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

[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

[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

[EzInKy]

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

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.

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

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

[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: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.

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.