Slashdot Mirror
CT State Senator Wants To Ban Kids From Using Arcade Guns
New submitter Nyder writes "In a move that is sure to bring tears to the eyes of kids everywhere, Connecticut State Senator Toni Harp proposed a bill in January that would ban anyone younger than 18 from playing 'violent point-and-shoot' video games in arcades or other public establishments. 'The bill also called for research into the effects of violent video games on young minds, through a committee called the Violent Video Game Task Force within the Department of Children and Families. The task force would advise the Governor and General assembly on state programs that "may reduce the effects of violent video games on youth behavior," suggesting before the research was done that violent video games have an effect on children's actions.' Hopefully this won't pass; I guess the video game lobby hasn't paid this Senator enough 'funds' for her campaign."
The birds are chirping, and clueless politicians race to implement laws protecting children from video games and other "immoral" behavior.
They want to ban firearms for purely cosmetic features that make no difference between it and other models, why not? Who said laws have to make sense, they clearly don't with nutter Diane Feinsteins gun bill.
Communists, "gun violence", video games, SARS, terrorists, jesus fucking christ. I can't believe people are actually stupid enough to fall into line for the scare of the day anymore.
If video games influenced behavior the Pac Man generation would be eating pills and running away from their problems.
Cowboys? No. Emancipation demands you make it gender neutral: Cowperson.
Indians? No. Native Americans.
Cowpersons and Native Americans. And you cannot pretend to shoot with a wooden stick anymore. Welcome to the land of the free :-)
And you cannot pretend to shoot with a wooden stick anymore. Welcome to the land of the free :-)
Children will also be banned from playing games involving driving a motor vehicle. They'll have to get their driving license first!
Ezekiel 23:20
...invisible or something?
How on earth can a country be so contradictory?
EMail: 0110001101100010010000000110001101110010 0110000101111010011011100110000101110010 0010111001100011011011110110
Maybe 17-year olds could be allowed to play with parental consent. After all, they are allowed to join the army and use real guns to kill real people.
Video game guns now more illegal than real ones.
I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?
... Gun shaped video game controllers kill people.
This is the best restaurant I ever eat in
And you'll keep on researching it, until you give us the answer we want.
I'll be happy to let you ban violent video games if you and your peers are willing to lighten up about, oh... let's say bare breasts appearing on television. Frankly, I'm beyond tired of the dichotomy, wherein a person's insides, blown all over the place by gunfire/explosions, is fit for all ages, but the naked human form (the outside of it, at least) is not.
I can't think of too many gun related massacres which were the direct result of "violent video games". In fact, most were the result of mentally unstable people coming into possession of a some type of device to cause harm -- not just guns. I think a lot of the tragedies could have been prevented had people close to the murderer(s) taken responsible action, early on, when harmful behavior was exhibited:
Most people can "Doom away" 24x7 and have no problem separating fantasy from reality. A small portion cannot. That same small portion who cannot will result to whatever means is at their disposal when they become unstable. Banning guns, video games, magazine capacities, does not address the core issue and actually ignores it.
Role playing is important for healthy mental growth. Video games aid in that role playing for most healthy individuals. Prohibition isn't going to fix anything. Never does.
Join the Slashcott! Feb 10 thru Feb 17!
More importantly, lets have a study regarding the effects of the united states having troops in nearly every country on earth, being involved in at least 3 wars simultaneously, and the US military glamorizing their profession through television and news adds. If you want to stop gun violence, stop putting rifles into the hands of teenagers and sending them into 3rd world countries to "keep the peace" I don't think playing Halo or hunting squirls with their dads are having anywhere near the effect of what the US governments planting into their heads about guns and "justified violence"
It's particularly curious when you consider that the US constitution also includes robust speech protections, so it isn't as though this is a 'Well, one is constitutionally protected and the other isn't, our hands are tied here' thing The speech protections don't even include that cryptic stuff about well regulated militias.
Dag nabbit! We want easy answers to complicated problems. Better if it can fit in a line of twitter.
If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
Can we instead ban politicians from speaking?
You must gather your party before venturing forth.
Yes the solution is to make sure that all people are helpless (by law). That will keep them safe! ... So when a person goes wacko (crazy enough to ignore those laws) they will be ... Uhhh ...
... Uhhhh ...
Wait, that isn't turning out the way it was intended.
Well the police will keep us safe! Yes because when all of those violent crimes happen the police are there to save us!
Wait, that was on those episodes of 24 and Hawaii Five-0. On the news the police show up much later and they sometimes figure out who did what to whom (much later...).
Wake up. We live in the safest time in history. Idiot politicians are trying to legislate safety. I have a secret for you: Life has a 100% mortality rate. The "Safety" they are trying to legislate is a feeling.
What business do politicians have trying to legislate safety? They aren't are our nanny's and a government is not a responsible organization. If you had children who made the same choices regarding spending money and honesty you would ground them for life.
Lets talk about outlawing something that is a mass contributor to unhealthful living conditions and is responsible for a number of deaths each year (even when done in a safe fashion). It wastes natural resources at an astounding rate. Lets outlaw it!
A smaller percentage of the country pursues it has a past time the those that pursue shooting as a past time. Doctors used to recommend that people with sever asthma or other lung ailments move to Tucson, AZ (and similar places) because of low pollen counts. So they moved there and then people built golf courses and Tucson no longer had low pollen counts.
Trying to legislate safety by outlawing something that is generally safe because it could conceivably done to cause harm is a direct destruction of liberty, unpatriotic, stupidly insane, and tyrannical. Read up on what Franklin had to say about safety.
Few people know how to shoot a rifle today. Imagine a population that knows nothing about firearms and becomes engaged in a land war. Bringing troops to the ready will be extremely difficult.
Estimates are that during the Vietnam War 30K-60K bullets were fired for every enemy casualty. In Iran and Afghanistan they speak of a quarter of a million rounds per enemy casualty. To some degree these poor numbers can be laid to "cover fire" but it also cannot be denied that the average army grunt is nowhere as skilled a shot as his grandfather.
Contrast the Civil War (estimates 500 shots/kill) where the largely rural South had an advantage over the urban North because their soldiers had been hunting and shooting all their lives.
So, like during the 80's, the solution is clear. Children should have the tips of their fingers painted fluorescent orange.
More Twoson than Cupertino
I have personally survived two home invasions ... both occurred while I was home. One was in New York outside of Albany. The other was in the suburbs of Washington DC. Your unwillingness to accept the reality of the situation is not justification to dictate what my defensive posture should or shouldn't be.
A shotgun is used for sporting purposes, home defense, and is all but useless as a first-strike or assault weapon.
Shotguns (yes, pump-action ones) have been used in a first-strike, offensive role by most armies since WW1. Winchester 1897, one of the most popular shotguns out there, was used by US Army soldiers to clear out trenches back then, and has earned the nickname "trench sweeper". It's much more efficient at it than your typical rifle, because it's easier to aim in CQB, and is far more deadly against unarmored targets.
If one of those idiots who perpetrate those mass shootings actually puts some thinking into his preparations, and comes to a movie theater or a school with a shotgun instead of an AR, we're likely to see far higher body counts - fewer wounded, and far more dead.
Hunting rifles should be legal under the same age restrictions, but for use ONLY with a valid hunting permit. Without one, you should be fined and have the gun temporarily confiscated if it leaves your own property without a permit. Upon payment of the permit, you get your hunting rifle back.
So people would just buy hunting permits for the sole purpose of legally owning and transporting guns then. As a matter of fact, that's what I already do - as a "nonimmigrant alien", the Federal law requires me to possess a "valid reason" to own a firearm, hunting being one of them - and so I need to present my hunting license every time I buy a gun. I get my hunting license from Alaska every year - bought for $30 online and mailed directly to me. I've never set foot there and likely never will. That's exactly how it'll work for everyone else if they implement what you propose.
There are no other firearms a civilian has ANY valid use case to own. Any. Ever. Period.
Are you suggesting that people should carry shotguns to defend themselves when they're assaulted while not at their residence?