect criminal gun ownership. Hence, you can't legislate away murder.

Re:I hate that I have to say this cliche comment

[Danse]

Americans believe they have the right to defend themselves with firearms. But what constitutes self-defense? Who decides?

Law enforcement and a jury of our peers.

America's problem isn't just too many guns, it's the fact that people carry them around and feel that they have the right to use them.

Back that up with something credible and it might be worth discussing. People with carry permits tend to be the most well-trained in the use of guns, and aren't likely to be found using them for the kinds of ridiculous reasons you state. At least we pretty much agree about the games.

Re:I hate that I have to say this cliche comment

[Danse]

Wow. TERRIBLE comparison. For it to be a little more accurate you'd have to get half the gun owners in the country to take out their guns and start firing them for two hours every day. You think death by firearms would raise once that started happening? Throw in a good helping of 18-25 year olds firing guns after a night of drinking and see what you get.

Wow. TERRIBLE logic there. If the primary use of guns was to be taken out and fired randomly for two hours a day, then you might have a point. Since they aren't, you don't.

Re:I hate that I have to say this cliche comment

[syousef]

This is just one site that shows how murders have NOT CHANGED and that gun related accidents have changed. They even state that assaults & other crime cannot be seen as a direct result of gun control laws.

Well lets see. We spent huge amounts of money and resources on the gun buyback. We curtailed EVERYONE's freedom. Farmers have less tools to get rid of pests. The barrier to entry for learning to shoot as a sport is way up.

What did we get in return? A few less idiots shot themselves and others. If I'm reading this right 20 or so less assaults all year Australia wide. No impact on the murder rate. A small temporary dip on the number of accidental deaths.

I'd call that a massive failure, but people still want to go further and ban everything from knives (which have been restricted) to hand held laser pointers (which have effectively been banned unless you're using it for astronomy). Nanny state sounds about right to me.

Re:I hate that I have to say this cliche comment

[grepistan]

Homocide is a terrible hate-crime! Stop homocide now!

Re:I hate that I have to say this cliche comment

[Nursie]

It makes it much harder and more personal.

Also, check out the crime figures - the US has a very high rate of murder and of rape. "gunless" countries tend to have higher rates of minor crimes, but the violent ones seem to be favoured over there in 'merica.

Re:I hate that I have to say this cliche comment

[Nursie]

"Really it makes sense: Criminals use guns to kill people, and gun laws do not affect criminal gun ownership. Hence, you can't legislate away murder."

You can legislate away a portion of impulse murder and accident by otherwise law abiding citizens, the V-Tech and Columbine things probably wouldn't have happened either.

Also, if you don't believe that low availability of guns affects their price and availability to criminal elements... well anyway.

Re:I hate that I have to say this cliche comment

[plague3106]

You can legislate away a portion of impulse murder and accident by otherwise law abiding citizens, the V-Tech and Columbine things probably wouldn't have happened either.

By that logic we should ban cars too, since some people had an impulse to drive their car into a crowd.

Also, if you don't believe that low availability of guns affects their price and availability to criminal elements... well anyway.

Criminals don't worry about price... they steal... part of the reason their criminals...

Lets get real here. The majority of gun violence is directly related to the war on drugs. You want to reduce violence, stop trying to prevent people from exercising control over their own bodies (ie. illegal drugs, gambling, prostitution, etc).

Re:I hate that I have to say this cliche comment

[MobyDisk]

You can legislate away a portion of impulse murder and accident by otherwise law abiding citizens

Agreed. I guess the fact that such laws don't impact crime significantly tells us that these are not a significant portion of murders. It might be that those very same law-abiding citizens are the ones most likely to use their guns to stop crimes, thus canceling out the effect of reduced impulse murders.

Also, if you don't believe that low availability of guns affects their price and availability to criminal elements... well anyway

I hold no such belief. You are probably right: It seems like it should make them more expensive. But that doesn't change the fact that these laws aren't doing anything to reduce gun-related crime.

Since I'm replying, lemme throw out some anecdotes. I live in the perfect gun crime statistic: Baltimore. We have:
- High non-gun-related crime
- High gun-related crime
- Poor schools
- Gun control laws

For 30 years, the Baltimore City Council has enacted various gun control laws to no effect. The worldwide statistics show that gun crime is 1) proportional to crime in general 2) inversely proportional to the quality of schools, 3) not proportional to gun control laws. That matches exactly with what happens here.

One day, legislators will realize that the problem is crime and education, not guns. I bet that if every gun in Baltimore was magically transformed into a knife, that the number of knife-related murders would increase by exactly the same amount as the reduction in gun-related murders.

Re:I hate that I have to say this cliche comment

[internerdj]

An acquaintance of mine in high school had a distracted woman pull out in front of him when she had no room to do so. The resulting wreck killed her infant son. I haven't heard from him lately but I can certainly say even when logically there is nothing he could have done there was a deep, deep regret.

Accidents occur with firearms as well, just ask Dick Chaney. There are plenty of people who enjoy firearms for pleasure and plenty of others who carry them due to their profession (hint: not just the professions you would suspect). There is no need to steal the protections of the many for the failings of a few.

Re:I hate that I have to say this cliche comment

[u-235-sentinel]

Yet Canada has more guns per capita then the US, and the same video games but also does not have teens prone to violence.

Maybe there are deeper issues then just 'guns be evil.'

People be evil perhaps?

Re:I hate that I have to say this cliche comment

[david_thornley]

That's kinda how I feel: I don't care that much about gun ownership, one way or another, but I don't want the Bill of Rights chopped up piecemeal. If the government intrudes on one, it'll try intruding on other parts I actually care about. Sort of like how I feel we need to defend the right of neo-Nazis to publish their propaganda: suppress that, and it gets too easy to suppress worthwhile people saying something unpopular. (I also really haven't noticed consequences, one way or another, with the Minnesota right-to-carry bill. Having law-abiding people carrying has some effects, both positive and negative, and I doubt it matters that much.)

However, the government has been successful in killing the Second Amendment, while the gun nuts sat and watched. The amendment says nothing about guns. It refers, quite clearly, to "milita" and "arms", indicating that the people have a right to arm themselves in a militarily effective manner. At about the beginning of WWI, a modern army would have large units composed of nothing but riflemen, and so a militia with rifles could be a militarily significant force. By the end of that war, that was no longer the case. Nowadays, a US squad carries weapons I'm not allowed to own.

If we were to be true to the militia concept that went into the Second Amendment, I could join a neighborhood association that would have mortars and light anti-tank weapons and anti-aircraft weapons. We could all buy automatic weapons. Pilots could buy modern fighters and missiles.

This may not be the best thing for society, but it is what the amendment says.

Re:I hate that I have to say this cliche comment

[rakslice]

Heh... I'm not sure how complete Wikipedia's list of US school shootings is, but it suggests that Canada has about 1/7th the number of school shootings of the US with only 1/9th of the population.

Re:I hate that I have to say this cliche comment

[harl]

What the fuck are you talking about?

What if you're an alcoholic and you die in an accident you caused while drunk. Bonus points for taking out small children in the accident.

According to you this is living a normal life.

Re:I hate that I have to say this cliche comment

[harl]

The swiss have a huge gun culture. Very high rates of ownership. Most of the population is trained in firearm usage.

They have very few gun deaths.

Please explain this.

Re:I hate that I have to say this cliche comment

[Feyshtey]

So, what you are saying is that Assholes (Abusive Husbands) and Criminals are the problem, not guns.

And you're suggesting that without guns, abusive husbands and criminals won't exist? Or just that they won't have any other means to be abusive or commit crimes?

Taking the weapon from the hands of an asshole makes them no less an asshole. It just makes their weapon choice less predictable.

Re:I hate that I have to say this cliche comment

[ViennaSt]

I have said this before, I don't want to ban guns but I think more regulation is needed

Other sources argue the Swiss may have a low murder rate to to higher gun regulation.
Your statement that the Swiss have a huge gun culture is true. But the US still exceeds all other countries per capita. The Swiss come in third.

I was curious about the motives for murder in the US. I found these stats on
why murders happen in the US. Not one motives stats "Due to Video Game Influence" which leads me to my original point: a better (imperfect, but still better) approach to controlling teen violence is modifying gun laws NOT regulating video games.

Re:I hate that I have to say this cliche comment

[harl]

No you don't want to ban guns you just want to regulate them to the point that they are effectively banned.

You don't say why it will help. Why do you think it will help?

All numbers taken from the CDC via http://webappa.cdc.gov/sasweb/ncipc/mortrate10_sy.html for the year 2006.

Stronger regulation can't help.

There were 30,896 fire arm deaths in the USA. 642 of those were unintentional. For comparison there were 43,664 unintentional deaths caused by automobiles. Water unintentionally killed almost five times as many people, 3,579!

The flu, plain old every day flu, kills more people than guns.

Regulating guns is a waste of resources. Potentially 62 times as many deaths can be prevented if those same resources are spent on vehicle safety. Any argument made about firearms that is not also made about motor vehicles or water means that you don't care about saving people. Your only agenda is restricting access to guns.

Yes I use unintentionally a lot. Why? It's not to generate a really low fire arm death number. It's because that's the only way to determine preventable deaths through regulation. Over half of the total fire arm deaths are suicide, 16,883. You can't prevent those through gun regulation. You can only move them to a different cause of death. The 12,791 homicides? Again you're just moving them to a different column. Also how is more regulation going to help? If people are willing to break the law against murder why are they going to obey laws about secondary sales? Criminals don't obey laws. That's what makes them criminals.

I leave you one final question. If you're alone in a room with a car, a gun, and a bucket of water what is the only thing in the room that can kill you?

Re:I hate that I have to say this cliche comment

[Danse]

Back that up with something credible and it might be worth discussing. People with carry permits tend to be the most well-trained in the use of guns, and aren't likely to be found using them for the kinds of ridiculous reasons you state. At least we pretty much agree about the games.

I call shenanigans! You can't prove because someone has a permit they understand not to do stupid things with their guns. America's problem was already stated above. We don't know or care about responsibility, we don't want to face consequences, we don't want to raise our kids, we don't want to care about our neighbors or less fortunate individuals, in fact, we just don't give a crap about anyone that doesn't make us money or please us in some way. Guns should be banned until we as a society learn to stop being douche bags, but that will never happen! So buy up what you can, and go hunting with that assault rifle... GO MERICA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Well, if you're trying to prove your point about people being douchebags, you're doing a good job. Just look up statistics for gun crime rates among concealed-carry permit holders versus the population in general and you'll see that it's much lower for the permit holders. I don't have links handy here at work, but a Google search or two should turn up the info.

Re:I hate that I have to say this cliche comment

[harl]

I was reading your huppi link and what is the increased regulation?

The swiss has a "must issue" for hang guns licenses. My state has neither permit nor registration system for any firearms.

Many states in the USA have "may issue" which is more strict than the swiss.

There is _no_ regulation on carrying rifles in Switzerland.

Where is this increased regulation you speak of?

Re:I hate that I have to say this cliche comment

[iamacat]

People are always the problem, however you can chose to enable them or not with various laws. If an abusive husband doesn't have a gun handy, he may change his mind while looking for a suitable murder weapon, his wife may be able to run away from an object which is only effective at close range and also he is more likely to deliver a non-lethal blow. If gang members duke it out with knives, one is not that as likely to fly through the window and kill my sleeping child as a bullet would be.

Re:I hate that I have to say this cliche comment

[iamacat]

There are plenty of people who enjoy firearms for pleasure

While I all for any consensual activity taking place between adults, I think the line is crossed when the objects involved can kill others later. Just try breath play or, I don't know, use the gun that the nature already gave you.

Re:I hate that I have to say this cliche comment

[ViennaSt]

Looks like all ammunition is registered and secondary gun sales are tracked/registered. More regulations are outlined here

If the US were to put a system whereby each primary gun sale between a vendor and a new owner and each secondary, private gun sale between non-vendors were entered into a government database along with an ID number that was placed on the gun, it could hopefully reduce the gun-related crime rate. But I'm not for useless regulation. If no correlation between the new regulations and a decrease in gun-related crime rates exists over a period of say 5-10 years, then by all means, remove the regulation.

Re:I hate that I have to say this cliche comment

[Danse]

Ok, I broke down and went hunting for links anyway. There's this that says:

* Florida adopted a right-to-carry law in 1987. At the time the law was passed, critics predicted increases in violence. The founder of the National Organization of Women, Betty Friedan stated:

"lethal violence, even in self defense, only engenders more violence." (13)

* When the law went into effect, the Dade County Police began a program to record all arrest and non arrest incidents involving concealed carry licensees. Between September of 1987 and August of 1992, Dade County recorded 4 crimes committed by licensees with firearms. None of these crimes resulted in an injury. The record keeping program was abandoned in 1992 because there were not enough incidents to justify tracking them. (13)(15)

So, in 5 years, they had 4 incidents of crimes, none resulting in injury. This was around the time that gun violence was peaking in the U.S. too, IIRC. Not exactly the picture of a bunch of gun-crazy guys that shoot someone at the drop of a hat that you're trying to convey, is it?

More official stats from Florida here. Seems that only about 1% of CC holders commited a crime with their weapon over the last 20+ years (166 in total, out of nearly 1.5 million).

Re:I hate that I have to say this cliche comment

[ViennaSt]

I found another link. It's one of those you know, Hellen Lovejoy "think of the children" sites but it lays out the arguments for gun regulation and preventing gun-related crimes committed by minors.

Re:I hate that I have to say this cliche comment

[snowgirl]

"Very nice straw man fallacy. Owning a gun doesn't suddenly make someone selfish or inclined to shoot anyone he doesn't like."

Not so much as a straw man as you took that out of context. Being American and therefore batshit-crazy makes you selfish. It's mostly true too.

Thank you for saving me the time of attempting to explain the key point that I'm talking about selfish Americans, not gun owners.

Re:I hate that I have to say this cliche comment

[snowgirl]

You, sir, are a coward.

Right, as my name is "snowgirl" I certainly should be addressed as "sir", and plus, my sig says: "Don't read her posts. She is a man-hating feminazi troll."

You, sir, are an idiot, who can't seem to read.

Re:I hate that I have to say this cliche comment

[snowgirl]

If anything, the majority of problems in our country stem from the sense of entitlement that people like you spout off about. Nobody owes you anything, so get off your high horse. It's nobody else' job to wipe your ass so quit expecting others to do so for you.

ZOMG! I didn't know that I wasn't owed a public education. Do you know why we have public education? To make the world fair.

I'm sorry, but we're talking about a country that feels that the education of its citizens is important enough to force everyone to foot the bill for everyone else, yet doesn't believe that their citizen's HEALTH is important enough to also foot the bill for.

Plus, I'm trying to think here... I'm complaining that Americans are selfish, and you're trying refute that by saying that my health isn't your problem?

Grow some responsibility to your fellow human being.

What disgusts me most, is that I seem to care more for my fellow human beings despite being an atheist than many Christians who preach "love thy neighbor as you would love yourself."

Re:I hate that I have to say this cliche comment

[snowgirl]

Individual liberty (or "individualistic" for the "it takes a village" crowd) is the hallmark of American society. Was it always practiced fairly? No. Is it essential to the continuation of this great nation? Yes.

Yes, exactly. We can't get rid of guns in the United States because it's part of our culture. Also, we have more rights than only those explicitly enumerated in the amendments to the Constitution.

Please tell me, why did the homicide rate (gun-related) in Australia tripled AFTER the ban was initiated? Please enlighten me on your logic for that little tidbit. Either you had a stroke halfway through your post or you really don't understand what that statistic means for your argument.

The reason for the gain is not significant. The point is that their rate tripled, and was still significantly lower than ours. This was intended solely to indicate the relative levels of gun deaths in Australia as compared the the United States.

I completely accept that there might be a "doomsday" like scenario that the fundies would point out, that the ban on guns resulted in citizens being unable to defend themselves, and thus increases in gun deaths.

However, the reason for the gun death increase has no relevance to my argument... as well, it would just be a speculation on my part. This is why it was not included.

Re:I hate that I have to say this cliche comment

[snowgirl]

While your assertion that individualism is a bad thing is quite debatable, Americans are still friendlier and more socially stable than socialist European states where riots are normal.

It is debatable, I agree. However, your assertion that Americans are friendlier and more socially stable is also debatable.

I would say the high gun-homicide rates would indicate that Americans actually are less socially stable.

Plus, "rude" and "friendly" is relative to the community. My American father was in Belgium, and tried to started up a conversation with two girls in the elevator of a hospital. I was entirely embarrassed, because in their culture, this was not appropriate behavior.

People in Europe push their way through crowds, and are less concerned with being "nice" to other people, because in the crowded situations that you find yourself in, if you followed the American attitude, of "be nice", you would never get to your destination. The same thing happens in New York, and any other big city, where overcrowding is a big deal.

Re:I hate that I have to say this cliche comment

[snowgirl]

Australia recently banned guns, and had their firearm homocide rate TRIPLE!!!

That's not actually true. It's something a gun supporter made up and has been repeated by gun nuts ever since. Check the stats - it's just not true.

I read it from a Newspaper article... which I will grant, is not necessarily all that reliable. However, my intent is not to support gun ownership in any way.

It was simply intended to demonstrate the massive disparity of gun-deaths in Australia vs the US...

I think you will agree that Australia has much less gun deaths than the US...

Re:I hate that I have to say this cliche comment

[arekusu_ou]

People who play video games and have access to guns doesn't kill people. People who play video games and are mentally unstable or plain ass stupid kill people. If we booby trapped the guns so improper use would kill the attemptee, maybe we can get rid of these stupid people before they go around shooting people we may want to keep alive. Maybe we can enforce the gun laws punishing parents for not properly keeping their guns locked away.

Re:I hate that I have to say this cliche comment

[Doctor_Jest]

We do indeed have more rights... but the core of the liberty we enjoy can be enumerated in 10 amendments. Without those 10, the other rights are moot. Those 10 are not granted by the Constitution, but written down so the government cannot overstep its bounds. Specifically, we need all 10 intact if we are to remain a free people. Bringing up the increase in gun death AFTER a ban on guns took effect merely underscores the importance of our 2nd Amendment to individual liberty as a whole. It is, as George Washington said, the linchpin that all other rights connect to. People who advocate the removal of guns, whether by political pandering or a genuinely misguided attempt at some noble goal, advocate the removal of a freedom that the Founders held as dear as a free press.

An armed man is a citizen. An unarmed man is a subject. Gun deaths do not disappear with bans on guns (Australia proves that analytically), and like I said before, the 2nd amendment is not about gun ownership so much as it is about individual liberty, which most of Europe and the rest of the world are slowly eroding (and if we're not careful, ours will erode further too.) It isn't about "the greater good". Gun control isn't about guns. It's about control. We were Europeans before we were colonists, so the idea of gun ownership is something that didn't originate in the "Wild West" or out of Wayne LaPierre's rucksack. Millions of people died so that we can have the liberty we enjoy today. It would be a metaphorical smack in the face to those brave souls if we allowed the government to rob those rights in the name of "Safety" or "the greater good". I won't allow it, and neither should anyone who believes in individual liberty.

Re:I hate that I have to say this cliche comment

[harl]

Again I ask how would these regulations reduce fatalities? What is the cause and effect? How does registering ammunition/sales somehow make them not usable to kill people?

Why bother? 62x as many lives can be saved spending the resources on motor vehicles. Why spend it on firearms?

"Looks like all ammunition is registered" Your first link contradicts this and clearly explains the loophole.

From your save the children link
"Evidence that multiple-purchase guns are likely to be trafficked and used in crime has led Virginia, Maryland, and California to outlaw such purchases." No evidence or citation provided. Please document this claim.

"Regulating the secondary gun marketâ"sales between private partiesâ"is another way to reduce the number of guns sold to minors." No evidence or citation provided. Please document this claim.

The section "Registering Guns and Licensing Owners" is invalid. The study cited has nothing to do with the claim made in the first sentence.

Same with the "Banning Weapons of Choice" section.

The whole article is emotional bullshit that ignores facts.

You don't show that the regulation does anything.

Again I ask you're in a room with a car a gun and a bucket of water. What's the only thing in the room that can kill you? The answer is really the crux of the problem.

Re:I hate that I have to say this cliche comment

[ViennaSt]

We both know that finding causal evidence linking unregistered secondary gun sales to an increase or decrease in a gun-related crime is impossible to obtain because you cannot design a perfect, controlled study for this. The best that any statistic can do is correlate two factors. An increase in gun regulation is correlated with a decrease in gun-related crime rate. Now, let me ask you something. Can you disprove this? Isn't my theory valid until it's disproven?

The regulation would cost money. Would the money be better spent on guard ways lining our freeways to prevent road fatalities? Probably. But if legislators are looking to prevent gun related deaths and that is their main goal, I'm saying try regulating gun purchases and tracking guns. Then see if correlated evidence shows a decrease in the gun related accidents/crime, and adjust the regulation accordingly. This is a better set of regulations then banning video games if your goal is to decrease gun-related crimes by minors.

Re:I hate that I have to say this cliche comment

[harl]

No. Please see the concepts of proving the negative and correlation is not causation.

You made these claims with no explanation of how these actions would accomplish anything. I'm merely asking you to show some evidence of your position. The burden is on you not me.

I don't care what legislators are looking to do. You took a position. I'm asking you. Why would you rather spend resources on reducing a pool of 600 some when you could work to reduce a pool of 40K? You're going to have more success with less resources working on the larger pool. Fire arm deaths just aren't an issue. They effect .00002 percent of the population.

You have an irrational fear of firearms. To answer the question that you've ignored twice. The answer is you. The other three are inanimate objects. They are incapable of harming you. This is the problem that needs to be addressed. We already prevent criminals from having firearms. No one on either side of the issue sees a problem with this. Any further regulation only servers to remove constitutional rights from law abiding citizens.

Rather than more laws we need parenting and a reduction in the life is cheap culture the USA has. But that would be hard.

If it were as simple as making a law then we'd have no murder, theft, or rape as these are all illegal at present.

Re:I hate that I have to say this cliche comment

[ViennaSt]

I did answer that question two days ago when you first posed it. I answered, "yourself." It may have not submitted. We all know people kill people. That is not a new, refreshing argument to me.

How can you say I have a fear of firearms from taking a pro-regulation stance on secondary sales of guns? I never said I would rather regulate firearms then spend the money spending money on an unrelated issue that would save more lives, like cancer research (a field I would much rather fund). I took a position on how to solve the one problem that these legislators are looking to solve--decreasing gun-related crimes--Not decreasing all overall US fatalities. Honestly, my "personal stance" I'm taking is not at all based on personal experience, but rather what I think legislators should consider over video game regulation.

How is registering a secondary sale "serve to remove constitutional rights from law abiding citizens"? It is extra time. Yes. It is extra money. Yes. There would need to be a comprehensive database set up to track these purchases, and I'm guessing gun owners would have to fill out annoying paperwork or online forms to complete a transaction with a secondary, private owner. And a stupid little agency filled with bored data entry employees would have to be established. But would the regulations prevent law abiding citizens from owning a gun? No.

Re:I hate that I have to say this cliche comment

[snowgirl]

Waco, Texas. Citizens upset with the way the government were doing things, collected guns, and defended themselves.

The result? The US government went in with bigger guns.

This idea that our 2nd amendment rights secure all of our other rights is ludicrous. Bearing arms against the police to protect against an illegal search and seizure will get you gunned down.

An armed citizen is on average, inexperienced, poorly trained, and generally unwilling to use force of arms against another.

The army must train soldiers to shoot at human-shaped silhouettes by instinct, in order to ensure them the best odds of actually shooting when the need arises.

Police and bodyguards are often trained on human-appearing targets, so that by instinct, they will shot at one when the need arises.

The idea that armed citizens protect our rights against our government is lunacy. It is however, American culture, and again, the reason why we cannot simply ban guns here in the US.

Culture and Mass hysteria are only a few degrees off from each other.

Re:I hate that I have to say this cliche comment

[Doctor_Jest]

Fine if you don't agree with me. I didn't "make up" the quote. It's from the Founders. The people who wrote the Constitution. And the ATF didn't go in with "bigger guns" in Waco... the nutjob running the place decided it was time to meet god. He had a little help from the ATF, but you can bet your ass Waco didn't take weeks on end because the government didn't have bigger guns or more firepower. I live in Texas... you can bet the turn of events didn't go down as the media claimed it (especially the initial ATF raid). But that's for another debate. Let CNN tell you the news and you'll miss some of the finer points of the truth and facts in general. so if you need to cite something to support your argument, pick an actual success.

You obviously don't read the news or even watch a little TV... there have been many incidents where the police were outmatched in an attempt to raid a house (sometimes the wrong house...) Remember the robbers in LA who went on a shooting spree, killing cops left and right? The only thing they had was body armor on... and the cops couldn't take them down until the perps' guns jammed. It's comical. The accuracy rating of Police officers in the line of duty who have to shoot is 28%. That's not fear-inducing to me... considering most incidents with police happen at less than 30 feet. So much for their "training." I can shoot better than that, and I don't have to...nor was it hard to train myself to do so. If you have a gun and can't shoot someone because of some buddhist belief or fear, you have no business owning a gun, because you will be shot with it. Guns are used to kill things. If you can't manage that, what good is the 2nd Amendment? I have no hesitation when it comes to shooting anyone or anything attempting to harm me or my family. You will leave my premises in a black zipper bag if you try to come in when you're not welcome. (Trust me, I am referring to the "royal you", not you in particular.) I practice on the gun range weekly. I know how to shoot my guns. That's the first half of the 2nd Amendment. The assumption that most gun owners aren't willing to shoot them to defend themselves or their families is a gross oversimplification and completely devoid of facts or any basis in reality. Sure there are some who will hesitate... the same as a soldier or a cop who hesitates. But to assume that all gun owners are poorly trained (point at what you want to kill, pull the trigger... what more is there), smacks of a bias you won't readily admit. the right to keep and bear arms isn't limited to those who are a crack shot. It's a right, not a privilege.

You have the strange assumption that because the government "has bigger guns" they are automatically making the 2nd amendment moot and people who bear arms idiots for even trying. Glad to hear you have a high opinion of those who own guns. Of course your last comment speaks volumes. You hate guns, therefore the "gun culture" in the US is stupid, outdated, and yet so ingrained into our society that before it implodes on itself in a mass of lemming-like hysteria fueled by Ruby Ridge and Waco.

Feel free to be incensed about the gun culture and its absurdity. The only rights worth keeping are those worth fighting for... you've obviously given up a while back, so enjoy the servitude.

Re:I hate that I have to say this cliche comment

[snowgirl]

I actually don't hate guns... you're simply making assumptions.

What I'm saying is that the gun-death rate of America is high for reasons other than us simply having guns.

As well, I'm saying that police and our military are far better equipped for combat than an armed citizen. An armed citizen attempting to protect his rights with guns against the government will run into typically better trained individuals, who have far more backup. An armed citizen protecting his rights from the government faces a 50 thousand-some to one odds of actual success.

Thus, my point is that even though at the founding of this country, some people may have envisioned the 2nd amendment to secure all of our other rights, the truth of the matter, especially in this day and age is that this argument flatly fails.

Muslims in French ghettos proved that you don't need guns to lead an uprising against the government.

The American culture contains guns, and that's just a fact, and it's neither good, nor bad. It simply is. However, attempting to make a justification for it, rather than simply "it's our culture" is bound to fail, because there is no logical justification for private gun ownership... it simply is.

So, spend less time arguing with someone who isn't trying to take away your guns, just because they disagree that there is no logical justification for private gun ownership. Because you're not dealing with an idiot, you're not dealing with a strawman here, I even have a copy of the application for a concealed weapon permit for my state, and I wonder if my particular situation would be better served if I had a gun to protect myself from the various crazies of my in-laws, who committed burglary, robbery, and theft against me.

The difference between you and I, is that I know that the availability of guns to me is based on cultural standards, and not for some deeper or more meaningful reason. They are simply there. Like forks and knives instead of chopsticks.

Re:I hate that I have to say this cliche comment

[Doctor_Jest]

Culturally speaking, you missed the point (again.) As a fellow American, you no doubt have read the Founders' writings, otherwise, you're just parroting the party line. Your argument for the cultural basis for guns simply misrepresents what the 2nd amendment stands for. As I have stated many times, and I guess I have to do it again, is that simply because the government has "bigger guns" doesn't have them automatically overpowering the 2nd Amendment's fundamental principle. The government is made up of the people... and the people are not of one mind. Simply saying that if the people had enough of it, and enough people had enough, there's no nuclear arsenal that would stop change. The 2nd Amendment is the bedrock of that. You may think it changes, but that doesn't make it true. You're completely free to come to your own conclusion, but the facts do not bear your argument out.

I already have a conceal carry permit for my state (Texas), and I do carry. I can assure you that as a gun owner, in a state where guns are "prevalent" (and it's no accident that they are), the sense of security and autonomy is not only enhanced by what I wear on my waist, but encouraged by it. No one in Texas, criminal or otherwise, knows who carries and who doesn't. Those who wish to do harm take a bigger risk here than many other states. That is not a guarantee, just a perk. And it is completely in the Founders' intent to do so. Their writings and speeches bear this out, though no one is apparently listening at this point (Feinstein, I'm looking at you.)

You may feel that there is not a logical reason for gun ownership, but you'd be wrong. Like I said... read the Founders' writings and you'll see the logical, well thought out, and sound arguments for gun ownership. It simply just "is", is missing the entire point of the 2nd Amendment. Because if it simply "is", the culture of Australia, Germany, and places like that would have even more gun ownership and gun enthusiasm, simply because their cultures have embraced that in the past. It's not cultural if it lasts. Australia is proof of that. It is essential to our way of life, and if you don't think so, why bother getting a concealed carry permit?

As for the Muslims in French ghettos, I don't see the French government changing. I don't see the French government capitulating. Sure, on the little things, they're flexible. Just like here. Tocqueville said when the government realizes it can bribe its citizens with their own money, our experiment is finished. What you see is not cultural but mere apathy. As long as 400 channels and shiny new things get pumped into society, the people will sleep. It's rather the "bread and circuses" tactic of ages past. I am not asleep. And there is an increasing number of people who are waking up as things degenerate because the one-party system is losing its mask. That is where the Bill of Rights come in. They are listed for times just like these.

And with a hit rate of 28% at less distance than most people sit in front of their televisions, you are still clinging to the "better trained" argument that means the average gun owner is useless. I still don't know where this is coming from, or why it even matters. It's fairly obvious you have a specific line and you stick to it. Good for you. But stop for a moment, read some Jefferson and realize your line is very faint... At least you'll learn some interesting facts about the Founders you weren't meant to know (if CNN and the like had their way)... If you come away with the same assumption you have now, feel free to sell your guns, because they are useless. Why bother? That sort of defeatist attitude got us into this mess we're in now... it'll take more than "your argument doesn't hold up because I say so", to really, truly, honestly understand the nature of the constitution and what it really means for us as a free people. The rest of the world can go to hell. I will defend the Constitution with my last breath because I believe in it that strongly. I

Re:I hate that I have to say this cliche comment

[Thangodin]

And still, none of this addresses the underlying ethos; someone who thinks that it is their place, not the government's, to defend themselves through the lethal use of force is also far less likely to trust the government with the knowledge that they have a gun. A person who registers their gun is conceding the government's right to regulate and restrict them. I would be surprised if they had a tendency to abuse a legal right, since the very act of registration indicates an acceptance of government authority. But it is far more common in America than in other Western nations for citizens to have a blanket distrust of government and to take matters--including matters of self-defense--into their own hands. This is a broad cultural right, not a legal one. It is the very contempt for legality, and for the institutions that guide and enforce it, that I am talking about here.

Mention the phrase "state monopoly of violence" to these people and watch their hackles rise. But the alternative is a claimed right, though not a legal one, to personal violence. Ask someone who complains constantly about the "gubmint" how many weapons they have, and whether they are registered. Chances are they have at least one or two that aren't, tucked away somewhere in their home. And they are eager to assert that they know how to get even. I know a couple of these people in Canada, who send me links to anti-government tirades from U.S. sites. Given that their inspiration is almost entirely American, think of how many people fit this description in America.

Re:I hate that I have to say this cliche comment

[sbeckstead]

Welcome!

Re:I hate that I have to say this cliche comment

[snowgirl]

Ok, look first of all, we're both going to agree on a few things. 1) Gun ownership is (in general) legal in the United States (given some regulation). 2) The Second Amendment guarantees that right. 3) The Second Amendment is part of the Bill of Rights. 4) The Founding Fathers held that the Second Amendment was to secure all our other rights.

Now, we will potentially diverge. Relying upon the Founding Father's intentions is an appeal to authority. The Founding Fathers also codified slavery into the actual document of the Constitution. Does that make slavery automatically ok? Or is it that prior contexts may have changed the facts as they are now.

Culture evolves. That something was permissible before, does not mean that it is or should be permissible now.

Now, here's a huge shocker for you. Just like California banned what was otherwise legal gay marriage with Proposition 8, modern politicians can take away your right to bear arms with an Amendment to the Constitution. And the only thing you could do about it, is hole up in a cave somewhere, and try and fight back.

I am not talking about the Police here. I'm talking about the Police, and the Military. Believe me, if a revolutionary movement were to begin waging war against the United States, the first thing that would happen, is that the Military would get involved.

You might remember that there was a few states that attempted to rebel against the nation, and secure their interests with their second amendment rights, and they lost.

This idea that the 2nd Amendment secures all your other rights was true at the time of the Founding Fathers, however by the fundamental force of war, the United States has already proved in the Civil War, that your 2nd Amendment rights do not secure your other rights.

In a modern society, we have better answers than violence. As a civilized individual, I will note that our "Right to Redress our Grievances" and in layman's parlance, our Right to Sue our Government, secures all of our other rights.

Fundamentally, if it comes down to such a systematic failure of government, that we need take up arms in order to throw off our oppressors, that guns are illegal shall make no difference as to our success or failure. It is rather our drive and determination to overthrow the government, that will bear out us obtaining any and all armament that we need, legal or otherwise, in order to secure our rights anew.

The legal protection of rights makes no sense, unless those rights can be secured through non-violence and non-revolutionary means, because those methods are already illegal. The government cannot physically or possibly take away our ability to revolt; that they can make it illegal is meaningless, because we would still have the ability to do so.

Every government is founded upon alternatively placating, or subduing the people over whom they exert power. England banned the colonists from owning guns, and shot rebels by summary execution, and on the battlefield. However, we still won.

To allude to the mini-series "Shougun", there is no justification for a servant to rise up against his master... that is, unless he wins.

Saddam was brought to justice through military force. Once his power was removed from him, who cared that he held that it was illegal for his guards to hold him, and bear arms against him... he was after all, now powerless to effect any legal consequence for breaking his laws.

WTF?

[Locke2005]

...assist parents in keeping these harmful video games out of the hands of children. How about a bill to assist parents in keeping that harmful McDonald's food out of the hands of children? Childhood obesity does a lot more damage than video games! After that, can we work on a bill to keep television remotes out of the hands of wives and girlfriends? I'm pretty sure that is the number one cause of domestic violence!

Re:WTF?

[Anonymous Coward]

The problem is, most retailers won't sell an "M"-rated game to anyone under 18 anyway...their parents buy it for them! The problem is not the industry, it's the irresponsible, coddling parents...and btw, it's the parents who stuff their kids' faces with MiccyD's, too.

Re:WTF?

[RsG]

The stupid thing is, parents already have those capabilities, no new laws required. A parent controls their child's finances, access to electronics, and most other decision making.

A parent can easily keep their kid from violent games. Don't buy a console, use proper precautions with computers (like requiring root access to install software and withholding the password), or failing that own a computer that can't be used for gaming (old, cheap or both). Don't buy them the games and assure relatives that you do not want the games given as presents. Do some very basic research.

None of these things are difficult. Most don't even require action, merely inaction, on the parent's part. A modern luddite, like those who support these laws, shouldn't find it difficult.

So, there are only two excuses for this idiocy. The first is that the people supporting these laws really are that lazy, or that unable to say no to their children. In which case, they need only look into a mirror to see the real problem. Laws won't solve the problem, unless those laws make reproduction a privilege.

The second, more likely, explanation is that they want to enforce their own style of parenting on everyone. Which isn't "assisting parents", it's forcing them to do things their way.

Re:WTF?

[JCSoRocks]

Parents (if you can really call them that half the time) are most certainly the problem. They are the only people that have any real control over what their children do. Whether or not they choose to exercise it is up to them. Don't come crying to me when you let your kid watch every horror movie ever made and now he's having nightmares about zombies eating his brains while dudes in masks with chainsaws chop his limbs off. It's not the government's responsibility to prevent violent video games from existing. (As if outlawing anything ever prevented kids from doing it. Why don't you just put a neon sign over it saying, "hey kids, this looks fun doesn't it?")

Re:WTF?

[drinkypoo]

The most likely explanation is that this is simply being pushed for a political agenda. Anyone who knows anything about anything knows you can't actually stop kids from playing violent games without putting a tracking collar on the little fuckers.

Re:WTF?

[pcolaman]

My solution with my own son is even easier. Keep him outside as often as possible, doing as many outdoor activities as possible. Don't give the kiddos any time to play video games.

Re:WTF?

[RsG]

Your example only serves to underscore my point.

If the parent doesn't want their kid playing a game they got off a friend, all they need to do is ensure the kid doesn't have the means to run it. No console means no borrowed console games. An old computer, or an computer other than a windows box would also serve. If you've got some state of the art game-ready PC, then require a password to install software (always a good safety procedure anyway, especially on a windows machine, since you never know what fool is going to run an EXE they got from a strange email addy).

If the kid nags the parent, then the parent can and should say no. Honestly, if a parent hasn't figured this out by the time the kid is old enough to reach a keyboard, then there are bigger problems at work than any video game could ever be.

Re:WTF?

[Locke2005]

"But this other kid has it! It's not fair!!" ...and so it goes. I'm not seeing the problem here. I tell my kid: "I made an arbitrary and capricious decision; I said no, and no amount of whining is going to change my mind. It is just going to make me angry. And trust me, kid, you won't like me when I'm angry!" In other words, I don't care if every other kid in the neighborhood is stoned out of their mind on primo bud, I'm still not buying the kid a bong! I've even been so cruel as to not let her watch Family Guy! But the thing about kids whining is, they have a really short attention span... Once you convince them that whining won't change anything, in about 30 seconds there little minds will be off on some other subject and they will be perfectly happy. The mistake you are making is thinking you have an obligation to reason with them. You don't! You're bigger than they are, and you can kick their ass anytime you feel like it! End of discussion.

Re:WTF?

[Darkness404]

The thing is, playing a violent video game, *gasp* won't totally mess up your 8 year old. Some parents don't seem to understand it. Now, if your kid is obsessed with some violent video game then you might possibly have some issues. If a kid goes over to a friends house and plays Halo all night he isn't going to come back some violent sociopath.

What exactly is the harm with a young kid playing a violent video game?

Re:WTF?

[mordenkhai]

Dad is that you?

Re:WTF?

[Zalbik]

Sigh.

It drives me nuts when I see these types of posts. Lock up your consoles! Lock down your PC! Wrap your child in bubble wrap and plug their ears with cotton!

I am a parent of 3 kids (8 year old gamer boy, 6 and 3 year old girls), and I try my best to follow the only sensible pieces of parenting advice I've ever seen on the internet:

1) Explain the rules to your children.
2) Allow them to make mistakes.
3) Monitor and correct.

The problem with posts like the above (who I am certain has the best of intentions), is that it cuts out the very important step (2).

Children need the opportunity to screw up. To break the rules. To learn the consequences of their actions.

I don't want age restrictions on my console, I want the ability to see what my boy has played & when. If he breaks the rules and sees some blood and gore one night, oh well...I am certain he won't be scarred for life. He will however, be appropriately punished and learn the consequences of breaking the rules.

Re:WTF?

[RsG]

Good point. However, please note that when I made my post, it was not directed at the sensible parents of gamers (like yourself).

There is a regrettably large percentage of people who are, for lack of any less insulting term, knee-jerk Luddites. People for whom this sort of technology is "Evil". Those are, by and large, the ones who want to ban video games - always "for the children", mind you, since that makes it okay.

To these people I say, keep the consoles away from the kids, limit the use of computers, and the imaginary problem goes away. Laws aren't needed. If their concern was in the slightest bit genuine, or if they had but an inkling of a clue, they wouldn't be pushing this crap on the rest of us.

If their intent is different from what they say it is, and is in fact pushing their own restrictive technophobia upon parents throughout the state they live in, then they can kindly stick their agenda lengthwise up an orifice of their choosing.

If a parent actually lives in the 21st century and doesn't mind their kid playing games, more power to them. If I reproduce some day, that will likely be my way of doing things. Hell, play the games with the kids, and you'll not only monitor their intake, you'll also have a chance to spend time with them (something too often lacking).

Your formulae is completely adequate and quite sensible. It is those who lack the sense to do as you prescribe who need to be told why these laws and the politicians who support them are wrong.

(Side note: in your example you mention knowing what your kid plays. You very likely already know what games he owns. That should be enough to tell you he's exposed to, since I'm going to guess you at least check the ratings before buying them.)

Re:WTF?

[donaldm]

I live in Australia and we don't have an R18+ for adult games due to one person in south Australia so any game that under normal circumstances would be R18 (example. Grand Theft Auto 4) has to be modified to an R15+ game. I have heard this man speak on the subject and he is a very good speaker as I would expect a politician to be and his reasons are very well argued until you listen allot more closely, then you realise he has what I would call a "holyier than thou" attitude by continuously brings up phrases like " We have to keep young adults from inappropriate material" and "We need to stop child pornography".

It must be noted that adult age in Australia is 18 when you can drink, vote and if you commit a serious offence you can go to prison. Under 18 you are classified as a "minor", so what the hell is a "young adult" and what has "child pornography" got to do with having a R18+ rating for adult content in games? Anyway inappropriate content in games or pictures such as child pornography is a crime anyway and I am quite sure that is the case in many countries.

To show how stupid and out of touch some of our politicians are a bill was passed recently putting a increased tax on "alco-pops" (alcoholic soft drinks) because (their words) "Young adults (WTF) and even minors (it is illegal to sell tobacco or alcohol to minors) will purchase a more drinkable form of alcohol which will lead to abuse". All this tax did was dramatically reduce the purchase of "alco-pops" but increased the amount of spirits purchased. In some ways this was a good thing for the people who stopped buying "alco-pops" since when you buy a bottle of spirits and mix it yourself you actually save a considerable amount of money. Our newspapers and media had a field day on this.

Re:WTF?

[donaldm]

The most likely explanation is that this is simply being pushed for a political agenda. Anyone who knows anything about anything knows you can't actually stop kids from playing violent games without putting a tracking collar on the little fuckers.

I could not agree more but if you do have a video game machine (PC or console) at some stage you are going to get the kid playing games. It really is up to the parents to control what their child plays keeping in mind that the more control you exercise the greater the chance the child will find a way to play the game you don't want them to play. I find it is best to show an interest in what the child likes or is getting pear pressure to like and if necessary hire the game and sit with them as they play it.

Discussion without the "Oh this is terrible" can actually help make the child give up the game as not appropriate or just plain boring, although it may be possible that the game is not "the spawn of Satan" as some do gooders would have you believe. Some violent games can be quite interesting especially when you as the player has to deal with concepts of morality. A discussion between parent and child on topics like this can actually bring them much closer and can lead to a better understanding of life in general. Of course it could go terribly wrong (it would happen anyway) but then the fault for this is normally the parents.

Re:WTF?

[donaldm]

You're bigger than they are, and you can kick their ass anytime you feel like it! End of discussion.

That may work when they are fairly young (a good thump can save allot of pointless arguments) but it doesn't when they get older especially when you have 14 year olds bigger than you. When that happens you better start talking to them.

Re:WTF?

[stonewallred]

lol, L2humor mods. Are that you that fucking stupid not to be able to see it?

Re:WTF?

[vertinox]

The stupid thing is, parents already have those capabilities, no new laws required. A parent controls their child's finances, access to electronics, and most other decision making.

I think we got the problem backwards.

We should outlaw children. That would solve the parents problem all together.

Re:WTF?

[sorak]

Well, I think the reasoning is that if they're fat AND violent, then it's easy to outrun them.

Re:WTF?

[Feyshtey]

Don't get me wrong--I'm not excusing parents from their responsibility to have to answer the above questions from their kid. Hey, nobody said parenting was easy. But I can at least understand a parent's desire to not have to go through this.

You can understand a parent's desire to avoid the hassle of parenting their child?

Look, it's pretty simple. If you are the parent it is your responsibility to take all the time that is required to know your child's level of maturity. It is your responsibility to observe the reaction of your child to a type of stimulus. It is your responsibility to know what they do with their time and money. It is your responsibility to verify that your rules are being followed, and to issue punishment when they arent.

If all this is too big a hassle, that probably should've been considered before you became a parent. Asking the state to accept your responsibility in your absence at the expense of responsible children and parents is not an intended function of the state.

If anything there should be a law that makes a parent liable for the actions of their child. If the hassle is managing the games you allow your kid(s) to play and how often they are allowed to play them, then how can you possible handle issues like depression, or violence, or crime, or drugs, or smoking, or sex?

Re:WTF?

[Feyshtey]

I have teenagers bigger than me. And they still know that screwing with me is not in their best interest.

Yeah, maybe they could kick my ass if it came down to that. But that won't start their car that is supposed to take them to the date they are already late to. Only the sparkplugs I removed can do that....

Re:WTF?

[Locke2005]

We learned this trick as kids that allows you to take down people much bigger than you: simply drop down, wrap your arms around both their legs as low as possible and squeeze them together; they become unstable and fall over. Anyway, I was about 16 when my dad got mad at me one day and started coming at me, so I did that. He didn't expect it, and went down so hard he hurt his back (which I regret), but he never threatened me with physical violence after that. So yes, there does come a time in every parent-child relationship where they both suddenly realize that the parent is no longer reliably able to kick the child's ass, and their relationship is profoundly changed after that point. My daughter is still 8, I figure I've still got a few years. Most kids are able to understand reason and realize that actions have consequences long before the point where they become stronger than their parent.

Re:WTF?

[Hacker_PingWu]

Of course! I'm always provoked to domestic violence every time I hear a girl babbling about some completely irrelevant garbage she saw on the Road Rules/Real World challenge. =P

Re:WTF?

[Hacker_PingWu]

I'd venture to say all this is a cultural trend of the people in the baby boomer generation, the age group most loudly supporting this garbage. "They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety." -Benjamin Franklin

Where is California going to find the money?

[random coward]

Where are they going to find the money to bring this to the supreme court?

Wouldn't it be better to actually spend the money on the children in California, rather than pay lawyers to take this clearly unconstitutional law to the supreme court? What with California's budget woes; you would think they would want to save the money so they don't have to cut as much from education and health care for poor children.

Re:Where is California going to find the money?

[pcolaman]

Haven't you heard? If California fixes their budget woes, they risk losing the bailout money they got from the Federal Government. That would be a catastrophe!

Re:Where is California going to find the money?

[mordenkhai]

That's easy, the Mormon church will send it on over from Utah! They're so nice!

Roper?

[gravesb]

Bringing in a case about the death penalty is an interesting tactic. I'm surprised he didn't use a school speech case, as they seem to be more on point. Oh well, hope he loses regardless.

Re:Roper?

[sexconker]

Irregardless of what happens (I could care less), bringing up the Roper case is a perfectly cromulent tactic.

Re:Roper?

[pwfffff]

http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/cromulent

I'm so confused now... troll? Not troll? Will the world ever know?

I remember this guy

[Red Flayer]

Ah, Leland Yee.

This is the same Leland Yee who has three times been pulled over on suspicion of cruising for prostitutes in San Fran (while holding public office), but never been charged? The same Leland Yee who was arrested for shoplifting in Hawaii, but had all charges dropped without prejudice?

Is it just me, or are those with the biggest axe to grind usually the ones with the most delicious skeletons in the closet?

Re:I remember this guy

[spiffyman]

Speaking of axes to grind, until you can produce evidence, the answer to all your questions may as well be "no." Seriously, how is this modded Informative or Insightful? There's not a single link to evidence for these claims. In a quick Google search, I found nothing about Yee being picked up for being a john - though lots to suggest he has fought against prostitution for years - and the only thing about shoplifting was this article referencing a 1992 incident that appears to have been a big, dumb mistake.

Mods, honestly, why did you mod this up? Do you know something I don't?

Re:I remember this guy

[pcolaman]

California is home to some great, absolutely outstanding public servants, eh? Not saying that my home state has perfect angels serving me and other citizens of Florida, but I'm sure glad we don't have the likes of Yee and Pelosi to worry about. I will say though, Cali does have the Governator as Governor, who could be sent back in time to kill either Yee or Pelosi and change the future.

Re:I remember this guy

[Darth]

I think that perhaps everyone has skeletons in their closet, because the perception of appropriateness in society is a fabrication of an ideal that not only doesn't exist, but that nobody really wants to exist.

The deliciousness of the skeletons in the closets of people like Mr. Yee comes from the perception that they are the instigators and promoters of the fabrication that we all quietly disagree with. The exposure of their hypocrisy is enjoyable in a very schadenfreudian way.

In my opinion, they are largely just catering to the societal fraud of morality to get elected and stay elected. In that respect the hypocrisy is ours as members of society as much is it is his for catering to it, probably moreso.

I try to avoid this by not telling other people what they can and cannot do, within the limits of causing indisputable harm to one another (and i'm fine with that if it's consentual).

It is still satisfying and entertaining to see snake oil salesmen exposed as charlatans, though.

Re:I remember this guy

[schon]

Uh, cuz it's true?

If it's true, then you'd have no problem producing, you know, evidence then right?

I'm sorry if your Google skills suck

As much as yours? I notice that you didn't manage to produce any links either, and it's you that seems to have a point to make.

There is an old and wise saying, of which I think you should take heed:

"Put up or shut up."

Re:I remember this guy

[rhathar]

There is an old and wise saying, of which I think you should take heed:

"Put up or shut up."

We in the 21st century have adapted this to 'Tits or GTFO'

Re:I remember this guy

[Todd Knarr]

If you didn't find the links, you weren't trying very hard.

• http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2000/10/13/MN116316.DTL&hw=leland+yee+record&sn=002&sc=701
• http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/1999/11/22/MN91849.DTL&hw=leland+yee+prostitution&sn=002&sc=610

Re:I remember this guy

[Anonymous Coward]

There's not a single link to evidence for these claims.

Really? Try reading the article you linked to. It mentions the suspicion of prostitution stops. You found it, then didn't bother reading it.

referencing a 1992 incident that appears to have been a big, dumb mistake.

Where in the article does it say it was a big dumb mistake? In act, he refuses to explain it. When questioned he instead starts calling his opponent an ass. Here are the facts. He was charged with shoplifting in Hawaii. While awaiting a hearing he left without properly notifying authorities (fled jurisdiction to avoid prosecution) and never returned to face the music. Not sure about Hawaii, but where I'm from, it's quite possible to do jail time for shop lifting, even if only a few months, so I don't want to hear that it's not being a big deal. He's a government official. He should be held to a higher standard, and he obviously has failed to met that standard by this incident alone.

Why a law in the first place?

[Kelson]

assist parents in keeping these harmful video games out of the hands of children

Wait, so parents can't refuse to buy violent video games for their kids already? They can't confiscate them if the child (or, more likely, teenager) saves up their allowance and goes and buys it themselves?

Re:Why a law in the first place?

[captnbmoore]

Because we all know Government can be better parents then the parents themselves.

Re:Why a law in the first place?

[sexconker]

No they can't.
The ones that do end up getting killed by their kids.

Re:Why a law in the first place?

[davewalthall]

If you can get to the game before they've played it, then your kids will just mope and complain. If they've played it, even just seen that startup screen for the game, they'll probably kill you before you even get out the door.

Re:Why a law in the first place?

[shentino]

Giving parents the right to confiscate (read: search and seize) property from their kids, EVEN if they bought it with their own hard earned money, implies that children have no property rights at all.

Re:Why a law in the first place?

[AnotherBlackHat]

Giving parents the right to confiscate (read: search and seize) property from their kids, EVEN if they bought it with their own hard earned money, implies that children have no property rights at all.

You imply that children can have their own money.
With the possible exception of creative works, most state law believes that parents have a right to their kid's services and earnings.

Re:Why a law in the first place?

[shentino]

my point exactly.

The law needs to recognize parental sovereignty and just get the hell out of the home.

Re:Why a law in the first place?

[donaldm]

They can't confiscate them if the child (or, more likely, teenager) saves up their allowance and goes and buys it themselves?

If you live in a country where 18 is classified as adult then R18 rating games (if your country has this rating) are restricted to adults that can show proof of age if asked. Most countries that have this normally make it illegal to sell R18 games or media to minors. In Australia were I live it illegal to sell alcohol, tobacco, knives (no this is not a typo) or even any form of gambling content to a minor (I wonder if our politicians have heard of the name "two up" which you can play with two coins). What is stupid, we don't have an R18 rating for games that have adult content with R15+ being the highest rating so all games need to have an R15 rating or less. So much for protecting our minors.

My son who is now 25 imported the R18 "Grand Theft Auto 4" from the UK (he actually saved money doing this) because the Australian one had to be modified to get an R15 rating. The problem is he cannot sell or trade the game (not that he would anyway) since it has in the eyes of the law illegal content.

Re:long of saying..

[interkin3tic]

Why not just pass a law against kids being idiots? Solve a lot more problems that way, and has about the same chances of doing anything as these censorship measures do.

Except the stores didn't sell to the kids

[Todd Knarr]

Someone needs to remind Mr. Yee that, at least in all the cases I've heard reported on, the store didn't sell the video game to the kid. They sold it to an adult relative of the kid, who then gave it to the kid without bothering to check on what exactly their "little angel" had been bugging them for. And then when they found out exactly what little Timmy had gotten, they dove headfirst into that river in Africa and started looking around for someone else to take the blame for their failure. No law about selling video games to minors will do a single blessed thing about that, where there's no video game ever sold to the minor.

Re:Except the stores didn't sell to the kids

[pcolaman]

Agreed 100%. The real problem is parenting, which won't be solved simply by any sort of legislation. It will be solved by local and state governments doing real things to encourage parents to give a damn about their kids lives, and unfortunately, it won't work in 100% of the cases even if the governments (both local and state, this isn't a federal issue) did their due diligence. There will always be some dickhead parents and some jacked up kids.

Re:Except the stores didn't sell to the kids

[jesser]

Can you give me an example of what governments can do to encourage parents to care about their kids' lives?

Re:Except the stores didn't sell to the kids

[El Gigante de Justic]

I agree with you here. There probably are a small number of sales to teens, but the vast majority are to parents, grandparents and other relatives.

I wish I could find the article now, but back when the Hot Coffee scandal broke for GTA:SA, there was some grandmother so upset that content like that would be in a game she got for her 11 year old grandson. Apparently the fact that the game was called Grand Theft Auto wasn't enough of a clue that it wasn't child appropriate.

Side note: with the whole Hot Coffee thing, I never understood why parents took so much offense to the hidden Hot Coffee thing that you had to hack to get to, but had apparently no problems with the language, violence or rampant crime in the game.

Re:Except the stores didn't sell to the kids

[pcolaman]

Put your money where your mouth is. That is, give parents a tax credit for being involved in activities such as the PTA, After school activities (soccer moms, etc), and enrolling and completing parent/kid activities. Obviously, the big question would be, how do you show that they did/did not do the said activities. I don't profess to have a perfect solution, but getting some sort of documentation from the school and it being notarized would be the simplest solution IMO. As I said, you will never get every parent to give a damn and be involved, but people love tax credits and this could be one way to encourage involvement.

Re:Except the stores didn't sell to the kids

[jesser]

I'm not a big fan of tax credits. Why not subsidize the cost of kids' soccer instead?

Re:Except the stores didn't sell to the kids

[lgw]

Why is it OK to have sex with a hooker to recharge your health, then kill her to get your money back, but Hot Coffee was the *bad* part? Boobies. A one second glimpse of a booby will melt your kid's brain (and gannets aren't much safer, says I). Explains the whole wardrobe malfunction flap as well.

Re:Except the stores didn't sell to the kids

[pcolaman]

because soccer sucks...subsidize baseball and football instead.

Re:Except the stores didn't sell to the kids

[Feyshtey]

Can you give me an example of what governments can do to encourage parents to care about their kids' lives?

Hold the parent's responsible for the criminal acts of their minor children.

As soon as a parent can be thrown in the slammer for what their kid does due to lack of supervision, I bet there'd be at least more parents paying attention.

Obviously if the parent can show an on-going effort to be involved and having taken sufficient steps to prevent criminal behavior by the kid, then the courts would have the authority to make a judgement reflecting that. But there should be an open ability for the court to determine if a lack of parenting has produced the criminal behavior in the child.

Correction

[pestie]

"California's violent video game law properly seeks to protect children from the imaginary harmful effects of excessively violent, interactive video games."

FTFY

Re:Correction

[donaldm]

"California's violent video game law properly seeks to protect children from the imaginary harmful effects of excessively violent, interactive video games."

FTFY

Anyway all the people in California who want a so called inappropriate game will drive to the next state and purchase the game anyway. What are they going to do have strip searches at the border and xray all game imports from say Netflix or even monitor all downloadable game content. If they do this it is time to polish up your boots, practice the "goose step" and watch out for that man with the "Charlie Chaplin" moustache. :)

My personal opinion.

[ZenDragon]

I didn't RTFA but I personal opinion on the subject are as such: I do believe that violent video games should be kept out of the hands of children. In fact I myself have prohibited my son from playing games like GTA for similar reasons as many of these politicians are stating. I do NOT however believe that should prevent anybody, especially mature consenting adults, from playing those games.

I think games should have better parential controls and/or and retail outlets should have more stringent checking of video game ratings when kids are buying games. In no way shape or form however, would I ever agree with a ban on these games regardless of how over the top they might be. Even if I wouldnt play the game I still feel that we, as americans, have the right to play whatever the hell we want to play.

Still, kids are going to find ways to get their hands on the games, especially as they get older. Honestly though the only kids Im worried about are my own, and once they get past 12-14 or so I could care less what they play, as long as their homework is finished. :)

Bad Parenting vs. Gun Control.

[geekmux]

Yet Canada has more guns per capita then the US, and the same video games but also does not have teens prone to violence.

Maybe there are deeper issues then just 'guns be evil.'

Yes, there are definitely deeper issues, and making stricter gun laws is not ever the answer, as evidenced by statistics where strict gun laws did nothing but increase crime rate.

I hate to say the blatantly obvious, but don't try and take my guns away because people generally suck at parenting, which tends to be the true root cause of this issue. If people can't manage to keep an ESRB teen-rated GTA game away from a 9-year old, that is not anyone elses fault, and certainly has NOTHING to do with my other inalienable rights. There's plenty of tech out there to protect your children from the Internet and they already should not be able to walk into WalMart and buy a violent game.

Just another lame-ass excuse to grab guns and excuse parents from actual responsibility.

Re:Bad Parenting vs. Gun Control.

[Jurily]

There's plenty of tech out there to protect your children from the Internet

You mean tech the average kid doesn't understand far better than the average parent?

and they already should not be able to walk into WalMart and buy a violent game.

Like that's going to help... Ever seen a little boy who just learned to walk and starts exploring his surroundings? The first thing he'll do is pick up sticks and start hitting things with it. There are certain things hardwired in our brain. That's a good thing. You just have to show them when is it appropriate to destroy things. TV doesn't cut it.

Re:Bad Parenting vs. Gun Control.

[Feyshtey]

You mean tech the average kid doesn't understand far better than the average parent?

You're right. There are certainly kids out there that know more about computers than their parents. But if you're suggesting that the parents are too stupid to outsmart their kids then we're back to a serious problem with the parent's ability to parent.

First, don't allow your kid to sit in his room in private with a computer for hours at a time. You are the parent. Require the kid to use a computer in the office or living room where you know how its being used. Require the kid to spend time interacting with you and the rest of the family.

Second, lay down ground rules for appropriate use of the computer, and follow it up by learning how to enforce those rules. You are the parent. It should be worth it to you to take the limited time required to become educated on the matter.

Third, don't provide your kid with enough cash that they are able to go out and buy anything they want. You're the parent. They don't need to throw money around and if you allow it, it's because you're being lazy.

Fourth, verify the games they have and if new ones you havent approved are showing up then take them away. Destroy them. Ground the kid. Do what you have to do. You are the parent.

Treat the computer (or console) as a privelidge that the child must earn the right to use. If they abuse the system, or break the rules, the the computer (or console) is removed. Period. You can lock it up in a closet if that's what's needed. You can yank the harddrive. You can sell it.

If you can't succeed through these stages, then you have a much bigger problem than whether the kid sees a violent interactive video game...

This attitude that the State should protect your child from your lack of attentiveness just pisses me off.

Re:Bad Parenting vs. Gun Control.

[Jurily]

Let me suggest a different ruleset:

1. The kid can do whatever the hell they want with the computer, as long as they remember it's not necessarily reality.

2. There is no rule 3.

I want my children to think for themselves, and gain as much experience about it as possible, while they're under my supervision, so when they're not, they can lead a life worth living. Isn't that what raising a child should be all about?

Re:Bad Parenting vs. Gun Control.

[Feyshtey]

I want my children to think for themselves, and gain as much experience about it as possible, while they're under my supervision, so when they're not, they can lead a life worth living.

I actually agree with this completely. What you've failed to outline in your ruleset is any form of supervision even as you've suggested it is necessary.

Letting your kid do anything he wants in a vaccuum of supervision pretty much gaurantees at least a few false conclusions on their part. Which is precisely why you create a structure in which you can observe the actions and conclusions of your child so that you can revise any false conclusions (or behaviors) they begin to develop.

Suggesting that a child should be allowed complete freedom to do "whatever the hell they want" suggest laziness on the part of the parent that borders on criminal.

Isn't that what raising a child should be all about?

Raising a child is about embracing them and teaching them so that they can grow to be decent, productive adults. That's not going to happen if you let them just do whatever the hell they want and hope to correct abhorent behavior later.

Sure, he wants to protect kids from violent games,

[FlyingSquidStudios]

but who will protect those kids from endless frivolous lawsuits?

Mod Parent Up

[sudotron]

It never ceases to amaze me how many taxpayer dollars and how much court time could be saved if legislators simply read and understood the documents they are supposed to be upholding.

Re:long of saying..

[sexconker]

Seconded.

I also propose kicking trouble makers out of schools and onto the streets, then filling those desks with puppies.

Re:long of saying..

[genner]

Seconded.

I also propose kicking trouble makers out of schools and onto the streets, then filling those desks with puppies.

There would be fewer puppies on the street that way.

Re:To victory!

[dgatwood]

Well, I wouldn't say "all" here. Slashdot is not (quite) a monoculture. Personally, I think it is pretty close to unimportant whether states require adult consent prior to selling violent video games or not, what with me not being a minor and all. It's not like kids really have a complete complement of rights anyway, and ultimately the parents have the right to decide whether to let them have/play such games anyway, so these laws really don't take away any rights except the right of game dealers to not have to check for ID. I couldn't roll my eyes farther.

Whichever way this court case goes, everyone loses because we all are forced to pay for the clowns to write the laws, the lawyers to defend them, and the courts to hear the cases. Apart from all the money and time wasted, it just isn't that important... and honestly, I'd much rather them waste their time coming up with and defending pointless, relatively harmless laws like this than coming up with and defending laws that genuinely impact civil liberties, etc.

Re:long of saying..

[sbeckstead]

Why bother, just shoot 'em now rather than later. (the puppies and the trouble makers. same thing really)!

Re:long of saying..

[sexconker]

Puppies will grow up to helpful to society.

Repeat after me

[Hojima]

Steering people (yes kids count as people, they are not sub-humans incapable of reasoning) away from the wrong direction gives them no ambition to move towards the right. Quite the contrary, they resist. We all know this because there is a little trait of people that causes illegal things to not "go away". Guns in "gun-less countries" are still there, and underage drinking has not gone the path of the dinosaurs either, we can't expect something as unregulated as video games to take a different route. So what should the government do to take care of this 'catastrophe'? Nothing. That's right boys and girls, it's in fact the job of the people to raise their children. Parents need to go out and take the initiative to buy their kids games that are non-violent that keep their kids preoccupied and away from violent video games. You may say, "how do I manage to find one?" It's called online reviews and talking to game store employees. Now you've run out of excuses. Go out and raise your kids. If you can manage that.

Re:Repeat after me

[Anonymous Coward]

You may say, "how do I manage to find [a non-violent game]?" It's called online reviews and talking to game store employees. Now you've run out of excuses.

It's even easier than that. All* games now days have ratings printed clearly on their covers, and list the game's content and appropriate age range on the reverse. Even if you don't want to read that, you can just look at the game box. If the cover art prominently features large blood soaked guns and half-naked women, it's probably not a good game for little Timmy. Very few games (if any) try to hide their content.

*There may be some unrated games, but there aren't many and they aren't sold in any reputable stores.

Re:Repeat after me

[Nursie]

"Guns in "gun-less countries" are still there,"

But not as much, when there isn't a ready source of legal ones to steal.

But I agree with your point in general. Drugs do not go away because they're banned, for instance. I would dispute this has anything to do with steering people though. Steering people has dropped drunk driving figures massively in the UK. Steering via education, not changes in the law as it was already illegal.

There's a hell of a lot that can be done in terms of public information and education. Frankly though I don't see the problem with this particular act. If minors want the games then let the parents buy them, go with a certificate scheme like movies to age-rate them and you've got a reasonable system.

Seriously, what's the actual problem with this law?

Re:Repeat after me

[Castlerock]

So what should the government do to take care of this 'catastrophe'? Nothing. That's right boys and girls, it's in fact the job of the people to raise their children. Parents need to go out and take the initiative to buy their kids games that are non-violent that keep their kids preoccupied and away from violent video games. You may say, "how do I manage to find one?" It's called online reviews and talking to game store employees. Now you've run out of excuses. Go out and raise your kids. If you can manage that.

yeah, no shit man. we have douchbags wanting to change gun laws and laws regarding video games because today's parents are too lazy to be parents. :rolleyes:

ok...i can somewhat see the laws regarding violent video games, but only because i'm not too lazy to go out and rent my kid a game if i don't mind him playing it.

unlikely

[HBergeron]

A capital punishment decision that was only 5-4 is going to be extended so far as to justify prior restraint on free expression. In fact - yes, this is a legal argument but it just barely passes the laugh test.

Brain development...

[Hurricane78]

[...] we need to treat children differently in the eyes of the law due to brain development.

Why did I understand that as "We need to treat their brains, so they stop developing." and "At least they got any brains. Which we clearly don't. Let's nuke them!"

Maybe I'm just tired. ^^
But I don't know it it's from the retardedness of such people, or from fatigue. ^^

Re:Brain development...

[pwfffff]

Maybe it's from excessive use of those absolutely appalling smiles.

Correlation may not imply causation, but I've been around these here internets for quite awhile, and wherever you see an emote of that caliber, idiocy is often quite close by...

^^

Sure, but do the same for religion

[AlmondMan]

And make it illegal to indoctrinate children with religion, as religion is 1000 fold more harmful to childrens' minds than any videogame. Then, when they're of an age where they're capable of choosing themselves, having been enlightened of the choices in religion and atheism, and let them choose for themselves. Just like they can choose to play these presumably harmful videogames.

Re:GOVT Waste

[sexconker]

To be fair, Arnold's trying.

Agree with him or not on specific issues, he's one of the best examples of a politician the country has seen in ages. He tries hard, he isn't ridiculously corrupt, he's not afraid to call people out, he doesn't put party lines first, and it's obvious he actually cares about California.

He just gets fucked over by the state legislature in terms of getting anything done, and gets attacked by unions when he tells firefighters and teachers to shape the fuck up.

Re:long of saying..

[interkin3tic]

As always, it scares me a little when my joke posts get modded "insighful/interesting/informative" and when my insighful/interesting/informative posts get modded "funny."

California Being Stupid

[Nom du Keyboard]

Dear California,

As one of the most expensive states in the Union already, and with an electorate who just told you today that we want less government for less money, why are you spending your time on this kind of garbage? Don't you have bigger problems to face?

This worked so well for Illinois...

[bigbigbison]

Illinois passed a video game law that got ruled unconstitutional and then they had to pay the Entertainment Software Association's lawyer bills

Way to go with comparison

[aepervius]

Car are a NECESSITY with the way the housing/inhabitation and work place are spread. Gun are a necessity because.... ? Car death are mostly unintentionnal. Accidental Gun death are how many % ... ? Now you would have a point if you compared gun to , say, the sale of swords or other instrument necessary to kill, instead of comparing apple to orange.

Re:Way to go with comparison

[Archangel Michael]

Gun are a necessity because.... ?

Guns (Specifically "arms") are in the Constitution, cars are not. Seems like they are pretty important to me, but what do I know?

I one of those wacky libertarian people who thinks the Government ought to fear the people, rather than the other way around.

Re:Way to go with comparison

[harl]

Cars are not necessary. Compare the number of car deaths to the number of mass transit deaths.

At least half of gun deaths are accidental, since half of all gun deaths are suicide. The smaller the number of accidental deaths the safer the object is.

Car deaths are mostly unintentional. That means cars are inherently dangerous when used in their intended purpose.

Look at the stats:
There are more guns than cars.
There are less deaths from guns than cars.
Most car deaths are accidents.
Most gun deaths are intentional.

Cars, an object who's intended purpose is not to kill you, are used to kill more people than are killed by guns, who's purpose is to kill people.

If you're having more unintentional deaths through normal operation than something designed to be used to kill people it has to be more dangerous.

There are three objects in garage. You, a gun, and a car. Which is most likely to kill you?

Oh and the plain old flu, not swine, kills more people per year than guns do.

role of government..

[rilian4]

...and assist parents in keeping these harmful video games out of the hands of children.

Parents don't need yet another law to give them the ability to keep harmful video games out of the hands of their children. They already have that ability. They just need to exercise said ability more often.

It's not the government's job to raise our children.

The proper role in this situation would be more like posting an advisory that certain studies link video game violence to this that or the other(assuming said studies even exist) but it should be up to a parent/guardian to make the decision.

Re:

[dgatwood]

It's a petition for a writ of certiorari, which for all practical purposes, is an appeal, albeit not a guaranteed one. That said, I don't think I used the word "appeal" anywhere in my post.... I described it as a case, which it is. The case has been decided, but they are asking the SCOTUS to review it and possibly overturn it, so it is still effectively ongoing until such time as they deny certiorari.

I also didn't mention the Roper case or violence. Are you sure you meant to reply to me?

On the issue of violence, though, sure they could. Kids are not allowed to see R-rated movies in theaters, and video stores are not allowed to rent violent movies to children. I don't see a difference. That's a big part of why we have an industry rating system. All the people trying to draw comparisons to movies and claiming that kids can watch violent movies clearly haven't noticed that any excessively violent programming can only be seen on TV late at night, and other avenues for watching such content have been blocked for years. If anything, arguing that video games should be treated like movies is essentially arguing that laws like this should be encouraged.

Kids shouldn't be exposed to violence

[Tybalt_Capulet]

That's why we have the ESRB and ratings of Mature, which laws protect against kids buying the games.

From that point on, it's the parents decision.

I think instead of not exposing kids to video games, we should make laws against exposing kids to religion, one of the two actually has negative consequence.