Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Missouri Republican Wants Violent Video Game Tax

Posted by Soulskill on from the guns-don't-kill-people,-imaginary-guns-do dept.

New submitter sHr0oMaN writes with news that Diane Franklin, a Republican member of Missouri's state House of Representatives, has proposed a sales tax on violent video games. The proposal, HB0157I, is one of many responses to the shooting in Newtown, Connecticut. The proceeds from the tax would go toward mental health programs and law enforcement in the hopes that future shootings can be prevented. The total amount taxed would be small — 1% — and would be applied to video games rated Teen, Mature, or Adult-only by the ESRB. Of course, many games earn the "Teen" rating without having violence in them, like Guitar Hero. The Entertainment Software Association responded to Rep. Franklin's bill with a statement: "Taxing First Amendment protected speech based on its content is not only wrong, but will end up costing Missouri taxpayers."

10 of 506 comments (clear)

  1. Misdirection by MindlessAutomata · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Looks to me like a Republican, in the face of potential gun bans, is pointing at video games and saying "LOOK OVER HERE! HERE! LOOK OVER HERE INSTEAD."

    Mind you I'm completely against any gun legislation myself.

    1. Re:Misdirection by Seumas · · Score: 5, Interesting

      I'm for punishing criminals and leaving law abiding citizens the right to own whatever weapons they want. However, it would be dishonest of me to act like it was a copy of Star Craft II (the game news reports stated he played) was used to murder the 20+ people in the latest spree killing, rather than -- you know -- firearms. It'd also be dishonest to act like he was being influenced by Star Craft II, instead of medication. Or that he was influenced by Star Craft II, instead of a crazy end-of-times-preparing mother.

    2. Re:Misdirection by Q-Hack! · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Weren't guns supposed to decrease the likelihood of you being victimized by criminals?

      No, they only level the playing field. While having a gun will deter the criminal that doesn't want confrontation, it doesn't deter the criminal that is looking to steal guns. It is a simple concept that seems to be lost to the anti gun types.

      --
      Some days I get the sinking feeling Orwell was an optimist.
    3. Re:Misdirection by EzInKy · · Score: 4, Interesting

      By that logic the only weapon protected by the 2nd Amendment would be a musket.

      --
      Time is what keeps everything from happening all at once.
    4. Re:Misdirection by aicrules · · Score: 3, Interesting

      "So yes, if there were no guns then no one would need guns"

      Not true. Guns don't exist for the sole reason of protecting yourself from others with guns. If someone attacks you with a knife, do you think a knife is sufficient defense? You better believe I would rather bring a gun to a knife fight. And I'd rather bring a tank to a gun fight, but it's a little harder to carry a tank around in a holster. Regardless of what kind of weapon a person is attacking you with, I'd want to meet it with a gun in defense. And this scales up to when they invent phasers and other such things. I want the biggest bang that balances speed and accessibility so that the attack lasts as short a time as possible. The longer it lasts, the more likely I get hurt or killed. Even if someone doesn't have a weapon, if there are more of them than there are of you, a gun is STILL needed. A knife or bat may get the odds closer, but unless they attack you like a jackie chan movie, they'll quickly overwhelm you.

  2. Ugh... by JasoninKS · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Alrighty Ms. Franklin, and just who gets to decide what is a "violent" video game? You and your church ladies?
    I'm sure it'll have a broad enough definition that nearly every game could count. Space Invaders? You shot a weapon at enemies. Pac-Man? Ran around eating dots until eating "special" dots that make you strong enough to go take out your enemies. Super Mario Brothers? Stomped on enemies or sometimes shot them with fire once obtaining a special weapon.

    Yet another bill proposed by someone that hasn't got a clue about the real world around them.

  3. It will never fly by Murdoch5 · · Score: 3, Interesting

    No one is going to accept paying more for a "violent" video game. Even if such a tax did some how make it through to the customer, game developers will just find a way to make the "violent" game rate not-violent. On the other hand if a "violent" video game does get taxed more the end result realistically will be nothing. A person who is going to kill doesn't care about $2 more for a video game, of course like I've said before, Video games don't make anyone kill or become violent so really this is an attempt to make money. The most violent people who have ever lived never even touched a video game, so to all those "violent video games cause violence", please explain.

  4. I thought we hashed this out in the 90s... by Rinikusu · · Score: 3, Interesting

    When Tipper Gore and her PMRC tried to couple violent society with violent games and movies... "NANNY STATE! NANNY STATE! PERSONAL RESPONSIBLITY!" was the deafening call from the GOP pundits. And now.. wtf?

    --
    If you were me, you'd be good lookin'. - six string samurai
  5. Re:The exception proves the exception by 1u3hr · · Score: 3, Interesting

    more and more heavily armed and suffer the consequences

    Such as the murder rate going down.

    Yeah, now it's only three times higher than Europe, instead of four.

  6. The end result by Grayhand · · Score: 3, Interesting

    One percent won't affect sales as they assumed so the government gets a 1% windfall. What do they spend it on? More contracts with mega-rich corporations to line the pockets of the filthy rich. Now how many lives does this save, exactly????