Missouri Republican Wants Violent Video Game Tax

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."

Comments

Misdirection

[MindlessAutomata]

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.

Re:Misdirection

[Seumas]

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.

Re:Misdirection

[epyT-R]

Maybe, but that doesn't excuse the giant misdirection from the left with its assumption that more bans = safer (look at chicago, and we tried this with alcohol too). If anything, more bans increases the pressure of the conflict. People who shoot up schools/malls/whatever are highly motivated. Making guns harder to get will not stop these people. If the goal is to prevent these events, then the leadership should spend more time fixing the core problems of our society, like the dying economy and civil liberties instead of passing populist kneejerk unsolutions. When most people are doing well, fewer are interested in killing.

Re:Misdirection

[Muros]

Gun control is, unfortunately (or not, depending on your point of view) the only way to keep guns out of the hands of crazy people. There is much hand-wringing going on about why this guy shot a load of people, why people keep on doing things like this. The simple answer is that he was not right in the head. There will always be people like that around. Doesn't matter how good your mental health program is, welfare subsidised or not (and I'm a socialist, I'm all in favour of paying to keep crazy people slightly less crazy). Crazy people will still do things that no sane person of any religious or political affiliation would find remotely acceptable. I'm not saying you need to ban guns or anything in the US. I don't really care whether some lad who likes to hunt or just shoot at targets has a gun, it isn't something I'm into purely because I live in a country that is completely domesticated. The most dangerous wild animals here are badgers, and there is no big game. Hunters here shoot foxes & pheasants. People in the US have uses for guns that I don't, and I wouldn't take that away from them. That said... there really should be some way you can make sure that someone who is completely batshit crazy can't just pick up a gun and kill people with impunity until the cavalry arrives.

I don't want to ban guns. I'm male, and I think guns are cool. But seriously, sort yourselves out over there.

Re:Misdirection

[BakaHoushi]

If you make anthrax illegal, only criminals will have anthrax!

Re:Misdirection

[cbiltcliffe]

Since this gun regulation conversation is overwhelmingly about firearms - as in, projectile weapons - I think it's fairly safe to assume that that's what the GP was talking about, rather than nuclear....

Re:Misdirection

[EzInKy]

A missle is a projectile, and can be used to launch bio, chemical, and nuclear weapons. The fact is most "pro-gun" fanatics are quite willing to limit the type of arms people may bear.

Re:Misdirection

[davydagger]

based soley on what you see on the news.

they don't report people defending themselves on the news

Re:Misdirection

[rtb61]

It's all got to do with living in fear and what do Americans have to fear, why all those gun nuts surrounding them. Why do they need a gun, obviously to protect yourself from other people with guns. Hence the NRA as the lobbyists of gun manufacturers keep promoting more guns as the cure to too many guns. It's all about selling guns and ammunition and has nothing to do with creating safe neighbourhoods, safe work environments or safe schools. Nothing more than cynical psychopathic greed at work in all it's stars and stripes glory.

Re:Misdirection

[clarkkent09]

has nothing to do with creating safe neighbourhoods, safe work environments or safe schools
 
Except when it comes to our political and media elites who have armed guards patrolling their gated communities, armed guards at their government and network offices, armed bodyguards when they happen to move around, and armed guards at their schools (at the latest count Obama's children's school hires 11, in addition to the Secret Service detail). But of course when it comes to the children of ordinary citizens, they should rely on the magic of gun-free zones and to repel the criminals and the psychos, and of course the police to arrive 20 minutes after the event and make a body count.

Re:Misdirection

[MBGMorden]

Guns are a thing that exist in this world. Pandora's box has been opened and they're not going away. A good machinist can MAKE a decent gun out of steel bar-stock, and anybody with even a rudimentary understanding of how they work can make a crappy slamfire shotgun out of less than $40 worth of stuff from any hardware store. The recent advances in 3D printing are making home-grown firearms even more simple and capable too.

So yes, if there were no guns then no one would need guns, but since the world if fresh out of genies in order to magically wish them away, then we deal with the situation as best we can: by making sure that as responsible citizens and family members we prepare ourselves to meet a threat to our lives or the lives of our loved ones with equal force. That means carrying a firearm. Police are expected to carry a gun in order to protect themselves from the threats right on our streets - why do you think we should be less armed when we walk down those same streets?

Re:Misdirection

[Q-Hack!]

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.

Re:Misdirection

[EzInKy]

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

Re:Misdirection

[aicrules]

"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.

Re:Misdirection

[Agent0013]

But you idiots also have police, law and lawyers running the place as well, what the heck do you need millions of guns for as well? Why are you paying for both kinds of security?

Because the police are there to serve the rulers, not protect the people. The courts has ruled that there is no requirement for police to show up if you need them in an emergency. But you can be damn sure they will arrest you if you are hurting the profits of the rich and powerful.

Elephants *do* forget

[Tablizer]

A Republican wants a tax? Someone is about to receive a pair of "Norquist galoshes".

Video Game Tax

[technomom]

Right. Because nothing says Republican idea of small government more than taxing video games does. Thanks, dude.

Re:Video Game Tax

[trims]

Actually, the Republican ideal of small government is just enough government that will fit in your bedroom.

Re:Video Game Tax

[TheGratefulNet]

small government really means 'go light on the social services'. that's the code word translation from republican-speak to normal english.

note that 'social services' includes our sewers, roads, infrastructure; you know, what us commoners rely on.

Never let a serious crisis go to waste...

[rolfwind]

You never let a serious crisis go to waste. And what I mean by that it's an opportunity to do things you think you could not do before.

-Rahm Emanuel

So everyone you see these days flogging one plan or another in wake of Sandy Hook really don't give 2 shits about the kids that were killed, just about using the emotional uproar to advance their agenda and get it passed in a flurry of reflexive emotion.

Gonna be one odd IRS application to write:

[Tablizer]

Sample Game Tax List:
$0.03 per ounce of blood visible
Spleen visible: $1
Spleen split/burst: $3
Brain visible: $2.50
Brain split/burst: $5
Heart visible: $2
Heart split/burst: $4
Intestine visible: $1.75
Intestine split/burst: $3.75
Choking/strangulation using intestine: $8
Choking/strangulation using victim's own intestine: $12
Flying eyeball: $2 per ball
Decapitation: $3 per head
Robot death: $0.30

Make life harder for poor people

[Roblimo]

Ah yes.... there's little Timmy (the Dickens one, not the Slashdot one), saving to buy "Beserkers: The game with real bloodspurt(tm) certified by the NRA for massacre training, endorsed by Ted Nugent" and he's at the GameStart store and he's 14 cents short because of the tax.

DAMN YOU, Republicans! How dare you deny a child a game because of your endless taxes! It's like how in Florida you've run the cost of a carry permit up to ~$150 so people who live in poor, crime-ridden neighborhoods can't afford them.

Mitt Romney, this is all your fault. Grrrr.

Religion

[Xanlexian]

Religion causes more violence than video games.

Tax churches.

Re:Religion

[kNIGits]

I have no mod points, and you're already at +5, but I just wanted to add my +1, Insightful to your comment.

Religion has caused, and is causing, more hate and violence than any political ideology that I can think of in recent times. The tax-free status of religions needs to be revoked immediately.

As a former Christian, I've abandoned the "faith" and I'm currently trying to stop my wife from giving away my hard earned salary to an organisation that cannot prove anything it stands for.

Can't always get what you want

[uvajed_ekil]

Missouri Republican Wants Violent Video Game Tax

And I want idiots like him to shut the fuck up, respect my freedom, and do something useful. Oh well, I guess we can't always get what we want, and I suspect neither of us will in this case.

Already against this on principle.

[icannotthinkofaname]

Like TFS states, games can receive T, M, or AO ratings without being violent. If a game is AO for explicit sexual content, that isn't a violent video game (and I would be hard-pressed to find someone other than this Missouri representative who would believe otherwise). The ESRB does give specific qualifiers in the ratings for why a game is rated as it is. The ESRB will tell you, on the box, if a video game received its rating because of violent content.

If section 144.1020 were re-written so as to appear to be the product of a reasonable human being, I might be in favor of this idea.

The exception proves the exception

[Anonymous Coward]

Outside the USA, gun bans are normal and deaths by weapons are all a tiny fraction of those in the USA. Where guns are allowed (e.g. Switzerland has quite a few) they get a lot more deaths, Swiss being more prone to just killing themselves than gun rampage+suicide.

Gun's don't kill people, people with guns kill people.

People with knives, you can run away from, guns though are designed to give the owner a killing advantage. There's simply no need for a killing advantage unless your intention is to kill.

"like the dying economy and civil liberties instead of passing populist kneejerk unsolutions"

So you're blaming the kid going into school with his moms GUN on the economy?
"Kneejerk", hardly kneejerk, this has been raised again and again and needs to be tackled but Republican gun nuts like Diane Franklin would sacrifice thousands of school children for their few thousand dollars NRA lobby money.

Re:The exception proves the exception

[Xeno man]

You can sanitize the environment all you like, but if someone wants to kill, they will.

There is a huge difference between someone killing someone they hate and someone mowing down 30 people to kill someone they hate because he has an ak-47.

Re:The exception proves the exception

[1u3hr]

The factor that you ignore is that these countries with draconian gun controls had fewer per capita gun murders than the US when their people were armed.

Even before the "draconian gun controls", no other country in the world has ever had as many people with guns as the USA now. While other countries have tried to reduce the risks, Americans have only gotten more and more heavily armed and suffer the consequences.

Re:The exception proves the exception

[__aaltlg1547]

The factor you're ignoring is that when a person is assaulted with a gun, they are 7.5 times more likely to die. Banning guns or at least taking steps to keep them out of the hands of people who are likely to use them to assault other people is harm reduction.

Re:The exception proves the exception

[alcmena]

The US suffers from the prisoner's dilema... Pretend you have a small grouping of 10 isolated people. Zero of those people have guns, which means that you as an individual have a 0% change of being shot... ever. Now, assume that the 10 people don't know that no one else has a gun. They believe that at least one of their neighbors has a gun. Therefore, one decides to do something about it and procure a firearm. That one person has now increased the changes of being shot in that community to a non-zero number. Ignoring the fact that you are more likely to be killed by a gun you know than a gun you don't and we will assume that the person with the gun has a 0% chance of being shot with a gun and everyone else now has a non-zero chance.

Now, as a non-gun owner, you say, "well, I must too have a gun." After such an event, everyone's risk of being shot with a gun doubles given that there are now two guns in the community. The original owner of a gun went from a 0% chance to a non-zero percent chance as well. The risk to the community has increased greatly, but yet, two members feel more secure, even though their actual risk increased. Continue that throughout and it's easy to understand the gun nut philosophy.

Those who profess that the problem isn't too many guns but rather too few completely fail at the prisoners dilema. Be sure to avoid doing anything significant with them; they apparently have already proven they will chose their own self interest over the greater good.

Re:The exception proves the exception

[Pseudonym Authority]

Posting garbage on the internet would be a State make-work program to prevent school shootings, deviant sex, unemployment, and to generally keep people out of trouble[1] as well.

_____________________
[1] - Splitting infinitives would also be part of the job.

Re:The exception proves the exception

[sycodon]

I found that you are 7.5 time more likely to die from a Broken Heart

Also, if teens drink they are 7.5 time more like to die.

If you are a fat ass, you are 7.5 time more likely to have Choledocholithiasis.

If you are a loser 45 year old then you are 7.5 times more likely to waste money.

Lastly (on the Google search results) if your PSA values are between 2.0 to 2.9 ng/mL you are 7.5 times more likely to die of Prostate cancer.

But nothing about guns being 7.5 times more deadly than....what? Hammers? nope. Baseball bats? hmmm..nope. I know! knives! drag...sorry, not knives either.

So I have to conclude you just pulled that out of your ass. Hint: Brady Gun Control propaganda is about the same thing as your ass.

Re:The exception proves the exception

[1u3hr]

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.

Re:Question

[Nethemas the Great]

Call me crazy but aren't most people educated in public facilities that could theoretically have people in them? Of those theoretical people how many would you say probably have at least one functioning eye and one functioning ear? Now of that subset how many do you figure would have a functioning mouth?

The real problem isn't the lack of observers but the lack of responders to the observations from the observers. The criminal justice system is the only established means of dealing with mental illness in the United States. If a kid has a problem and the parents can't/won't bankroll it themselves, then there are effectively zero treatment options available until the kid gets a criminal record. The government won't pay for it neither will health insurance won't pay for it. Even if they did, there exists no legal framework outside of criminal law to force someone into treatment when justified.

Is there a contest going on?

[sootman]

"Stupidest Proposed Law in Response to a Tragedy" or something? I'm seeing a lot of entries lately.

Ugh...

[JasoninKS]

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.

It will never fly

[Murdoch5]

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.

Re:Taxes

[girlintraining]

(and yes, I did read where they said the tax money would go... but read the bill text... don't follow the words, follow the money. The money, in this case, goes to the general fund.)

How about the 1% tax be placed on GUNS ? Dur...

[Morpeth]

You could use the funds for the very purpose described.

But of course not, because then that might acknowledge that guns are part of the problem with gun violence (shocker!). The fact she was endorsed by the NRA in 2012 has nothing to do with it either obviously...

I thought we hashed this out in the 90s...

[Rinikusu]

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?

Try government

[KalvinB]

Pol Pot, Stalin, Hitler, Mao, etc. Governments have murdered far more people than religion has. In fact, that's exactly why we have the second amendment. The government has a much harder time killing innocent people when they are armed.

The governments of the world have murdered far more children than citizens ever have.

Hooray for more DOA laws.

[CosmicMuse]

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."

Not only would this cost Missouri taxpayers extra if implemented (assuming they didn't simply purchase out of state through Amazon), but it'd also cost them a significant amount to defend in court. The government passing laws that disproportionately impact specific speech content is a pretty clear no-no under the First Amendment. If it were ever to pass, it'd be ripped apart by the courts in seconds.

The end result

[Grayhand]

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????