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

[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

[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?

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.

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.

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.