Slashdot Mirror


Senator Feinstein: We Need Video Game Control

ducomputergeek writes "Since the assault weapons ban seems to have died in Congress, it looks like Senator Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) now turning her attention to video games...again. '"If Sandy Hook doesn't [make game publishers change] then maybe we have to proceed, but that is in the future," said Feinstein. She went on to claim that video games play "a very negative role for young people, and the industry ought to take note of that."' Yet, as the article points out, since the introduction of games like DOOM, the crime rate in the U.S. has gone down. Dramatically. Correlation != causation, and all that jazz, but there are a lot of violent video games these days and yet crime has continued to go down."

424 comments

  1. Feinstein is an idiot. by X0563511 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    News at 11...

    --
    For large sets, this will be our guide even unto death, for the LORD will work for each type of data it is applied to...
    1. Re:Feinstein is an idiot. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      Thanks California

    2. Re:Feinstein is an idiot. by linebackn · · Score: 1

      > News at 11...

      Right after a dozen graphic "news" stories about shootings and other violence just like any other day.

      But first the 9 O'clock movie featuring people shooting at each other and getting blown up in various ways with blood and guts everywhere.

      Yea, video games are the problem. :P

    3. Re:Feinstein is an idiot. by Nadaka · · Score: 1

      She is. She is a disgrace to the ideals of liberalism.

    4. Re:Feinstein is an idiot. by fustakrakich · · Score: 5, Insightful

      No, she is a disgrace to the ideals of freedom.

      --
      “He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
    5. Re:Feinstein is an idiot. by Feyshtey · · Score: 5, Funny

      Hollywood is trying to help put a stop to all the killings. They are speaking out constantly about all those nasty guns. Thankfully their movies glorifying nasty guns and cultures of hate and violence make them wealthy and influential enough to speak out about how bad those things are.

      --
      "But we have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it,..." - Nancy Pelosi
    6. Re:Feinstein is an idiot. by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 4, Insightful

      She is a disgrace to the ideals of liberalism.

      No, she is a disgrace to the ideals of freedom.

      False dichotomy. Why can't she be a disgrace to the ideals of both freedom and liberalism?

      As a Californian, I am ashamed to have this woman as my senator. She is a supporter of big government, big debts, and social authoritarianism. I don't understand why anyone would vote for her. Even the pathetic candidates nominated by the Republicans would have been an improvement.

    7. Re:Feinstein is an idiot. by dgatwood · · Score: 1

      Don't blame California. Blame the Republicans for not choosing someone more electable to run against her. If you want to win against a Democrat in California, you have to run someone as a Republican (who can bring the Republican voters) who is close enough to the political center that he or she can steal some Democrat votes. You don't do that by bringing in someone who is anti-gay-rights and strongly in favor of more free-market capitalism.

      --

      Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.

    8. Re:Feinstein is an idiot. by Marxist+Hacker+42 · · Score: 2

      We don't need censorship. But a hint to the next Nancy Lanza- IF your child is diagnosed with a mental illness AND plays a lot of violent video games, perhaps you should think twice before giving him a gun safe, guns, and ammo as a present.

      --
      SJW: a person who perceives an injustice, and while correcting it, commits a greater injustice.
    9. Re:Feinstein is an idiot. by Nadaka · · Score: 1

      Freedom is one of the principal ideals of liberalism alongside equality and justice.

      Or are you confused about the meaning of words?

      Do you really think that anti-liberalism promotes freedom?

    10. Re:Feinstein is an idiot. by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 1

      > News at 11...

      Right after a dozen graphic "news" stories about shootings and other violence just like any other day.

      But first the 9 O'clock movie featuring people shooting at each other and getting blown up in various ways with blood and guts everywhere.

      Yea, video games are the problem. :P

      You are doing the same thing as Senator Feinstein. There is no empirical evidence linking video games to violence, but there is no evidence linking violent movies to real world violence either. Blaming TV and movies, without actual evidence, is just as wrong as blaming video games.

      There is some evidence that violent movies temporarily "numb" people to violence, and make them less sympathetic, but no evidence that they cause people to actually commit violent acts. In fact, researchers have found that violence goes down when popular violent movies are in theater. This is similar to the reduction of violence that researchers have found with video games: by engaging young men and teenage boys, and keeping them off the street, violence goes down.

    11. Re:Feinstein is an idiot. by amiga3D · · Score: 3, Informative

      Sadly the Republican party is no longer the party of small government or fiscal responsibility.

    12. Re:Feinstein is an idiot. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "classical liberalism" == "liberty" is not the same as modern "liberalism" == "progressivism"

    13. Re:Feinstein is an idiot. by schlachter · · Score: 1

      We already have video came control! It's called DRM!

      --
      My God can beat up your God. Just kidding...don't take offense. I know there's no God.
    14. Re:Feinstein is an idiot. by fustakrakich · · Score: 1

      I don't understand why anyone would vote for her.

      Because, obviously she brings back something to those that do, even if it's just an illusion. If she says she's a liberal, in the classical sense, then she is a liar. The real disgrace is that people still believe her and waste their votes and thus steal our freedoms. To me, it says a lot about them, even more than the good senator herself, and it's a reflection of the tyranny of the majority.

      --
      “He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
    15. Re:Feinstein is an idiot. by Nadaka · · Score: 2

      Wrong again.

      Progressivism grows from liberalism with the idea that we should continue to seek more liberty, equality and justice. To make continued progress towards those ideals.

    16. Re:Feinstein is an idiot. by Reverand+Dave · · Score: 1

      This.

      --
      I got here through a series of tubes
    17. Re:Feinstein is an idiot. by Bartles · · Score: 1

      Wrong again.

      Progressivism grows from liberalism with the idea that we should continue to seek more liberty, equality and justice. To make continued progress towards those ideals.

      That's interesting. Because most Progressives I know are constantly calling for higher taxes, race-based policy, gun control, more regulations and laws, and more spending. It is becoming apparent that Progressivism may have grown from liberalism, much like Fascism grew from Socialism.

    18. Re:Feinstein is an idiot. by Nadaka · · Score: 2

      None of those things inherently limit freedom equality and justice (though certain implementations may).

      And in many cases they promote freedom equality and justice (though certain implementations may not).

      Why do progressives want higher taxes? To pay for the spending necessary to promote liberty, equality and justice because markets do not naturally tend to move in that direction.

      Why do progressives want race-based policies? Because racism is a thing that still exists and robs people of their freedom, equality and justice.

      Why do progressives want more regulations and laws? Because unregulated markets tend towards tyranny.

      Why do progressives want more spending? To promote more liberty, equality and justice.

      Why do progressives want more gun control? because the denial of life by murder is the ultimate infringement of your liberty, equality and justice.

      Now, I for one don't blame guns for murder, and I disagree with the majority of gun control efforts. But its an irrational side effect that unfortunately some progressives incorrectly focus on.

      Basically, all these things are about fulfilling the process that the founding fathers put in place to progress towards greater liberty, equality and justice. It is about fulfilling the American dream.

    19. Re:Feinstein is an idiot. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Jello Biafra in a talk about his run for mayor(Feinstein was also running) in the late 70's had this to say about her: "She was the most evil person I have ever come face to face with"

      I am sure she has gotten worse and worse over the years.

    20. Re:Feinstein is an idiot. by alexander_686 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      While I am not a progressive (I am a pragmatic Liberation)), liberty, equality and justice are things that they believe in – but you have to look at the historical roots. Progressives want to use regulations to level the playing field so everybody has access.

      Liberalism assumes that individual can make better choices about their lives then government. One of the assumptions is that individuals can enter into free exchanges with other people – but what if they can’t? Progressivism came to force back in the Gilded age – an age when there was a extreme imbalance of power between monopolies and the individual. Yes – individuals had a choice – they could either make a bad choice or op out of the system. (railroads were a popular example, but I would use high speed internet connection now – we Americans are mostly offered 2 poor choices in terms of cable / DSL by entrenched monopolies) .

    21. Re:Feinstein is an idiot. by tnk1 · · Score: 1

      Yes, the decision to alleviate her son's social/mental problems by shooting guns was probably ill-advised.

      Of course, his mother was an avid shooter herself, so she probably was not as prone to see the hobby as something inherently threatening, if done safely. For obvious reasons, that was unfortunate.

      Shooting always entails some danger, and that danger should be considered.

      Of course, things that are dangerous are not necessarily bad, which is one thing that this whole debate missed... even the NRA missed it. The Second Amendment is there so people can start shooting at the government if they need to. That's not safe, and it's not meant to be. The problem is that sounds all Michigan Militia, so even the NRA won't espouse that theory and instead give us ridiculous crap like video games censorship and armed guards in elementary schools.

    22. Re:Feinstein is an idiot. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What do you mean by equality? Words have meaning, yes, but you must provide a metric for which all people may be equal. Do you mean equality in rights? Or do you mean equality of wealth? These two are mutually exclusive so the distinction is nontrivial.

    23. Re:Feinstein is an idiot. by Rockoon · · Score: 2

      Translation: Blame the Republicans for not finding a RINO to run against her.

      Look.. this is real simple. The Californians want these nanny-state-liberals representing them and will not vote for someone else. If the Republicans put up a nanny-state-liberal well sure then the Republican might win.. but it would still be a god-damned nanny-state-liberal.

      The problem isn't the Republicans. The problem is the Californians. Not all of the blue states are full of retards, and certainly some of the red states are full of retards, but California most definitely is full of complete fucking retards.

      Take Connecticut as an example of a blue state whose people are not so retarded. The Democrat party wanted nanny-state-liberal Ned Lamont to replace Joe Lieberman so went ahead and nominated Ned even though Joe was running for re-election. Joe went ahead and ran as an independent and won the election anyways, because while Joe may not have been nanny-state enough for the Democrat party, he was nanny-state enough for the People of Connecticut.

      (Ned later backed Chris Dodd on his presidential campaign and switched to Obama when Dodd dropped out)

      The real problem is that the true liberals are the Libertarians, who have been vilified by both the control-freak parties.

      --
      "His name was James Damore."
    24. Re:Feinstein is an idiot. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What the world really needs is Feinstein Control, a muzzle might be helpful, but a ball gag would probably work better.

    25. Re:Feinstein is an idiot. by saveferrousoxide · · Score: 1

      *checks pockets*
      *performs 360 check of area immediately surrounding*
      *checks top of head*
      dammitall! where's my mod points when i need them??

    26. Re:Feinstein is an idiot. by Nadaka · · Score: 2

      What use is your freedom of speech if they tear out your tongue?

      A hypothetical right does not truly exist if you do not have the means of exercising it or if someone can infringe upon that right without reprimand and compensation by virtue of their wealth or class.

      Absolute equality of wealth is not a requirement and is in any case an unsustainable state. However the vast inequity of wealth that exists does suppress the freedom and justice available to the poorest among us while providing the wealthiest the ability to trample over others without censure or recourse and further infringe on the liberties of the common man.

      If you were to plot a diagram with economic equality on one axis, and freedom on the other, The function between the two points is not a straight line. It is a curve.

      There is surely a point where increasing economic equality reduces liberty, but we are no where near that inflection point yet.

    27. Re:Feinstein is an idiot. by Bartles · · Score: 1

      . Progressives want to use regulations to level the playing field so everybody has access.

      I think classical liberals want to level the playing field. Progressives and modern Liberals want to tilt the playing field using every means necessary to achieve a specific outcome, specifically by using unequal treatment to achieve those outcomes.

    28. Re:Feinstein is an idiot. by atriusofbricia · · Score: 2

      So you're saying that Progressives demand ever greater government power, government intrusion into people's lives and ever greater control over people's lives to promote Liberty and Freedom? Interesting definitions you have there.

      In which universe exactly can you achieve ever greater freedom and liberty by way of ever greater control and regulation of every aspect of people's lives? How exactly does that work?

      --
      I was raised on the command line, bitch

      "Nemo me impune lacesset"

    29. Re:Feinstein is an idiot. by Nadaka · · Score: 2

      You are setting up a strawmans argument, you fail.

      Progressives DO NOT want more control and regulation of EVERY aspect of peoples lives.

      They want more control and regulation over the parts of peoples lives that are explicitly used to infringe on the liberty, equality and justice of others, and they want less control and regulation over the parts of peoples lives that are not explicitly used to infringe on the liberty, equality and justice of others.

    30. Re:Feinstein is an idiot. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Feinstein is a dual citizenship (ISRAEL and US), ritual oath breaker. Ya still love AIPAC? CFR? UN? Carbon Tax, no second amendment? Banksters? Treason? Keep voting for that piece of shit stain. Amazing you dumb fucks don't give a shit until it's video games being targeted. What a fucking joke. It's alright you dumb fuckers are all going to be drafted into ww3 anyway. Then when you come back, she will target your right to bear arms. Call you a PTSD case using the DSM as a political weapon, and boom you'll never own or see your passed down family weapons again. Now pack your MO bags, time to fight another bankster war.

    31. Re:Feinstein is an idiot. by dgatwood · · Score: 1

      Not at all. Lots of Californians think Feinstein is a terrible choice. They just think the Republican choices are worse. The problem is that the Republicans are unwilling to choose their battles. They feel the need to always run an ultra-conservative candidate to pander to the 30% of their base who actually care, while ignoring the other 70% of their base who would be just as happy with a more moderate candidate, and who might actually have a chance of taking votes from the Democrats and winning.

      I suspect that the overwhelming majority of Californians would jump at the chance to elect a fiscally responsible (read "fiscally conservative, but not free market as god") candidate who is pro civil rights, anti-monopoly, and doesn't concern themselves with what happens in other people's bedrooms. Such views are not fundamentally incompatible with the Republican party of even a few years ago (what I like to call the pre-Gingrich Republican Party). Unfortunately, such moderate Republican views are incompatible with the direction the Republican Party has taken in the past decade or two, which is why the Republican Party is finding it increasingly difficult to win votes among the young people of today, and at serious risk of shriveling up and dying within the next couple of decades.

      And no, the true liberals are not the Libertarians. To have a functioning political discussion, you need all four camps—the socialists, the libertarians, the conservatives, and the liberals. Here's why: the free market doesn't work on its own. It never did, and that's why we had such serious problems with monopolies during the height of the industrial revolution. You need some government intervention (which the traditional liberals would favor) to prevent the most serious abuses. However, you also need the Libertarians constantly pushing back to avoid getting into a nanny state situation.

      The right answer always requires a delicate balance of the four viewpoints. Unfortunately, right now, the libertarians don't have enough of a voice, the liberals have no voice except for a few reactionary bozos, the socialists have no voice, and what we basically have is what most of the world would call conservatives. And places like California vote Democrat because they'd rather have moderate conservatives (Democrats) than extreme conservatives (Republicans).

      --

      Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.

    32. Re:Feinstein is an idiot. by JonahsDad · · Score: 1

      Best comment in the entire thread!

    33. Re:Feinstein is an idiot. by Feyshtey · · Score: 2

      I find it somewhat depressing that this is rated Funny.

      --
      "But we have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it,..." - Nancy Pelosi
    34. Re:Feinstein is an idiot. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Progressives want to use regulations to level the playing field so everybody has access. .

      Too often, "level the playing field" has translated into "lowest common denominator". Policies like banning homework because some kids don't have supportive parents or a quiet home environment seem unbelievable, but true.

    35. Re:Feinstein is an idiot. by fustakrakich · · Score: 1

      Do you really think that anti-liberalism promotes freedom?

      Well, that's quite a stretch.. There is not a single liberal in either house of congress or the oval office, so the word (outside FOX's definition) hardly applies, so I'll repeat to you from my previous post that any congressperson (senate and house) who says they are liberal is being untruthful... disgraceful, yes, but not necessarily to the ideals of liberalism since they aren't liberals and shouldn't be expected to hold up those ideals.

      --
      “He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
    36. Re:Feinstein is an idiot. by Seumas · · Score: 1

      And by "chld", let's not forget that you actually mean "21 year old adult". That seems to be lost in all of this media "games drove this little itty bitty baby to mass murder" stuff.

    37. Re:Feinstein is an idiot. by sycodon · · Score: 1

      So pretty much you are full of shit.

      16 trillion in debt; we should have all the liberty, freedom, equality and justice that is humanly possible by now...so FAIL

      Government racism is racism, plain and simple. In fact, it's government racism enforced by government guns. FAIL

      Boy those Regulation sure have made the markets more fair. Now, instead of some eeevil competitor playing unfair and ruining your business, it's the EPA, OSHA, etc. Again, at the point of a gun.

      Gun control...wow...really you want to point to some gun control success stories? D.C? Chicago maybe?

      Holy Fucking Hell. What are you? 12?

      --
      When Fascism comes to America, it will call itself Anti-Fascism, and tell you to give up your guns.
    38. Re:Feinstein is an idiot. by sycodon · · Score: 0

      Liberalism assumes that individual can make better choices about their lives then government.

      What?!?!

      Is it Junior High night at Slashdot?

      Turn that all the way around and you'll be right. You must be talking Classical Liberalism, which doesn't exist anymore.

      --
      When Fascism comes to America, it will call itself Anti-Fascism, and tell you to give up your guns.
    39. Re:Feinstein is an idiot. by sycodon · · Score: 1

      But you'll keep pushing it won''t you?

      Here's a hint. No one is responsible for your failure in life but you.

      --
      When Fascism comes to America, it will call itself Anti-Fascism, and tell you to give up your guns.
    40. Re:Feinstein is an idiot. by slick7 · · Score: 1

      No, she is a disgrace to the ideals of freedom.

      The real controls are needed on Feinstein, about 30 years in San Quentin, if they'll have her.

      --
      The mind conceives, the body achieves, the spirit manifests.
    41. Re:Feinstein is an idiot. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Is it a recent thing, this discontinuation of the Senate primaries in California?

    42. Re:Feinstein is an idiot. by atriusofbricia · · Score: 1

      You are setting up a strawmans argument, you fail.

      Progressives DO NOT want more control and regulation of EVERY aspect of peoples lives.

      They want more control and regulation over the parts of peoples lives that are explicitly used to infringe on the liberty, equality and justice of others, and they want less control and regulation over the parts of peoples lives that are not explicitly used to infringe on the liberty, equality and justice of others.

      Straw man argument? Not at all. I've seen few limits as to what Progressives are willing to regulate on some level or other. Bans on sodas that are "too big"? How is that used to infringe on the liberties of others? How does my ownership of guns infringe on any ones liberty?

      Progressives absolutely want to meddle in the private affairs of practically everyone for practically any purpose that they think they know better than you. They know how your money should be spent, how much soda you should drink, how much salt you should have and so on.

      Also, the solution to racism is not to institute more racism in just a different direction. The solution is to adhere to MLK's vision of a color blind society.

      You want Liberty and Freedom? If no one is harming anyone, leave them alone.

      --
      I was raised on the command line, bitch

      "Nemo me impune lacesset"

    43. Re:Feinstein is an idiot. by Marxist+Hacker+42 · · Score: 1

      21 year old adult in this case had the emotional maturity of a six year old. My comment stands.

      --
      SJW: a person who perceives an injustice, and while correcting it, commits a greater injustice.
    44. Re:Feinstein is an idiot. by Rockoon · · Score: 1

      the socialists, the libertarians, the conservatives, and the liberals.

      Sorry, these arent even all in the same class of things.

      The opposite of Libertarian is Statist. Both Liberals and Conservatives are Statists, and socialism is an economic model.

      --
      "His name was James Damore."
    45. Re:Feinstein is an idiot. by ScentCone · · Score: 1

      They want more control and regulation over the parts of peoples lives that are explicitly used to infringe on the liberty, equality and justice of others

      Hilarious (because if that was true, they'd want to regulate their own agenda, liberty-killing world view that it explicitly is). Regardless ... so if we see a pattern of people dying in accidents because of bad drivers, Progressives would seek the same sort of liberty-reducing actions with respect to cars that they are seeking with respect to firearms, right? After all, "if just one life can be saved," right? Obviously nobody under 25 should be allowed to drive. For the sake of the children. The same sort of paternalistic nanny-statism Progressives exhibit when they limit the size of drink cups one can buy. Equal justice man, yeah!

      The slippery and sinister central core of your typical lib/prog position is that everything can be considered a possible impact on equality. Your paycheck (evil! it's bigger than someone else's!), for example. Or a car. Or a type of butter. Progressives use their deliberately racist identity politics to put people into artificial groups so they can make spurious claims about unequal outcomes in everything from elementary school sports activity to hiring firefighters. The progressive fetish about equal outcomes never seems to trouble itself with equal commitment to the work that produces a given outcome. That's not "equal justice," it's exactly the opposite. It's punishing the people who work harder so that people who don't can still get the same stuff. That Orwellian BS is so transparent that you'd think any lefty with a decent IQ and some self respect would be completely embarrassed to trot it out - but there it is, always on display.

      The only way it works at all is that the craven, cynical elite types that spew it can bank on the "useful idiot" types to regurgitate it without deploying any critical thinking whatsoever. That sort of condescension and scorn for the very people you bank on to provide votes and money for the agenda is ... right in keeping with the Progressive world view. I guess that makes sense, considering that the birth of the Progressive movement included a strong embrace of eugenics and equally odious ways to insure "equal justice." How do you sleep at night?

      --
      Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
    46. Re:Feinstein is an idiot. by Nadaka · · Score: 1

      Everything you just said was a strawman, and quite frankly idiotic.

    47. Re:Feinstein is an idiot. by Nadaka · · Score: 1

      Bloomberg is not a progressive.

      And you are a complete idiot if you think progressives are implementing "racism in a different direction"

    48. Re:Feinstein is an idiot. by Nadaka · · Score: 1

      That debt? guess why we have it? Anti progressives crippling our country with tax cuts.

      Progressives are trying to balance the budget in the only way that is actually possible, through tax increases on those who have benefited the most from our society.

      I am a progressive and I do not fucking support the vast majority of gun control. I already said that.

      Come back when you are capable of making an actual argument against progressivism, instead of the shit that authoritarians and conservatives inflict on us and blame everyone else for.

    49. Re:Feinstein is an idiot. by Nadaka · · Score: 1

      They could be unbelievable, simply because they are UNTRUE. Who the hell wants to ban homework?

    50. Re:Feinstein is an idiot. by Nadaka · · Score: 1

      The people who set up the system with the goal of your failure are also responsible.

    51. Re:Feinstein is an idiot. by atriusofbricia · · Score: 1

      Bloomberg is not a progressive.

      And you are a complete idiot if you think progressives are implementing "racism in a different direction"

      The very definition of racism (in this context) is policy, processes or procedures designed to benefit one race or set or races at the exclusion of others. The antithesis of that would be MLK jr's vision of a color blind world. Progressives are absolutely promoting and continuing the exist of racism by turning their back on a color blind world. You cannot end racism but instituting it in a different direction with different targets.

      If you think that can be done, please explain how.

      Also, if Bloomberg is not a Progressive he sure as hell acts like one. About the only "progressive" idea I haven't heard him come out in favor of, yet, is sky high taxes.

      --
      I was raised on the command line, bitch

      "Nemo me impune lacesset"

  2. But has it gone down *enough* by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

    I mean, with the certainty that the "leaded gasoline -> crime" study had, it should stand to reason that the only criminals left are ones who play with discarded car batteries or maybe gnaw on certain chinese made baby toys. I think the continued presence of crime can be explained one of two ways (Certainly not both) that there is secretly lead in our water supply, or that violent video games are lead infused.

    Science!

  3. Duh. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    There are a lot of violent video games these days and yet crime has continued to go down.

    Taking your anger out on pixels on a screen is far easier and cost efficient over running rampant on real people.

    1. Re:Duh. by hackula · · Score: 4, Funny

      Seriously. If we ban any games, it should be Bejeweled, Angry Birds, or Temple Runner, which have become the crack cocaine of modern society...

    2. Re:Duh. by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · · Score: 1

      There are a lot of violent video games these days and yet crime has continued to go down.

      Taking your anger out on pixels on a screen is far easier and cost efficient over running rampant on real people.

      Also, anything that keeps early teen through 20something men off the streets in record numbers is practically assured to reduce opportunistic petty violence unless it actively contains subhypnotic kill-programming technology...

    3. Re:Duh. by Synerg1y · · Score: 1

      As well as the birthrate...

    4. Re:Duh. by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I'm honestly surprised that Angry Birds has avoided controversy.

      You control a bunch of birds, who are enraged by something or other, and conduct a series of suicide bombings targeting pigs(of all ages, combatants and noncombatants) and their infrastructure. Unless you succeed in porcine genocide, you lose the level.

      I somehow imagine a 1 for 1 sprite swap called "Jihad Jump!" would not be a smash hit to quite the same degree...

    5. Re:Duh. by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · · Score: 1

      Win-win! I wonder if John Carmack knows that he's an amazingly effective social worker?

    6. Re:Duh. by king+neckbeard · · Score: 1

      There was also the earlier "Crush the Castle", which was almost the exact same thing in the original permutations of both games. It involved killings knights and such, which would be a bit more controversial. However, I think the real issue was just timing. Angry Birds came out at just the right time for a critical mass of morons who would pay a dollar for a dime a dozen flash game, and because they had one of the most popular games, they got the most notice, and became more popular.

      Don't get me wrong, it's a fun waste of time, but they have gone too fucking far with the merchandising and the hype.

      --
      This is my signature. There are many like it, but this one is mine.
    7. Re:Duh. by ThisIsSaei · · Score: 1

      First, they're enraged over a kidnapping, iirc, of their eggs.

      Second, it's because the game is about cartoon animals - there's a lot to be said for evoking social issues, like your jihad example. It wouldn't be a 1 for 1 swap.

    8. Re:Duh. by ducomputergeek · · Score: 1

      We can't ban...oh wait someone just sent me an extra life in Candy Crush, must try and get to the next level!

      --
      "The problem with socialism is eventually you run out of other people's money" - Thatcher.
    9. Re:Duh. by nitehawk214 · · Score: 1

      There are a lot of violent video games these days and yet crime has continued to go down.

      Taking your anger out on pixels on a screen is far easier and cost efficient over running rampant on real people.

      Also, anything that keeps early teen through 20something men off the streets in record numbers is practically assured to reduce opportunistic petty violence unless it actively contains subhypnotic kill-programming technology...

      And these people believe that videogames do contain such technology.

      --
      I'm a good cook. I'm a fantastic eater. - Steven Brust
    10. Re:Duh. by prehistoricman5 · · Score: 1

      The 'muricans have violated the jihadi's values.

      Conflict is easy to manufacture.

      --
      Fuck Beta
    11. Re:Duh. by jxander · · Score: 1

      Reminds me of a comment I heard, back when Governator Schwarzenegger was in office. There was some ruffling of feathers about him trying to work on a Violent video games ban (the more things change, the more they stay the same) and the whole thing became a conspiracy theory that Arnold, being a movie star, was trying to kill video games to make Hollywood more profitable.

      I'm pretty sure it was Moviebob who pointed out that most people who play violent video games are adults, and are likely to have the disposable income to see a movie AND buy a game... plus, most of the real big money makers are kid flicks anyway. If he really wanted to help out Hollywood, he would have tried to ban Wii Bowling!

      --
      This signature is false.
    12. Re:Duh. by amiga3D · · Score: 1

      Add Solitaire. It's responsible for more lost productivity in American work places than any other item.

    13. Re:Duh. by MobyDisk · · Score: 1

      The bird sounds are just too dang cute. Seriously: that's the difference. Graphics can look cool, but sound truly affects us emotionally

    14. Re:Duh. by gl4ss · · Score: 0

      the pigs just want to eat... if yanks ask that's the story!

      now.. the pigs are of course the americans. the birds are jihadists angry because their offspring has been seducted/kidnapped by american values. in fact they're SO angry that they'll use even bomb-eggs to destroy the pigs if that's what it takes - and to get to the pigs you have to destroy tall buildings.

      but it's just pigs and birds because it's from finland woohooo!!!!

      --
      world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
    15. Re:Duh. by Ambvai · · Score: 1

      Agreed. The sound effects are one of the things that my sister consistently highlights when introducing people to the games.

      I rather had a jot of that the other day myself: wandering around a casino while waiting for other people to win (or lose enough to make them give up...) I heard something intensely familiar-- the music from Plants vs Zombies. There's a slot machine for it.

    16. Re:Duh. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That explains why I don't get frustrated when I die in Super Meat Boy.

      *splat*

    17. Re:Duh. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Angry Birds came out at just the right time for a critical mass of morons who would pay a dollar for a dime a dozen flash game

      Way to earn that nickname, "king neckbeard".

    18. Re:Duh. by skine · · Score: 1

      Why are you bemoaning something that promotes terrorism on a nerd website?

      For a lot of people on here, their favorite movie is one where a young male from the desert becomes part of a terrorist organization, and blows up a government building.

      Worse, two movies later his terrorist friends blow up the same government building before they've even completed reconstruction.

      Given the size of the building, that's 9/11 times 100, times 2! That's 182,200!

      (exclamation point, not factorial)

    19. Re:Duh. by servognome · · Score: 1

      Game like Angry Birds teach young children basic physics, which as you know can eventually lead them to develop more dangerous projectiles capable of overthrowing our government with ICBMs launced from a slingshot. We must stop teaching them physics and teach them the Bible while they are young

      Romans 13:1-5
      1 Everyone must submit himself to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God.
      2 Consequently, he who rebels against the authority is rebelling against what God has instituted, and those who do so will bring judgment on themselves.

      --
      D6 63 0D 70 89 81 BB 8E 7B 7C 5F 5D 54 EA AB 73
    20. Re:Duh. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Don't you mean Minesweeper?

    21. Re:Duh. by amiga3D · · Score: 1

      Nah. I've seen people run solitaire for hours and never win. I don't think they're up to playing Minesweeper.

    22. Re:Duh. by hackula · · Score: 1

      I would not be surprised if the whole "Creation Science" trainwreck fades like the Geocentric Solar System ideas but is replaced by "Biblical Physics".

  4. Video games have made us safer by backslashdot · · Score: 3, Informative

    Fact is that video games have made us safer. Population has increased yet the number of psychos per 100 people has decreased. Homicide rates have decreased. The murder rate in the prohibition era (1920s) was 4 times higher than today's rate.

    1. Re:Video games have made us safer by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      Funny - "Fact Is Video Games Made Us Safer - And Screw Any Other Factors". Same sort of reasoning that Feinstein is using.

      To Summarize "How About I Just Say Something and It's True?". Since measuring what actually causes crime and then doing something about that is hard. And measuring what caused a decrease in crime is also not very popular.

      I think it comes from living in a society where there are thousands of people...people we call lawmakers....who wouldn't have a damn thing to do if they didn't invent something wrong. And hell, if you can't imagine something is wrong, give money and guns to the drug cartels until something IS wrong.

    2. Re:Video games have made us safer by king+neckbeard · · Score: 2

      The fact is that we are safer now, and we have far more violent video games. Whether or not video games have made us safer is a bit harder to prove, but there's decent evidence on that side. The only known link between aggressive and violent behavior and violent video games is that aggressive and violent people often play violent video games. There is at least a decent argument, however, for a cathartic effect of video games, although I can't remember if studies have gone much into that. That leaves the effect of video games one's psychology in the neutral to positive range. Then there's the logistics of it, as has already been mentioned. If you are busy playing video games, you aren't busy committing violent crimes.

      --
      This is my signature. There are many like it, but this one is mine.
    3. Re:Video games have made us safer by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Somehow i don't think you're gonna win this argument with facts... I guess we would need a 4 times higher murder rate in D.C. for that...

    4. Re:Video games have made us safer by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Theory for Sociological research: Guilds are the new gangs, instead of raiding the bodega etc for gimp loot and possibly getting arrested or catching a bullet or both along with a bit of street cred, going to raid boss-mob-xx with the guild and gain gold, experience and gear with very low (IRL=In Real Life) danger to health, wealth and freedom, plus if we die in game we are quickly back alive in game.

      How many crimes have been perpetrated from boredom, need for recognition, frustration, competitiveness, jealousy etc. There are always a certain undetermined high and flexible number of sins, most of which the revenge for is less permanent in its results in game then outside it.

      There you go sociologists and politicians, hint for more $$$ research into something that common sense could rapidly answer, but you can put it into much better words and add statistical analysis, provided you ask the right questions of course.

    5. Re:Video games have made us safer by fustakrakich · · Score: 0

      And if we abolish modern day prohibition, we might reduce it another 75%, but I doubt Ms. Feinstein could understand that.

      --
      “He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
    6. Re:Video games have made us safer by Feyshtey · · Score: 2

      And there's a hell of a lot more plastic today than in the 1940's, proving that plastic helps reduce the murder rate as well.

      --
      "But we have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it,..." - Nancy Pelosi
    7. Re:Video games have made us safer by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You can't really compare depression times and widespread starvation to today's society, where even the poor have cars, TVs, video/DVD players, game consoles, mobile phones, A/C, cheap booze and fags, state handouts for housing, utilities, food. Takes all these away from people today and you'll probably have a lot higher rates of violent crimes and homicide, because people expect these things now, whereas 90 years ago, most was unthinkable, had not equivalents, or were extremely rare.

      So, no, video games have done nothing, nothing more than provide entertainment and diversion. Just like movies, music and books.

    8. Re:Video games have made us safer by Rockoon · · Score: 1

      This is why so long as both sides use volunteer armies, that wars are a good thing. It is a fact that some people are hard-wired to be ultra-aggressive, to have an instinctive leaning towards killing. There is no society, no system of upbringing, that does not have these people.

      Wars, and now highly realistic video games, provide an outlet for some of them.

      --
      "His name was James Damore."
    9. Re:Video games have made us safer by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Plastics have reduced the murder rate. Plastics have vastly improved medicine. With improved medicine you have decreased murder rates, because whenever surgery is performed to save a stabbing- or shooting-victim and a life is saved, there's one less murder.

    10. Re:Video games have made us safer by Feyshtey · · Score: 1

      Thank you random pedantic asshole.

      --
      "But we have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it,..." - Nancy Pelosi
    11. Re:Video games have made us safer by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Michael Moore was not as fat in the 80S as he is now. A fatter Moore leads to decreased Homicide rates. As Moore would eloquently say "Feed me more!".

    12. Re:Video games have made us safer by CrashPoint · · Score: 1

      Plastics have reduced the murder rate. Plastics have vastly improved medicine. With improved medicine you have decreased murder rates, because whenever surgery is performed to save a stabbing- or shooting-victim and a life is saved, there's one less murder.

      Hang on...that means plastics have increased the rate of attempted murder! We have to ban plastics immediately!

    13. Re:Video games have made us safer by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, and Guns have made us safer, I've heard that a lot too. Take those away and only criminals, drug addicts and mental cases will have guns. And that's the equivalent of +5 Informative, only on a different forum.

    14. Re:Video games have made us safer by servognome · · Score: 1

      It's also reduced our motivation to escape the basement and actually hurt somebody. Too much work, think I'll just frag some more annoying XBox dorks

      --
      D6 63 0D 70 89 81 BB 8E 7B 7C 5F 5D 54 EA AB 73
    15. Re:Video games have made us safer by backslashdot · · Score: 1

      Well, I presented it in the form that people with low analytical motivation can absorb it. Since they vote, you have to convince them too you know.

    16. Re:Video games have made us safer by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Widespread adoption of IE6 dramatically brought down the crime rate. As IE6 was rolled out rapes and murders decreased dramatically in a very trackable manner. On the other hand, as Chrome has gained acceptance, the Iranian and North Korean nuclear programs have spread. IE6 was good, Chrome is bad.

  5. Ban violent comic books by decipher_saint · · Score: 3, Funny

    Thanks to banning violent comics in the 50s there was no violence in the 60s.

    Absolutely no seducing your innocents allowed.

    --
    crazy dynamite monkey
    1. Re:Ban violent comic books by MytQuinn · · Score: 1

      No beer and no TV make Homer something, something

  6. What do you expect? by macbeth66 · · Score: 3, Interesting

    It is the usual democratic knee-jerk reaction.

    As opposed to the alternate republican knee-jerk reaction.

    I don't even think that these people believe the verbal diarrhea they spew, but it plays well to their constituents.

    Overall, across the country, crime is down. Way down, and that includes murder and murder by gun. That doesn't seem to get considered in their posturing.

    1. Re:What do you expect? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It is the usual democratic knee-jerk reaction.

      As opposed to the alternate republican knee-jerk reaction.

      I don't even think that these people believe the verbal diarrhea they spew, but it plays well to their constituents.

      Overall, across the country, crime is down. Way down, and that includes murder and murder by gun. That doesn't seem to get considered in their posturing.

      That or the fact that if they crack down on violent games in the US all they'll achieve is to move the industry offshore while American gamers will still get their fix by buying violent games online, delivered by download. The next step would then be to classify shooter games as illegal munitions ore some such laughable crap, set up mandatory minimums three year sentences for posession and start locking people up. I'm sure there is way mure than enough space in American prisons for 1337 gamez, and the US electorate tends to love come-down-on-them-like-a-ton-o-bricks policies anyway so there should be plenty of votes in it.

    2. Re:What do you expect? by Sulphur · · Score: 1

      It is the usual democratic knee-jerk reaction.

      As opposed to the alternate republican knee-jerk reaction.

      I don't even think that these people believe the verbal diarrhea they spew, but it plays well to their constituents.

      Overall, across the country, crime is down. Way down, and that includes murder and murder by gun. That doesn't seem to get considered in their posturing.

      Posturing positions that the other side can't possibly accept.

    3. Re:What do you expect? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That doesn't seem to stop a significant number of /. posters from enthusiastically endorsing the push for more Gun Control.

      I guess when it's not your preferred rights that are being

    4. Re:What do you expect? by meta-monkey · · Score: 2

      There a truly schizophrenic nature to American society today. While the economy could certainly be better, life ain't bad. We're basically safer, healthier, better fed with access to more information than ever and yet there exists a constant state of moral panic and outrage.

      School shootings are incredibly rare. While there are about 2 per year since 2000, there are 100,000 public schools in the US, with an average school year of 180 days. So you've got 17,999,998 school days each year where no shots are fired, and two awful, tragic ones where shots are. And the aftermath of this incredibly rare event is "ban all guns! Or give everyone guns! Or ban games! Or monitor everyone for everything!" When the reality is, in a nation of 300 million people, the rare becomes inevitable, and you simply cannot control everything. Certainly not without making something else worse via the law of unintended consequences.

      People die in car accidents every day (although thanks to modern tech, driving is also safer than ever) but its barely a blip on the public consciousness. Reminds me of the Joker in The Dark Knight. Nobody cares because they expect it. It's "part of the plan." But somebody shoots up a school and everybody loses their shit.

      But trying to control a 1 in 9 million chance event is impossible. Which, for another movie reference, is the Architect's problem in the Matrix Reloaded. You can try to make the perfect system of control possible, with SWAT teams at every school and no guns in private hands and no games and no movies and everybody watched all the time, but still somebody is going to choose to do something awful. You can't stop it, so the best answer is, mourn the dead, hug your kids, and move on.

      --
      We don't have a state-run media we have a media-run state.
  7. I'm surprised... by Firethorn · · Score: 4, Informative

    What's really newsworthy about this? The NRA and Feinstein agreeing on something...

    I'm checking the temperature in Hell right now, expecting record lows... /NRA member, wrote to complain to them after their little news release.

    --
    I don't read AC A human right
    1. Re:I'm surprised... by gstoddart · · Score: 4, Insightful

      What's really newsworthy about this? The NRA and Feinstein agreeing on something...

      Well, Feinstein has figured out banning the guns won't work, and the NRA just want to Blame Someone Else.

      I wouldn't go around thinking they've suddenly agreed about something.

      --
      Lost at C:>. Found at C.
    2. Re:I'm surprised... by h4rr4r · · Score: 0

      Why? This makes perfect sense.

      Feinstein has to be doing something, that is how she will get reelected. The NRA is willing to do anything the gun manufacturers want, that is who they really represent.

      Either one will support anything that does not infringe on the groups they actually represent, the rich and the gun manufacturers respectively, the more publicity the better for them.

      Evidence : http://www.vpc.org/fact_sht/nraindus.htm

    3. Re:I'm surprised... by PolygamousRanchKid+ · · Score: 3, Insightful

      The NRA and Feinstein agreeing on something...

      Video games don't commit crimes . . . children commit crimes! It's really about high time that we start cracking down on the real problem, children.

      . . . or, maybe . . . like, criminals . . . ?

      --
      Schroedinger's Brexit: The UK is both in and out of the EU at the same time!
    4. Re: I'm surprised... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Feinstein is an institution in CA and will have zero difficulty getting reelected.

    5. Re:I'm surprised... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Isn't it comical how certain unsavory individuals are constantly whining about the second amendment and then openly say that we should violate the first?

    6. Re:I'm surprised... by amiga3D · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The NRA is a group of people, a large group composed of several million people. Considering they are almost all gun enthusiasts you can figure that most of them own several guns and buy guns on a routine basis. I'd think that the gun manufacturers actually defer to the NRA. It's that large membership that almost all vote that gives the NRA it's power. In the South here to offend the NRA is often to fail re-election, even mamy Democratic politicians here are members.

    7. Re: I'm surprised... by amiga3D · · Score: 2

      Truly. Considering that CA is the land of Pelosi who makes Feinstein appear to be a conservative.

    8. Re:I'm surprised... by amiga3D · · Score: 1

      How about their parents? They had them, they raised them or failed to raise them. They are responsible.

    9. Re:I'm surprised... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      First, they came for the semi-automatic firearms, and Slashdot didn't give a shit.

      Then they came for the video games and Slashdot had a shit.

    10. Re:I'm surprised... by amiga3D · · Score: 2, Insightful

      It pisses me off too. The purpose of the second amendment is to furnish the means to guarantee the first amendment.

    11. Re:I'm surprised... by Firethorn · · Score: 2

      Video games don't commit crimes . . . children commit crimes! It's really about high time that we start cracking down on the real problem, children.

      Hehehe...

      Part of the problem I have is that in some ways we're actually cracking down on criminals too much. We're punishing them so much that we're being counterproductive on reform. Now, catching and prosecuting them in the first place, that can always be improved. The certainty of punishment is more effective than the severity of the punishment past a certain point.

      But I mostly agree. One of these days I should write a book, and just reference people to that... ;)

      --
      I don't read AC A human right
    12. Re:I'm surprised... by wezelboy · · Score: 1

      Not surprising at all. Her husband owns a defense contracting firm.

    13. Re:I'm surprised... by thomasw_lrd · · Score: 1

      This is where the problem lies. You may not care about guns, gay rights, video game rights, copyright....

      But you need to find common ground with people who do. If you do, then you can combine votes and get done what you really want.

      (blah, blah, blah, I know politicians are owned by money, votes don't matter, blah, blah, blah. No matter how much money a corporation gives to a politician, they still need the vote of the populace to actually get elected, when you stand up for your rights and others do too, the politicians will eventually get the idea).

    14. Re:I'm surprised... by Archangel+Michael · · Score: 1

      Feinstein also thought it was legal to hunt humans.

      --
      Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
    15. Re:I'm surprised... by Firethorn · · Score: 4, Informative

      The NRA is willing to do anything the gun manufacturers want, that is who they really represent.

      As a lifetime NRA member, I disagree with you.

      "Violence Policy Center" is a part of the Brady line of anti-gun organizations, you have to take anything it mentions with a hefty dose of salt.

      For example, your "evidence" involves product liability. I'm actually familiar with this topic. Firearms are different than most consumer products in that, during legal and intended non-defective use, somebody can be killed. Due to this, it can be difficult to create a gun that can't be negligently used to kill somebody. Most guns have fewer than 7 controls*, so they're already very simple.

      The legislation in question doesn't actually indemnify the gun manufacturers if the gun explodes in my hands, for example. What it essentially does is say that if I am SHOT by a gun functioning as designed, that I can't sue the gun companies. There were a number of lawsuits of that nature that bankrupted several gun manufacturers up to that point that spurred the legislation.

      To make a analogy using cars - it would be if people were suing GM and Ford for drunk drivers hitting pedestrians and murderers deliberately running over their victims.

      In at least one case the jury ruled a gun defective because you could not remove a round from the chamber while the safety was on. This is a common feature because one of the ways to make the gun safer while the safety is on is to lock the slide. It makes the safety stronger, more effective. Of course, you can't move a locked slide to remove a round from the chamber, so it's a bit of a trade off. The popular 1911, some of which cost several thousand dollars, features this kind of safety, as does most other high quality semiautomatics. Glocks, the most popular police handgun, don't even have a manual safety switch.

      How was the injury caused? From testimony the victim's babysitter found the gun on top of a book shelf and decided he needed to unload it. The safety was on. He couldn't move the slide. So, in the process of messing with an unfamiliar weapon, he gripped the trigger along with the rest of the grip, holding it tight, while pointing it at his charge, the ultimate victim, when he eventually took off the safety, still pulling the trigger, at which point the gun fired. Is that the manufacturer's fault?

      Why should I, as a gun owner and dare I say, gun enthusiast, object to these cases? Because they were driving gun companies out of business. As somebody who wants to be able to buy more guns in the future, I don't want the companies I'd buy them from forced out of business or even to raise prices in order to stay in business, possibly making me unable to obtain the new firearm of my choice.

      I'll note that I view the problem above as partially a problem of training; I think that there should be a general safety class taught in schools, to include a bit of gun safety along with sex ed, driver's ed, electrical, chemical, physical, safe food handling, first aid, etc...

      *And some of them are only if you count the lever or button you use to disassemble it as a control. Is the hood release knob in a car considered a control?

      --
      I don't read AC A human right
    16. Re:I'm surprised... by Mashiki · · Score: 1

      How about their parents? They had them, they raised them or failed to raise them. They are responsible.

      Not a chance, governments worldwide have spent the last 25 years or so doing their best to make people believe that they're not responsible for raising them. Hell even up here in Canada we have schoolboard trustees who believe they're actually the parents or co-parents. So, if that's the case, I say we blame those instead.

      --
      Om, nomnomnom...
    17. Re:I'm surprised... by atriusofbricia · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Why? This makes perfect sense.

      Feinstein has to be doing something, that is how she will get reelected. The NRA is willing to do anything the gun manufacturers want, that is who they really represent.

      Either one will support anything that does not infringe on the groups they actually represent, the rich and the gun manufacturers respectively, the more publicity the better for them.

      Evidence : http://www.vpc.org/fact_sht/nraindus.htm

      You're quoting a hard core gun control group known to fabricate "evidence" and hoping to capitalize on people's confusion to trick them into supporting their agenda as "proof" that the NRA really represents the "rich and gun manufacturers"? You've got to be kidding me.

      VPC: "The weapons' menacing looks, coupled with the public's confusion over fully automatic machine guns versus semi-automatic assault weapons—anything that looks like a machine gun is assumed to be a machine gun—can only increase the chance of public support for restrictions on these weapons."

      Translation: "We can lie to people and encourage them to think that we're talking about machine guns when we're really talking about simple rifles that look scary!"

      Source: http://www.vpc.org/studies/awaconc.htm

      --
      I was raised on the command line, bitch

      "Nemo me impune lacesset"

    18. Re:I'm surprised... by steelfood · · Score: 1

      I think that there should be a general safety class taught in schools

      Yes, but that would be promoting violence in our school, when what they should really be focusing on is love and other people's feelings and ponies.

      --
      "If a nation expects to be ignorant and free in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be."
    19. Re:I'm surprised... by Belial6 · · Score: 1

      Exactly. Most kids in the US spend more waking hours in the care of the state than they do the care of their "parents". It is becoming increasingly popular that the state also feeds the children.

    20. Re:I'm surprised... by Molochi · · Score: 0

      "mamy Democratic politicians here are members"

      LOL. Do they wear blackface makeup too?

      --
      "The Adobe Updater must update itself before it can check for updates. Would you like to update the Adobe Updater now?"
    21. Re:I'm surprised... by dgatwood · · Score: 1, Interesting

      In at least one case the jury ruled a gun defective because you could not remove a round from the chamber while the safety was on. This is a common feature because one of the ways to make the gun safer while the safety is on is to lock the slide. It makes the safety stronger, more effective. Of course, you can't move a locked slide to remove a round from the chamber, so it's a bit of a trade off. The popular 1911, some of which cost several thousand dollars, features this kind of safety, as does most other high quality semiautomatics. Glocks, the most popular police handgun, don't even have a manual safety switch.

      How was the injury caused? From testimony the victim's babysitter found the gun on top of a book shelf and decided he needed to unload it. The safety was on. He couldn't move the slide. So, in the process of messing with an unfamiliar weapon, he gripped the trigger along with the rest of the grip, holding it tight, while pointing it at his charge, the ultimate victim, when he eventually took off the safety, still pulling the trigger, at which point the gun fired. Is that the manufacturer's fault?

      In part, yes. By definition, a safety is supposed to make a firearm safer. The best way to make a firearm completely safe is to ensure that it contains no bullets. If the safety is preventing that from happening, then that safety is effectively operating in a manner that is directly counter to its intended purpose. The manufacturer should have lost that case.

      Don't get me wrong, I realize that an awful lot of handguns use a design that works the way you describe, but that doesn't make the design any less brain damaged. A safety should prevent the hammer from striking the bullet. Any other behavior is suboptimal.

      --

      Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.

    22. Re:I'm surprised... by gmanterry · · Score: 1

      I think that there should be a general safety class taught in schools

      Yes, but that would be promoting violence in our school, when what they should really be focusing on is love and other people's feelings and ponies.

      You are so right. When I was young we did have gun safety taught in school. I brought a 22 rifle to school when I was in High School to take a NRA safety course. I traveled by city bus with the gun and this took place in Rochester N.Y. That was before the liberals got ahold of the education system.

      --
      Since when is "public safety" the root password to the Constitution?
    23. Re:I'm surprised... by MindlessAutomata · · Score: 1

      They don't believe in either.

    24. Re:I'm surprised... by Gription · · Score: 3, Funny

      The "Feinstein Human Hunting Season" is almost as funny as the pure genius of Diane DeGette's comments about high capacity magazine's as being consumable ammunition.

      It is amazing that in this world of selection of lawmakers by popularity contest that we can get "winners" that are so willing to open there mouths and make decision's about things that they know nothing about.

      For the "scared of guns" crowd out there: "What percentage of gun related crimes involve rifles?"
      "What makes something an "assault" rifle?"
      "If it is correct to ban something that is used more then 99% of the time for legal purposes then why are you allowed to use and own a car?"

      "Oh, the poor, poor helpless victims. Our hearts go out to the helpless victims! We must do something to protect the helpless victims!!!"
      WAKE UP. "Victim" is a symptom of being "Helpless". Forcing people to be helpless by force of law is insane!

    25. Re:I'm surprised... by AlphaWolf_HK · · Score: 1

      Well one thing about politicians is that they always need to make it look as though they are doing something. Doesn't matter if things are just left best as is. In order to get votes, they have to be sensationalist. They have to fight the good fight, even if they aren't actually doing anything.

      --
      Careful with names containing L slashdot.org/~AiphaWolf_HK slashdot.org/~AlphaWoif_HK slashdot.org/~AiphaWoif_HK
    26. Re:I'm surprised... by Penguinisto · · Score: 1

      they still need the vote of the populace to actually get elected....

      Not anymore they don't...

      --
      Quo usque tandem abutere, Nimbus, patientia nostra?
    27. Re:I'm surprised... by Firethorn · · Score: 4, Informative

      Don't get me wrong, I realize that an awful lot of handguns use a design that works the way you describe, but that doesn't make the design any less brain damaged. A safety should prevent the hammer from striking the bullet. Any other behavior is suboptimal.

      How do you prevent the striker from hitting the bullet? You engage a block in the slide. In order to be sure that said block remains engaged, you have to make sure the slide doesn't move, it's a mechanical connection, after all.

      As a result, about 90% of handguns sold that have a safety, it works in that fashion.

      Follow some basic rules and it wouldn't be an issue-
      Don't handle firearms you aren't familiar with(and you don't have somebody there explaining it to you)
      Don't point the gun at something you're not willing to kill/destroy
      Keep your finger off the trigger until you're ready to fire.
      Treat all guns as though they are loaded.

      --
      I don't read AC A human right
    28. Re:I'm surprised... by Penguinisto · · Score: 2

      Actually, the safety is only there to prevent the gun from firing, period. It is not there to "ensure that it contains no bullets".

      If the guy had an IQ anywhere north of ice, he would have locked the $#@! gun up if he was that worried about it but didn't know how to actually use the thing properly. The safety would have still functioned exactly as designed - the operator OTOH was a flaming moron.

      I think that's where all the problem some folks have with guns comes into play - the gun, just like cars and boats, are built with the assumption that the operator and/or handler has enough brain cells to know how the thing works.

      --
      Quo usque tandem abutere, Nimbus, patientia nostra?
    29. Re:I'm surprised... by Izuzan · · Score: 1

      Glocks don't need a manual safety, the gun is designed so that when the trigger is at rest, there is a block that comes up and holds the firing pin from moving, the firing pin is also not cocked back until the trigger is pulled back (works like a Revolver). the trigger is the safety, the trigger is a 2 piece trigger, both parts need to be pulled for it to move. Glock handguns are a very safe design of handgun.

    30. Re:I'm surprised... by bdwebb · · Score: 1

      I disagree with your assertion that the manufacturer was at fault because this was a standard safety feature. While the safety was engaged, it was preventing the hammer from striking the bullet. Only when it was disengaged did it allow the hammer to strike the bullet as the trigger was still depressed. In this instance, the slide is designed purposely to lock while the safety is engaged so that it cannot be racked and somehow accidentally strike the hammer. Additionally the safety blocks the sear so that the hammer cannot strike and therefore fire the bullet providing a secondary countermeasure.

      The reason these many of these strange/different safety features exist and function the way they do is due to the fact that legislators who are not educated in standard operation of firearms and safety features come up with senseless rules that manufacturers must follow in order to sell these weapons in the state to anyone but a LEO. Almost every non-standard safety configuration has been forced by legislation.

    31. Re:I'm surprised... by dgatwood · · Score: 1

      How do you prevent the striker from hitting the bullet? You engage a block in the slide.

      That's entirely a design choice, though. There are plenty of other ways to prevent the hammer from hitting the bullet. You could block it farther down on the hammer, slide the block up from the bottom so that the slide can move around it, or even make the block be sprung in such a way that it can slide back with the slide while remaining engaged.

      What it comes down to is the gun manufacturers saying, "But we've always done it that way," rather than actually looking at the design and asking themselves, "Can we do it better?" That right there is the difference between innovation and stagnation, but when there are safety issues involved, it's the difference between responsibility and gross negligence.

      --

      Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.

    32. Re:I'm surprised... by dgatwood · · Score: 1

      Actually, the safety is only there to prevent the gun from firing, period. It is not there to "ensure that it contains no bullets".

      I didn't say that the safety is there to ensure that the gun contains no bullets. I said that the safety is there to increase the safety of the device (by preventing the gun from firing), and that when the design of that safety prevents you from doing something else that would further increase the safety of the device (disarming it), it is, in effect, decreasing the safety of the device.

      --

      Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.

    33. Re:I'm surprised... by dgatwood · · Score: 1

      Airbags are standard safety features, and early designs lacked the ability to disable them when child seats were in use. The auto industry still paid out a lot of money in damages when people were killed by them. It doesn't matter if something is a standard safety feature. If it ends up causing harm, there's liability.

      --

      Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.

    34. Re:I'm surprised... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And the Virginia Tech shooter was obsessed with the movie Oldboy which escapes all concerned peoples attention. I wonder why this is.

    35. Re:I'm surprised... by bdwebb · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Your analogy is a straw man and does not apply. Airbags were not tested thoroughly with child seats and therefore when they killed children, of course they were liable. In this case, the guy was holding the trigger of the gun down, pointing it at someone, and flipped the safety off thereby intentionally disabling the safety feature intended to protect from accidental discharge. The gun did not misfire, the safety did not fail, the guy disabled it while doing the only thing you're not supposed to do when the gun is off safe.

      The only way your argument is comparable to this scenario is if you were to say that someone was driving with their child in their safety seat with the airbag disabled for safety purposes and then re-enabled the airbag just before an impact which then caused the airbag to deploy, killing the child. In this ridiculous scenario, the manufacturer would also not be held liable because the vehicle operator disabled the safety mechanism that was specifically designed to keep the airbag from killing their child.

    36. Re:I'm surprised... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Firearms are different than most consumer products in that, during legal and intended non-defective use, somebody can be killed.

      Like hammers?

      Yes, it's illegal for me to aim for a temple when swinging my hammer.

      Protip: It's also illegal for me to put a round through someone's head while firing my rifle.

    37. Re:I'm surprised... by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 3, Interesting

      The purpose of safety is to prevent the gun from firing while loaded (so that you can carry it loaded and not worry about accidental discharge). It serves no point whatsoever on a gun that is unloaded, so I don't see the point of even looking at that scenario.

    38. Re:I'm surprised... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Take a look at the flip side of this debate, what gun owners are saying about the push from Feinstein and certain states for tighter gun laws.

      Does the comment section look familiar? It should, because the tone is exactly the same as the one of this board, except it's coming from the right instead of the left. Fact is, most of you guys can't see it because when you read Slashdot comments you think, Exactly! Right, about time someone said it! Yeah, it's obvious! Well, that's what the gun owners think when the read and post on the Washington Times column. Not close to what they think, EXACTLY what they think.

    39. Re:I'm surprised... by CrimsonAvenger · · Score: 1

      When I was young we did have gun safety taught in school.

      One of the High Schools I attended had an indoor range for our pistol and rifle teams.

      And yes, firearms safety training was part of the curriculum...

      --

      "I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
    40. Re:I'm surprised... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The NRA is a group of people, a large group composed of several million people. Considering they are almost all gun enthusiasts you can figure that most of them own several guns and buy guns on a routine basis.

      Not necessarily. I am a gun owner, and I belong to the NRA. I also have not purchased a firearm in probably thirty years.

      Yet, as the article points out, since the introduction of games like DOOM, the crime rate in the U.S. has gone down. Dramatically. Correlation != causation, and all that jazz, but there are a lot of violent video games these days and yet crime has continued to go down.

      Politicians have never been interested in the facts.

    41. Re:I'm surprised... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      LOL. Do they wear blackface makeup too?

      No, but they're trying to move further away from the colored past of the democrat party/KKK links.

    42. Re:I'm surprised... by rohan972 · · Score: 1

      I said that the safety is there to increase the safety of the device (by preventing the gun from firing), and that when the design of that safety prevents you from doing something else that would further increase the safety of the device (disarming it), it is, in effect, decreasing the safety of the device.

      Handguns are designed as lethal weapons. They are not safe by definition. They can be handled safely or unsafely but can not be made safe and perform their intended purpose. The safety is there to reduce the likelihood of accidental discharge, no amount of engineering can prevent negligent discharge. If a gun fires because the trigger is pulled it isn't an accident it's negligence. If you are holding it in your hand, pointed at a person and pull the trigger it is not a design error when that person dies, it's a feature. The main feature. The pistol can't judge your intention.

    43. Re:I'm surprised... by amiga3D · · Score: 1

      Heh, a typo. Or maybe my Freudian slip is showing.

    44. Re:I'm surprised... by amiga3D · · Score: 1

      I did say almost all. My Dad's a member and he hasn't bought a weapon in about 10 years or so but he bought one about every 4 or 5 years on average until he got too old to hunt anymore. I work with people that have dozens of guns and sell, buy and trade weapons frequently. I haven't bought a gun in about 15 years but I don't hunt anymore although I do skeet shoot some. It varies but there is a lot of money spent on personal firearms.

    45. Re:I'm surprised... by femtobyte · · Score: 1

      The purpose of the second amendment, at the time it was introduced, was to make southern states happy that they could keep their "slave patrols" (state militias to gun down runaway slaves and squelch slave insurrections). And since that time, guns have done very little to promote or protect liberty in this country. With the exception of the Civil War (which gun-lovin' southern politicians tend to think was a bad thing), the side with guns has always been on the wrong side of struggles for worker's rights (generally, the privately-employed Pinkerton goon squads were the ones with guns shooting down labor rebellions), women's rights (you think suffragettes won thanks to superior firepower?), civil rights (whenever black folks stockpiled guns, they ended up murdered by the FBI), gay rights, immigrant rights, free speech issues, etc. What cases have you seen of guns actually *helping* with first-amendment rights issues (or any other civil liberties issues)? What protections and advances in rights came because "we the people" had guns, instead of thanks to non-gun (and often deliberately non-violent) mass movements?

    46. Re:I'm surprised... by approachingZero+ · · Score: 0

      There is this internet rumor that the NRA is some product of firearm manufacturers, this couldn't be further from the truth. That's like saying people who support freedom of speech (1st Amendment) are AstroTurf(tm) puppets of corporations who print dictionaries. It's insulting and if you did a little research instead of regurgitating talking points that would be great.

      --
      'I don't know what it's called. I just know the sound it makes, when it takes a man's life.' ~ Four Leaf Tayback
    47. Re:I'm surprised... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0


      The NRA is willing to do anything the gun manufacturers want, that is who they really represent.

      Let's pretend for a moment that the NRA gets its largest contributions from gun manufacturers. Where do the gun manufacturers get their money? Those guns don't buy themselves and it's not one person that bought the millions of guns that have been sold and have funded the contributions that the manufacturers send to the NRA. It's also not one person running the gun industry. Millions of people are involved in any money being contributed to the NRA.

    48. Re:I'm surprised... by noh8rz10 · · Score: 1

      I need video game control - motion control, biotch!

    49. Re:I'm surprised... by dgatwood · · Score: 1

      Although no amount of engineering can completely prevent negligent discharge, in this particular case, the only reason the negligent discharge occurred at all was because the safety was turned off, and the only reason the safety was turned off was because the design made it necessary to do so in order to remove the round from the chamber.

      --

      Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.

    50. Re:I'm surprised... by dgatwood · · Score: 1

      After it is unloaded, yes. That doesn't mean that a properly designed safety should not prevent accidental discharge while loading and unloading the firearm, which is what we're talking about here.

      To use a car analogy, this is like saying, "Oh, the brakes work, but not while you're loading and unloading passengers. It's not a big deal. Just don't open the doors while you're on a hill. It's not a design flaw. You should have known that the vehicle could be dangerous before you tried to take on passengers. It's not our fault it ran over their feet."

      --

      Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.

    51. Re:I'm surprised... by dgatwood · · Score: 1

      What you're missing is that the operator disabled the safety mechanism because it was impossible to properly unload the gun without turning off the safety. Read that again. It was impossible to fully secure the weapon without first disabling that safety system.

      So a more accurate car analogy would involve a car design that required you to disable the airbag override before you could open the passenger door to remove the child, coupled with you yanking the door too hard and triggering the airbag with your child still in the seat.

      --

      Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.

    52. Re:I'm surprised... by modecx · · Score: 1

      You could block it farther down on the hammer, slide the block up from the bottom so that the slide can move around it, or even make the block be sprung in such a way that it can slide back with the slide while remaining engaged.

      In fact, all modern handgun designs do pretty much exactly that. That kind of safety is a mechanism which prevents unintentional discharges due to dropping or ramming into random objects. This safety is only disengaged when the trigger reaches the end of its travel, and it exists on revolvers and semi-autos alike. Many such firearms also have another layer of safety on the trigger, if they don't have a manual safety.

      The truth is this: we can all sorts of layers of security to a handgun, to the point where the only thing it can't do is reliably propel a projectile down a length of tube, when its owner wants, err, NEEDS it to do so (seems to be a goal of some legislative bodies). And that's why every modern school on the use of defensive handguns looks down on safety levers and other such things as vestigial organs, of sorts.

      The type of pistol the GP mentioned was a M1911, which gets its namesake from the year it was adopted as our military's sidearm, in other words, over a hundred years old at this point. There have been hundreds of thousands, if not millions such pistols owned across the US, since the time my Grandpa's balls dropped. Even if we could make all new guns so they could only be fired after being blessed by the Pope on the third Wednesday after Venus and Jupiter conjoin with the blue moon, it wouldn't do a damn thing to remove the old ones from the marketplace.

      The only workable solutions are 1) get people to leave dangerous things they don't understand the fuck alone 2) not put the dangerous thing where people exhibited in #1 can easily access them, or 3) educate people on the proper handling of dangerous things, at such a time as they can maturely handle it, because even if we'd rather have the situation otherwise, our environment is full of hazardous and dangerous things.

      --
      Constitutional rights may be respected, repealed, or modified; but they must never be ignored.
    53. Re:I'm surprised... by Skynyrd · · Score: 1

      When I tell people who are anti-gun that their politicians are preying on their ignorance and fear, this is *exactly* what I'm talking about. Both of these politicians are posing as experts to pass laws and change the constitution, yet they know nothing.

      Thanks for the links.

    54. Re:I'm surprised... by Firethorn · · Score: 1

      Glocks don't need a manual safety,

      Wasn't trying to imply that they aren't, it's part of why I specified a 'manual safety lever' instead of merely 'a safety'. HOWEVER, do you think that a lawyer with a nice sympathy case, say a paralyzed child, might not be able to convince a jury that the Glock is 'defective by design' because it lacked a manual safety? After all, that's what dgatwood is essentially arguing about safeties that lock the slide, which is generally considered the safer way to do it.

      Still, let's say the family of the victim had purchased a Glock instead of a Bryce or whatever .380 they had. Would the glock safety systems have prevented the gun from shooting when handled by somebody so ignorant that they'd point the gun at their charge while handling it in the manner that happened?

      Though review of their safe action says that you're wrong on the firing pin - it HAS to be back in order for the firing pin safety to be in position.

      --
      I don't read AC A human right
    55. Re:I'm surprised... by Firethorn · · Score: 2

      It would have remained safe if he'd left the safety on.
      It would have remained safe if he hadn't pulled the trigger after deactivating the safety
      It wouldn't have hurt anybody(other than ears) if he hadn't pointed it at a person when he pulled the trigger.
      It would have remained safe if he'd respected it as a loaded weapon and returned it to the top of the bookshelf where he found it, rather than moronically attempting to 'render more safe' a weapon he didn't understand.

      1. A gun is always loaded
      2. Never point a gun at something you aren't willing to destroy
      3. keep your finger off the trigger until ready to fire
      4. Be aware of your target, and what's behind it.

      Follow any two of the rules and you'll never shoot somebody accidentally.

      Oh, and I've been double checking - the only weapons I'm seeing that you can unload while the safety is on are blowback type weapons where the barrel and slide aren't tightly connected and you can hit a trip to raise only the barrel. This design is generally too weak for 9mm and up. With 9mm and up, you switch to the locked breech recoil operation method, where slide locking safeties are more prevalent.

      The only exception I've found is the Beretta 92F/M9. Of course, my military training in that weapon always had me turn off the safety before inserting it into my holster...

      --
      I don't read AC A human right
    56. Re:I'm surprised... by Firethorn · · Score: 1

      coupled with you yanking the door too hard and triggering the airbag with your child still in the seat.

      The car manufacturer would be held liable for the air bag going off because they're only supposed to go off in an actual serious accident, not 'yanking the door too hard'. Bringing it back to the gun, that would be if the gun went off when you dropped it. I know the weapon involved was a cheap one, but my weapons, even the 1911, are drop tested. You're theoretically able to take a loaded one, chuck it across a room as hard as you can, and it will not fire.

      --
      I don't read AC A human right
    57. Re:I'm surprised... by rohan972 · · Score: 1

      the only reason the negligent discharge occurred at all was because the safety was turned off

      No, if he didn't pull the trigger it wouldn't have happened. If he hadn't decided to operate an unfamiliar weapon while aiming it at a child it wouldn't have happened. In any case he decided to take the safety off and should have been aware that when you take the safety off the gun can fire, especially if you pull the trigger. Would you let this guy handle firearms around your children if the safety design was changed? Not me.

      the only reason the safety was turned off was because the design made it necessary to do so in order to remove the round from the chamber

      If he hadn't aimed it at the kid and pulled the trigger this would have been no problem.

    58. Re:I'm surprised... by VortexCortex · · Score: 1

      Is the hood release knob in a car considered a control?

      Yes. How else would one operate the ejection seat?!

    59. Re:I'm surprised... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The problem becomes the numbers the NRA reports as "members" is more then likely misleading, and pales in comparison to the millions that disagree with the NRA.

      Thus Bloomberg decided if the NRA can buy off politicians then he will buy off voters approval. Watch him use this as a spring board to run for president.

      And the media as a whole can be blamed for this, including the shootings. To say it is video games just shows that no one cares why this happened or what, if any, response should be taken to try and limit or prevent this from happening.
      Considering cops cannot shoot for sh*t now you want to give teachers guns and put then in a freighting position and hope for the best, so your kid or anyone can get killed by either the shooter or the random gun owner that thinks he is Clint Eastwood. This makes total sense!!! In all fairness I own guns, but I hate the NRA, and I would not know if I was in a shootout what reaction I would have, which is a far cry from NRA members that think they will have pin point accuracy when they have never shot at another human shooting at you!!

    60. Re:I'm surprised... by DarkOx · · Score: 1

      Unloading it was never "nessesary" in the first place. I am not familiar with the case but why did the babysitter need to unload the guy. What was stoping them from leaving up high safely out of reach of the kids? What made this idiot think they had any business messing with an obviously dangerous machine they did not know how to operate? Why was the gun pointed at the kid? Even people with no gun safety training mostly know you never allow the barrel to be pointed at anything you would not be okay with being shot while you handle a weapon.

      Frankly it sounds as if this was purely the sitters fault. Seriously how is this really different than if he'd gone down to the basement to play with the power tools? It's tragic an innocent was harmed because of someone's agreesive stupidity but this person sounds like a hazard to himself and others in the most general sense.

      I guess the only other issue is why wasn't the gun stored more securely? I know a weapon for home defense has to be accessible, but it should be secured when others are watching your home unless they are aware of it and capable of using it; so some falt lies with the parents here too.

      --
      Repeal the 17th Amendment TODAY! Also Please Read http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.html
    61. Re:I'm surprised... by Internetuser1248 · · Score: 1

      For the "scared of guns" crowd out there: "What percentage of gun related crimes involve rifles?" "What makes something an "assault" rifle?" "If it is correct to ban something that is used more then 99% of the time for legal purposes then why are you allowed to use and own a car?"

      This is not a very good analogy. The main legal purposes for assault rifles are hunting and target shooting. Both of these can be achieved with a bolt action rifle. If we wish to make an accurate firearm vs motor vehicle analogy it would be fairer to equate a bolt action rifle with a small efficient hatchback, and a high powered assault rifle with something like a HMMVW or an armored truck. Banning assault weapons is not like banning cars, it is like banning hummers and armoured trucks. While it might be a bit 'nanny state' to do so it is not actually taking anything away from people that they actually need.
      In answer to your other questions:
      Almost 0%
      An assault rifle is a selective fire (selective between automatic, semi-automatic, or burst fire) rifle that uses an intermediate cartridge and a detachable magazine. (suprised as a gun advocate you didn't know that one).

      Yes, I am scared of guns. I am also scared of cars.

    62. Re: I'm surprised... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ah yes, the "we must pass the bill to see what's in it" Pelosi.

      You could probably count the number of intelligent, honest politicians on one hand.

    63. Re:I'm surprised... by BlueStrat · · Score: 2

      This is not a very good analogy. The main legal purposes for assault rifles are hunting and target shooting.

      No.

      The main legal purpose of US citizens owning firearms of standard contemporary military infantry firearm capability as the authors of the Constitution intended (which a semi-automatic rifle like the ones erroneously labeled "assault weapons" does not, as it is incapable of full-auto fire) is to give the government pause when (not "if") it considers using force against those citizens.

      I have to wonder if anti-gun people these days realize/remember that the NRA was established as a response to the rise of the KKK who were being protected and empowered by southern Democrats who were restricting blacks from owning firearms, right? That it was meant to empower the powerless by getting guns into the hands of southern blacks and allow them to protect themselves and their families against a hostile local government and violence from their KKK buddies, right?

      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c4n8egXfmJM

      It just happens that a firearm is also essential to self defense from other threats, like criminals, and allows for efficient hunting/game population control, as well as provide sport shooting activities. Being one of the protections against tyranny and an essential part of the natural human right to self-defense is it's Constitutional purpose according to those who wrote it.

      It's a hedge against government usurpation of citizen's rights and freedoms and a last-ditch, last-resort response to a government out of control. Those wishing to establish a tyranny always disarm the populace first if possible.

      I think it unwise to allow a government that has in the past repeatedly swept up innocent US citizens and imprisoned them for their ethnic/national origins and/or political views to further disarm law abiding citizens. The citizens are already massively out-gunned. It's the societal problems brought on by decades under a constantly-more-costly-and-controlling, hugely-bloated, corrupt, and immoral government that causes the violence through destruction of the societal fabric in the first place, not a tool used in some of the violence. Bans only take things away from those who obey laws, not criminals. Bans only hurt the law-abiding and the most vulnerable.

      Strat

      --
      Progressivism (aka US 'Liberalism'): Ideas so good they need a police/surveillance-state to enforce.
    64. Re:I'm surprised... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Read that again. It was impossible to fully secure the weapon without first disabling that safety system.

      False. The weapon was already secure.

      For the obligatory car analogy, it's like you have a car on a hill, in neutral, but with the parking brake on, and for some reason, you decide that the car is not "secure" and so decide to put it into Park (or vice versa). But in this vehicle, you cannot shift gears with the parking brake on. Also, it has no normal brakes*. So you make the unnecessary transition from parking brake to Park... and roll down the hill a bit and hit someone.

      *Ludicrous restrictions? Sure, but then your notion that the gun was not "secure" is ludicrous.

    65. Re:I'm surprised... by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1

      I see where you're going from.

      Still, it depends on how you look at safety. You yourself have said that gun is safer when there's no round in the chamber (and that is true). A safety that prevents the slide/bolt from retracting ensures that, once the chamber is empty, it stays empty, and one doesn't accidentally rack it and load one. If you make it possible for the safety to allow extracting the round, you also make it possible to chamber the next one.

    66. Re:I'm surprised... by Gription · · Score: 1

      You didn't come close to answering the question correctly. You don't know. Fully automatic capable weapons have been pretty much outlawed in the US since the 80s. It requires a LOT of paper work through a class 3 FFL. A transferable fully automatic weapon cannot be found for less then $10,000 and they are from before the ban. (1986 I believe) Stop believing the stuff you see on TV...

      Assault Weapons are not fully automatic. An "Assault Weapon" is any rifle that is semi automatic and has a forward handle and/or bayonet mount mounted on it.
      Fear comes from being confronted with your lack of knowledge. Making decisions based on lack of knowledge (fear) is stupid. There is no other description.
      "Assault weapons" look scary to people who watch TV and have no real idea about fire arms. That means that if you take the single most popular 22 plinking rifle (Ruger 10/22: Great first gun for a boy) and add a front handle to it you have a "dangerous assault weapon"...
      Don't advertise your stupidity.

      The real head shaker in this is in this "Land of Liberty" people with no clue want to tell good responsible what they should have to use for their safe and fun hobby. And you don't need more then four clubs to play golf. Besides, golf courses in general helps create elevated pollen counts in areas that naturally had low pollen counts creating a danger for people with severe asthma. I don't play golf so outlaw it!
      You don't need an automatic transmission in a car unless you can prove you have a severe disability. Automatic transmissions breed an amazing number of incredibly dangerous driving habits and seriously limit controllability in marginal traction conditions. (The whole "I'm aiming my couch" mentality scares me every day.) Let's outlaw automatics and save some lives. (It would save some lives...)

      The willingness of "Americans" to hand away their rights for window dressing drops my jaw. Getting rid of the rights as you gain a false "head in the sand" feeling of safety is foolhardy. If you read the founding fathers it is pretty clear that Liberty is a risk! They never imagined that the risk of liberty would ever be as low as it is in our current over sanitized era so they were thinking it was worth paying a MUCH higher price to have. If the unbelievably low price/risk of Liberty is too much for you to risk then you need to consider moving out of the "Land of the Free and the home of the Brave".

    67. Re: I'm surprised... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think you could cont them on zero hands.

    68. Re:I'm surprised... by jbgeek · · Score: 1

      Hear hear!

    69. Re:I'm surprised... by Jane+Q.+Public · · Score: 1

      "Feinstein also thought it was legal to hunt humans."

      Fainstein wants gun control. She wants video game control. (Both of which have consistently proved to be ineffective in doing what she claims, to justify her actions, she wants to accomplish.)

      Let's face it. It's not about either guns or video games. It's all about control.

    70. Re:I'm surprised... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why should I, as a gun owner and dare I say, gun enthusiast, object to these cases? Because they were driving gun companies out of business. As somebody who wants to be able to buy more guns in the future, I don't want the companies I'd buy them from forced out of business or even to raise prices in order to stay in business, possibly making me unable to obtain the new firearm of my choice.

      This is not really the best reason to be objecting to this. What you really should be objecting to is the fact that these kinds of lawsuits were ever brought in the first place. Legal professionals are in a position of ethical conflict of interest with respect to the nature, scope, and form of the legal system. The more situations in which lawsuits can be brought, the greater the damage that such suits can do, and the more unreasonable such suits and the associated damages are, then the greater the demand for the services of their profession. The economic consequences for legal professionals of artificially increasing the demand for the services of legal professionals are quite obvious.

      If we had an ethical legal profession, these suits would never have been permitted. A right to expect ethical conduct from the legal profession is certainly as fundamental a right as the right to bear arms.

      Unethical legal conduct actually does far more damage to society, and has far more reaching consequences, than abuse of firearms. Abuse of firearms, after all, when one looks at the facts, is actually quite rare: tens of thousands more people die of traffic accidents in a typical year than from firearm related homicide. Further, most firearm related homicides are committed by criminals engaged in drug trafficking, and such people will have access to firearms irregardless of the laws. If one is not a drug user, or involved in drug trafficking, one can reasonably expect it will be VASTLY more likely to be killed in a traffic accident then by a firearm.

      Abuse of the legal system, on the other hand, affects EVERY law abiding citizen in the country.

      If anything, I have to wonder if the whole gun control issue in the US is a smokescreen intended to distract people from the far more serious (and insidious) problems with the US legal and political systems.

      As a gun owner, if you aren't aware of the problems with legal ethics (which seem to be getting WORSE with every passing year), you risk losing those very freedoms the right to bear arms is intended to protect.

    71. Re:I'm surprised... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Video games don't commit crimes Obama's would be children (Like Treyvon Marton.) do. Time for Feinstein to outlaw blacks.

    72. Re:I'm surprised... by fredgiblet · · Score: 1

      Exactly. When people are pushing for things that are DEMONSTRATED as ineffective it means they're either terribly incompetent or they have an ulterior motive.

    73. Re:I'm surprised... by fredgiblet · · Score: 1

      On the other hand I am not a member and I have no interest in joining, but if I had the money I'd be buying guns left and right.

    74. Re:I'm surprised... by randyleepublic · · Score: 1

      The idiot in this story is the owner of the gun: he or she has left the premises. There are no trained persons present. Obviously, before leaving the premises, the owner of the gun should unload it and secure it from from the untrained personnel. The owner should have to pay damages to the baby sitter for emotional distress.

      --
      Social Credit would solve everything...
    75. Re:I'm surprised... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      An assault rifle is not a good weapon for protection. A handgun is although you are more likely to get killed by it then you are to actually use it in defense of self or others.

      Further, you forgot the "well regulated militia" part, which is the NG and Reserves. Of course who does the regulating? Yeah, the government you are afraid of.

      I wouldn't expect you to know all that because you are an ignorant fuckstick.

    76. Re:I'm surprised... by BlueStrat · · Score: 2

      An assault rifle is not a good weapon for protection.

      That all depends on the situation. In a tiny inner-city apartment? Probably so. On a ranch in the Southwest? Different story.

      A handgun is although you are more likely to get killed by it then you are to actually use it in defense of self or others.

      [Citation Needed]

      Further, you forgot the "well regulated militia" part, which is the NG and Reserves.

      Wrong.

      The .unorganized militia is every able-bodied man between 17 and 45.

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Militia_(United_States)

      "The organized militia created by the Militia Act of 1903, which split from the 1792 Uniform Militia forces, and consist of State militia forces, notably the National Guard and the Naval Militia.[2] The National Guard however, is not to be confused with the National Guard of the United States, which is a federally recognized reserve military force, although the two are linked."

      "The reserve militia[3] or unorganized militia, which is presently defined by the Militia Act of 1903 to consist of every able-bodied man of at least 17 and under 45 years of age who is not a member of the National Guard or Naval Militia.(That is, anyone who would be eligible for a draft.) Former members of the armed forces up to age 65 are also considered part of the "unorganized militia" per Sec 313 Title 32 of the US Code."

      I wouldn't expect you to know all that because you are an ignorant fuckstick.

      "Ignorant fuckstick", eh?

      Project much?

      Might want to actually have a clue as to what you're talking about next time before you end up sounding like an uneducated dolt.

      Again.

      Strat

      --
      Progressivism (aka US 'Liberalism'): Ideas so good they need a police/surveillance-state to enforce.
    77. Re:I'm surprised... by Shagg · · Score: 1

      It was impossible to fully secure the weapon without first disabling that safety system.

      It's obvious that the operator was not capable of fully securing the weapon, and had no business trying to do so. A lot of the blame belongs on the gun owner for improperly securing the weapon in the first place, but the babysitter should have never touched it.

      --
      Unix is user friendly, it's just selective about who its friends are.
    78. Re:I'm surprised... by Rakarra · · Score: 1

      Fainstein wants gun control. She wants video game control

      She's also trying to protect her friends and biggest supporters, the southern California movie industry, deflecting blame from them and towards other targets.

  8. Feinstien is senile by He+Who+Has+No+Name · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Every time she opens her mouth these days, stronger and stronger derp comes out.

    Recently she's gotten up to weapons-grade stupid. Time for her to go.

    1. Re:Feinstien is senile by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      LOL

      "weapons-grade stupid" Just so you all know, I'm going to 'pull an Apple' and attempt to patent this prior art be damned!

      LOL

    2. Re:Feinstien is senile by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Unfortunately she was re-elected in 2012 which means she has ~5 years lefts of the 6 year term. UGH.

    3. Re:Feinstien is senile by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, maybe she'll get cancer and die. Far better people than she suffers that fate every year. If there truly is such a thing as karma, it will happen.

  9. Clearly unconstitutional by JDG1980 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    What part of the First Amendment doesn't Diane Feinstein understand? The courts have (rightly) ruled that video games are a constitutionally protected art form. The government has no more right to censor video games than they do books, plays, movies, or any other type of media.

    1. Re:Clearly unconstitutional by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Just classify them as "Obscene". Nobody actually seems to know what that is; but rigorous empirical study has allowed me to reach the conclusion that, functionally, "Obscene" is a shorthand term for "It isn't covered by the first amendment if it hurts my feelings sufficiently".

    2. Re:Clearly unconstitutional by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      What part of the First Amendment doesn't Diane Feinstein understand? The courts have (rightly) ruled that video games are a constitutionally protected art form. The government has no more right to censor video games than they do books, plays, movies, or any other type of media.

      Just a second there, professor. No one is talking about a ban of violent video games. That would be the unconstitutional outcome you insist is imminent, yet it hasn't even been mentioned in jest. What is more likely is a stronger M rating (maybe M+) and more penalties for video game stores that sell them to kids. Who knows, maybe a PSA or two telling parents not to submerge their 11 year olds' brain in lifelike murder, just to shut them up for a while?

    3. Re:Clearly unconstitutional by Dahamma · · Score: 2

      Well, they can at least prevent them from being sold to minors. Of course, the ESRB already has exactly the same non-government-enforced ratings concept as the MPAA does for movies - both systems clearly tells parents what age range is appropriate for a given title. This is hands down the parents' responsibility to decide what media their children should be exposed to.

      If they try to regulate one they should be required to regulate both... and I hope they try. That way the anti-regulation side will have the combined force of the game and (much more powerful) movie industry - which is where Feinstein gets a lot of her campaign contributions. Just watch her back down when Hollywood bigwigs get sick of it and tell her to STFU.

    4. Re:Clearly unconstitutional by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      She clearly doesn't understand anything from the word Congress at least to the word infringed, possibly further.

    5. Re:Clearly unconstitutional by D'Arque+Bishop · · Score: 3, Informative

      Well, they can at least prevent them from being sold to minors.

      The U.S. Supreme Court would disagree with you.

    6. Re:Clearly unconstitutional by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Informative

      Should be "What part of the constitution" doesn't she understand? She doesn't understand the 1st or 2nd amendments.

    7. Re:Clearly unconstitutional by msk · · Score: 2

      Since I don't have mod points today, I will say "mod parent up". Seriously, Feinstein should have been recalled or impeached decades ago.

    8. Re:Clearly unconstitutional by ThisIsSaei · · Score: 1

      ESRB conformity is a voluntary action on all sides; the concept of "more penalties for video game stores that sell them to kids" doesn't make sense in the current system.

    9. Re:Clearly unconstitutional by Feyshtey · · Score: 2

      It has nothing to do with Constitutionality, dont you get that? It has everything to do with a "living document" that is "outdated", and that these people are far more capable of choosing for you how you should be living.

      So just shut up and let them make things better.

      --
      "But we have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it,..." - Nancy Pelosi
    10. Re:Clearly unconstitutional by ageoffri · · Score: 1

      I don't understand how she keeps getting elected. She doesn't respect the Constitution at all. Her latest attacks on the 2nd Amendment are failing, so she moves onto attacking the 1st. Really past time that she is stopped.

      --
      -- Slashdot, making the Left look conservative since 1997.
    11. Re:Clearly unconstitutional by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      She is rather useless on the second, fourth, fifth, ninth and tenth amendments as well, so at least she is an equal opportunity cretin.

    12. Re:Clearly unconstitutional by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Obscene usually means that it fails the Miller Test, at least in the US.

    13. Re:Clearly unconstitutional by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Last time I checked these "kids" don't earn their own money or drive themselves to the store to purchase said games, The blame/responsibility is on the parent for the most part.

      And if the kid does hold his own job then well they should be able to spend their hard-earned money any way they want, after all isn't that the goal these parents should want?

    14. Re:Clearly unconstitutional by Dahamma · · Score: 1

      Not necessarily. Read what you linked to (the whole thing, not just the first paragraph). There's no reason to think this issue has been conclusively decided (I'm not saying I am for it, far from it, I just like to know where the opposition stands). And a Federal law would also raise different issues (on both sides) from a state law...

      both concurring and dissenting opinions from the Court suggested that the issue may need to be re-examined in future case law, considering the disparate community standards treatment of violence compared to pornography, and the changing nature of video games with continually improving technology.

      argued that the decision "would not squelch legislative efforts to deal with what is perceived by some to be a significant and developing social problem."

      a majority of American voters (57%) agreed that the states should have the “right to regulate the sale of video games [that are violent] in order to protect minors; the same way states regulate tobacco, alcohol and pornography (a majority vote by 3/4 of states is how idiotic Amendments can get passed, the 18th for example :)

    15. Re:Clearly unconstitutional by Bartles · · Score: 1

      Looking at how she treats the 2nd Amendment, I think she has trouble with the meaning of the word "shall" and "no" and its derivatives.

    16. Re:Clearly unconstitutional by trout007 · · Score: 1

      The problem is the Incorporation Doctrine. The Bill of Rights should only apply to the Federal Government. State governments have their own constitutions to restrict them. If you want to ban video games do it at a state level. If you want gun control do it at a state level.

      --
      I love Jesus, except for his foreign policy.
    17. Re:Clearly unconstitutional by TsuruchiBrian · · Score: 1
      It's the same as the second amendment.

      Right to bear arms: As long as *some* guns are legal, then your right to bear arms is preserved.

      Right to freedom of speech: As long as *some* speech is legal, then your right to freedom of speech is preserved.

    18. Re:Clearly unconstitutional by TsuruchiBrian · · Score: 1

      The people voting for her (and most people in general) don't care about the constitution. Most people eligible to vote, don't even vote. We live in an apathetic society. Things have to get pretty bad before people as a whole actually start caring enough to change things. Until gas is $100/gallon and there is $1 million in debt for every citizen, I think we can keep people on this sinking ship oblivious.

    19. Re:Clearly unconstitutional by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The 14th amendment has been used to make the bill of rights applicable to the states.

      Now, me? I think it should be applicable at every level of government in the US. A government violating your freedoms is a government violating your freedoms, and it doesn't matter whether it's congress doing it, your state's government doing it, or your city doing it; it's still a violation of your fundamental rights. That's really the problem I have with the 'Let the states do virtually anything!' people.

    20. Re:Clearly unconstitutional by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I don't understand how she keeps getting elected.

      Her political commercials are basically "abortion abortion right to choose woman's rights abortion" I don't think most people are aware of all the totalitarian shit she's promoted over the years.

      Plus the CA republican party is a bunch of completely incompetent bozos.

    21. Re:Clearly unconstitutional by Dahamma · · Score: 1

      I agree with the first part - it's totally on the parents.

      Not so much the second - unless the kid is legally emancipated (unlikely unless they are 17 anyway, which makes ESDB moot) they are minors being housed, fed, clothed, etc. by their parents (not to mention likely to blow a metric shit-ton of money on college expenses if they are so inclined) so no matter how much they want to go spend money on M-rated games or R-rated movies (or booze, drugs, and hookers, for that matter) the parents still have a right to set the boundaries...

    22. Re:Clearly unconstitutional by notKevinJohn · · Score: 1

      The government actually has every right to sensor books, plays, movies, etc if it can be shown that they are demonstrating non-protected speech; things like: Incitement to crime Fighting words True threats Obscenity Child pornography You'll notice that the first item on my list is the very thing that Feinstein is arguing that violent video games are doing. Personally, I think she is probably wrong and that studies have shown that there is no correlation between violent games are incidences of real world violence; but's it's a pretty big jump from 'probably wrong' to 'clearly unconstitutional' and making that jump without any reasoning to support your claim is misguided at best.

    23. Re:Clearly unconstitutional by notKevinJohn · · Score: 1

      Wouldn't ANY penalties for selling to minors be, by definition, MORE than the current number of penalties (zero)?

    24. Re:Clearly unconstitutional by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      tell that to anyone who has been convicted of an obscenity charge for some "media" that they've created

    25. Re:Clearly unconstitutional by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1

      What's worrying is that yesterday, we only knew that she doesn't understand the 2nd. Today it turns out to also the be 1st. I wonder what other interesting discoveries tomorrow will bring. Perhaps it's okay to conduct warrantless searches if there is suspicion that someone is in possession of violent video games or guns?

    26. Re:Clearly unconstitutional by Seumas · · Score: 1

      I've never understood what the relevance of games to violence has to do with anything. It's only even remotely relevant if we are going to eradicate the first amendment. If we're not, then whatever conclusions derived about videogames are irrelevant. If we are, then we have far bigger problems to worry about than mass murder or video games (like willfully tossing our constitution aside and the protections it irrevocably maintains for citizens).

      Even if, in some magical alternate universe, someone came out and said "it is now conclusive -- video games turn people into murders at the rate of one killer per seventy-five-million people", I would respond with "and... so the fuck what?"

    27. Re:Clearly unconstitutional by Seumas · · Score: 1

      You are contradicting yourself. Nobody is talking about censorship, we're just talking about censorship.

      Age-gating information or content *is* censorship.

    28. Re:Clearly unconstitutional by Seumas · · Score: 1

      Incite to violence,,, Oh, lik =e religion, churches, and sermons.

    29. Re:Clearly unconstitutional by sycodon · · Score: 1

      She seems to have a hard time with all the Amendments. But don't lecture her! That pisses her off!

      --
      When Fascism comes to America, it will call itself Anti-Fascism, and tell you to give up your guns.
    30. Re:Clearly unconstitutional by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, I figure that is what the gun right folks are saying about the second amendment. The only lesson I learned from all of this is that every thing is negotiable. This is America and the laws can be changed all the time. Everything is for sale. We can do and undo. Today, I feel it doesn't require an amendment to the constitution. If enough states setup similar laws the supreme courts will up hold them.

    31. Re:Clearly unconstitutional by DiEx-15 · · Score: 1

      What part of the First Amendment doesn't Diane Feinstein understand? The courts have (rightly) ruled that video games are a constitutionally protected art form. The government has no more right to censor video games than they do books, plays, movies, or any other type of media.

      Unfortunately, that is the same argument the NRA uses when it comes to any form of gun control.

      However the difference between the NRA Moonbats and Video Games is that when you kill somebody in a video game, they respawn. Guns in real life don't have that option.

    32. Re:Clearly unconstitutional by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, she doesn't understand the 2nd Amendment, either. Why would you expect her to understand the 1st?

  10. Correlation != causation by MondoGordo · · Score: 1

    I always figured that violent video games, especially the more realistic ones, provide a safe (ie: therapeutic) outlet for the homicidal impulses that everyone (however otherwise sane) inevitably has. Outlaw those and escalating "urban stress" will cause a dramatic increase in violent acts.

    1. Re:Correlation != causation by iggymanz · · Score: 1

      I wonder if this were 100 or 200 years ago a person like Feinstein would be saying the same about sports or exercise inciting violence. those also are ways for a normal sane person to "blow off steam" in a way that oft times mimics certain aspects of violent acts or behavior.

  11. Speaking of bad childhood influences... by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · · Score: 4, Funny

    What sort of cultural dysfunction makes wrinkly old people in positions of authority so insufferable? Is it the rock and roll devil music that they were exposed to as children?

    1. Re:Speaking of bad childhood influences... by steelfood · · Score: 1

      What sort of cultural dysfunction makes people in positions of authority so insufferable?

      FTFY.

      And it's the same one that puts them in those positions of authority.

      --
      "If a nation expects to be ignorant and free in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be."
    2. Re:Speaking of bad childhood influences... by meta-monkey · · Score: 1

      Well, they would have been fine, but they were raised wrong by parents corrupted from visiting pool halls and all that "jazz" negro music.

      --
      We don't have a state-run media we have a media-run state.
    3. Re:Speaking of bad childhood influences... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Its call voting. They vote. They do it in droves.

  12. Over reaction by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I personally love violent video games and movies and would be angry to see them banned or censored.

    On the other hand, pretending that constant exposure to violence is 100% harmless is silly. Personal anecdotes about "I played DOOM and I never shot anybody" does not help either.

    1. Re:Over reaction by cheekyjohnson · · Score: 1

      On the other hand, pretending that constant exposure to violence is 100% harmless is silly.

      What harm do they cause, then, and what is your definition of 'harm'?

      --
      Filthy, filthy copyrapists!
    2. Re:Over reaction by Seumas · · Score: 1

      Your assertion is baseless and stupid.

  13. Obligatory by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Conservative Teens

    Recent surveys show that today's teens are more conservative than the previous generation on issues like abortion and drug use. What do you think?

    “Who can blame them, what with all the conservative video games they're playing?” -- Fannie Whitton, Tailor

  14. Fuck Nanny Feinstein by Lawrence_Bird · · Score: 1

    where are the Dead Kennedy's when you need them?

    1. Re:Fuck Nanny Feinstein by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Dead.

    2. Re:Fuck Nanny Feinstein by Algae_94 · · Score: 1

      Sadly they got embroiled in royalty disputes that broke up the band. I hear they have reformed without Biafra, but that's not exactly the DKs is it?

    3. Re:Fuck Nanny Feinstein by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · · Score: 1

      The non-Biafra 'Dead Kennedys' are an unmitigated waste of time; but Biafra himself went on to do some side projects and collaborations with various other outfits. I think he's still around.

    4. Re:Fuck Nanny Feinstein by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      where are the Dead Kennedy's when you need them?

      Jello actually runs for president in his spare time for the green party, and he's the only DK that matters.

    5. Re:Fuck Nanny Feinstein by randyleepublic · · Score: 1

      Still, they put on a hell of a show. The new guy is OK. Don't miss them if you get the chance!

      --
      Social Credit would solve everything...
    6. Re:Fuck Nanny Feinstein by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Fuck those sellouts.

      Royalty disputes did not break up the band, it was the unlawful criminal trial they were put through for daring to put an image of an HR Giger painting on the LP paper sleeve.

      The dispute that about15 years after they broke up and was started because the sell-out piece of shit East Bay Ray wanted to let Levi's use the song Holiday in Cambodia in a commercial and Jello obviously said no. The real question is why the fuck would Levi want to use that song, I guess they really thought it was a happy song about a nice holiday in a foreign land.

      Giving the fack DK any money is bullshit, don't do it. They are corporate whores.

      That said, I wouldn't part with my copy of the LP Fresh Fruit for Rotting Vegetables LP from Biafra's Alternative Tentacles label for any amount of money. I bought it in the early 80's. I just wish I had bought the rest of them in LP format instead of cassette. My vinyl DK collection only consists of that one and the Bleed for Me single that was oddly pressed on full size vinyl. One song on each side, The other is Life Sentence. I do have Butthole Surfers Live PCPed on vinyl which is also on Alternative Tentacles. It might just be the best live recording ever.

  15. I have an idea by VGPowerlord · · Score: 5, Informative

    I have an idea, why doesn't the United States do what they did with movies and put ratings on every video game, and then refuse to sell ones aimed at adults to children?

    Oh wait, they already did that.

    --
    GLaDOS for President 2016! "Well here we are again. It's always such a pleasure." -- GLaDOS, 2011
    1. Re:I have an idea by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I don't even like playing games, but they have ratings. Where are the parents? The thing that bothers me about this is that we don't have the same system on books and yet I'm sure she thinks that's okay.

    2. Re:I have an idea by TubeSteak · · Score: 1

      The MPAA and RIAA were existing industry organizations that voluntarily created ratings in order to head off government regulation.
      The ESRB is also a industry created organization. Unlike the **AAs, it was created exclusively to deal with the issue of video game ratings.

      All the music/game/movie ratings are voluntary.

      --
      [Fuck Beta]
      o0t!
    3. Re:I have an idea by jxander · · Score: 1

      The only problem (albeit a very solvable one) is that the ESRB ratings are not strictly enforced, and afaik there are no penalties for selling Mature-rated games to minors.

      That actually may be another issue, that the common top-level rating is called "Mature" (there's "Adult's only" for pron simulators, but that's a whole different category.) The word Mature, to me, doesn't equate with blood, gore, violence and naughty language the same way that "Restricted" does. Mature could be any number of things : an abstract new way of looking at life, a fine wine, or an evening at the Louvre. Most "Mature" games are full of dick and fart jokes.

      --
      This signature is false.
    4. Re:I have an idea by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Luckily, just like movie ratings, game ratings have a few words of description of why they got the rating they did right in the box with the rating (e.g. stuff like "cartoon violence" or "suggestive themes"). Of course, if that's not enough, once again just like movies, there's plenty of websites with reviews specifically listing the parts that may be objectionable.

    5. Re:I have an idea by Seumas · · Score: 1

      How is that a problem? Enforcing ratings as a law would be censorship. You think it only matters to us old folks and fuck everyone who is younger?

      You're always free to enforce whatever you want upon your own kids.

  16. Again!? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    How many times do we have to go through this? There are volumes of research that says that these concerns are shaky at best. There is a mountain of case law that says that these laws won't survive challenge. Yet, here she goes again. At what point do these people accept reality and stop wasting time and money?

    I'd like to propose a law myself. It says, if any member of government tables a bill that they know, or should have known, would fail, they MUST resign their positions. Maybe it would make them do five minutes of research before rushing to waste time and money.

  17. Anything But The Real Issue by xdor · · Score: 1

    Before it was about the tools used, now its about entertainment they consumed, maybe after this gets dropped they will get to the real cause: the side of effects of SSRIs

  18. We Need Congress Control... by PortHaven · · Score: 1, Insightful

    OR in otherwords.

    STFU Feinstein....pass the stupid budget...balance it...or we'll beat you to death with our Halo 4 game box.

  19. So she's obviously wrong about this by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    So all here agree that she is obviously wrong about this.
    Can we all agree that she is obviously wrong about her other issues as well, such as gun control?

  20. Bread and Circus by WindBourne · · Score: 1

    Both parties about nothing but bread and circus.

    --
    I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
  21. I just don't get it by prelelat · · Score: 5, Informative

    This isn't some confused 14 year old who went out and started shooting the place up it was a 20 year old. A 20 year old that should have had 20 years to learn that life isn't a video game. Learn that you don't go killing people just for shits, because you're pissed off, or what ever. Myself, and I dare say millions of people in world have played violent video games since the day they were able to sit at a computer(now a console I suppose) and to this day we have maybe a handful of incidents that cry out tragedy. That's some fucked up math. You want to point a finger at guns, sure they were probably used in 90% of these attacks(I recall one where some asshole blew up a school decades ago with TNT). Guns are not the problem here either, it's not the media glorifying it* though I dare say that has more of an affect on children than video games.

    The problem is mental illness. This guy was sick, that's all there is to it. How else do you explain the millions of people that play video games and nothing happens. How else do you explain people that have gone through so much tragedy seen so much worse from such horrible backgrounds not going out and killing a swath of children with semi-automatic guns. He was sick, and no one gives a fuck about it. No one wants to explore a health care system that would try and reach people like this early. They don't want to try and help the people like Adam Lanza because he wasn't at fault, it was the guns, the video games heaven forbid they found milk in his fridge and blamed the milk man.

    *The media does more to glorify killing than any video game, they play on repeat hours and hours of footage of what happened they immortalize the killers. Some guy who said to himself all his life "no one knows who I am no one understands me" all of the sudden realize "If I shoot up a school people will look at me and know my name, they will know who I am and spend years trying to figure me out" Shits fucked up.

    1. Re:I just don't get it by sesshomaru · · Score: 2

      We decided to destroy our national ideals of liberty on the altar of security after the events of 09/11/2001. We increased the powers of the state, increased the powers of the police, and made airports into little gulags in response to those events.

      Every time someone like Adam Lanza decides to go out and murder a bunch of unarmed victims, we find out all over again that all that we've done has been completely futile, and we could have kept our America.

      We'll never know if Adam Lanza had some grievance he thought he was settling by this, but any political terrorist who wants to make a point can see how vulnerable we all still are. Politicians have gotten a taste for the police state though, so their reaction after events like this will be to double down.

      It's problematic that an adult terrorist, who may or may not have been mentally incompetent, is being treated like some pre-adolescent school shooter. (not that I think even the pre-adolescent school shooters are handled properly, but people have these strange ideas about the innocence of children).

      I don't recall them checking into what video games Ted Kazynski or Timothy McVeigh were playing when they did their mad, but politically motivated, acts. This seems to be a new thing, and it is pretty troubling.

      --
      "MIT betrayed all of its basic principles."
    2. Re:I just don't get it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Lanza was mentally ill if you posit that anyone who could have committed such a cold blooded atrocity with suicidal consequences, must have been mentally ill. In other words, if you define it as a tautology, then it must be true by definition. BTW I think this is the same way some religions treat homosexuality, though I might be wrong about that.

      He apparently exhibited Asberger's syndrome, but so do many geeks, including some famous ones like Bill Gates in his younger days.

      There's no question that thousands or milions play violent video games without becoming felons or psychopaths themselves. The question is not whether video games affect all or most - the question is whether it affects *some*. And is the effect on the some worrisome enough for society that we should think about taking action, that might compromise free speech and other principles and conveniences. It's similar to the issues of gambling addiction that states have to address when they ponder introducing casino gambling. I think there's evidence the answer to the first question is yes (it does affect some in a substantial way).

      I suspect the answer to the second is that government should tread very lightly, but the video game industry (including distribution channels) should be pressured to take more responsibility for the effects on young minds. I think we should talk about it, not shout down discussion in the accustomed mode of the NRA.

    3. Re:I just don't get it by Sulphur · · Score: 1

      If having a mentally ill person with access to one's guns were a disqualifier to have guns, then Newtown would have not happened.

      A similar situation would occur if one's crossbow were in a garage without a lock, that is it was not secured by a locked door..

    4. Re:I just don't get it by jittles · · Score: 1

      I don't recall them checking into what video games Ted Kazynski or Timothy McVeigh were playing when they did their mad, but politically motivated, acts. This seems to be a new thing, and it is pretty troubling.

      Pong. That's right. Ted Kazynski wrote his manifesto after an evening of marijuana and pong. That's the real reason that marijuana is so feared.

    5. Re:I just don't get it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not a crazed gunman, dad. I'm an assassin. ...
      What's the difference?! One's a job and one's a mental illness! ...
      Dad. Dad! ...
      Put mum on the phone...

    6. Re:I just don't get it by archer,+the · · Score: 1

      Yep. I'd like to see a survey.

      How did you learn about the idea of shooting up one's place of work or education?
      1) Video Game
      2) News
      3) Other...?

      I didn't learn of this concept until news reports of Columbine, if I recall correctly.

    7. Re:I just don't get it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Pong, Bong. He was too stoned to know the difference.

    8. Re:I just don't get it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If having a mentally ill person with access to one's guns were a disqualifier to have guns, then Newtown would have not happened.

      Because it's impossible to get a gun from anybody but your mom, right?

      The OP is right; the guy killed children while they were in school, and he knew what he was doing. He's a crazy killer. All the blaming of guns in the world isn't going to bring back those kids, and it isn't going to prevent future crazies from doing crazy things either.

    9. Re:I just don't get it by phantomfive · · Score: 1

      That's not it either. There are millions of people with mental illness who don't go shootup schools. It takes a special kind of weirdness to do that.

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    10. Re:I just don't get it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I guess if video games were banned then wouldn't be able to throw the box at anyone. Actually, the digital download would be even harder to kill someone with. Take bits! While we're at it, we should probably ban/burn books too. Evil things. They give people ideas... and paper cuts (if used badly). Also, those triangular flapjacks - ouchies! Ban them too (http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/school-in-essex-bans-triangle-shaped-flapjacks-after-pupil-is-hurt-8548084.html)

      I mean, its nothing to do with easy access to guns. Goodness no. Grenades are safe too. Give them to anyone and everyone.

      I'm off to burn all my video games now and replace them with goodly, honest firearms instead. It'll make everyone safer.

    11. Re:I just don't get it by cheekyjohnson · · Score: 1

      And is the effect on the some worrisome enough for society that we should think about taking action, that might compromise free speech and other principles and conveniences.

      No, because that means violating people's freedoms, and that, to me, says that you (not you specifically) are no better than the cowards who support the TSA.

      --
      Filthy, filthy copyrapists!
    12. Re:I just don't get it by TsuruchiBrian · · Score: 1

      It's not even about the mental healthcare system. Yes, every single mass murderer is crazy, but how many mentally ill people are out there that have never murdered anyone? If we start categorizing all mentally ill people as potential murderers, we are going to have to lock up a huge section of the population.

      There are some crazy people. That is a fact that is likely not to change any time soon. We can lock up the ones that have demonstrated that they are dangerous. But that's about all we can do. Some will always slick through the cracks and go on shooting sprees. That's inevitable until we eliminate guns entirely and/or have minority report style prevention. Luckily for us, the number of people killed in mass shootings is actually very low given our population and while tragic, is not a big problem. It is just extremely high profile and people are very emotional. We would save many more people every year by lower regular gun crime by 2% than by stopping 100% of mass shootings. We would save many many more people than that by just making driving 1% safer.

      Texting while driving probably kills more people than all the murders combined. The media's job is to scare people (to make money for their owners). The politician's job is to seem useful to voters. Combined with an ignorant and irrational public, this is a recipe for terrible laws that do more harm than good.

      Until we somehow get collectively smarter, this is the kind of crap we are gonna have to deal with.

      "In a Democracy, The People Get the Government They Deserve" --(commonly misattributed to) Alexis de Toqueville

    13. Re:I just don't get it by TsuruchiBrian · · Score: 1

      Preventing mentally ill people from getting guns is probably about as easy as preventing criminals from getting guns.

      Criminals don't tend to follow laws, and mentally ill people are not always labelled as such until after they've done something crazy.

      Obviously there should be safeguards in place to prevent dangerous people form getting *easy* access to guns, but it is naive to think that a law lone would have definitely stopped Newtown or any other massacre. It is simply too easy to illegally get a gun in this country.

    14. Re:I just don't get it by Seumas · · Score: 1

      Some times crazy and unpredictable bad shit happens and sometimes those freak occurrences are the price of enjoying a wide range of freedom. I'll take the freedom at the tiny increased risk of bad random shit happening to me, thanks.

    15. Re:I just don't get it by Seumas · · Score: 1

      Something like 50% of people play video games. Call of Duty, itself -- just one single game -- sells over 25 million copies in a year and is played by at least that many people, yet we only have a couple crazy mass killers. And that's just one game. Factor in all the other games and gamers and you probably have a good 100 million or more, in the US alone. And, again, only one or two crazy mass killers.

      So, even if 100% of mass murders are caused absolutely and directly by videogames and never any other thing, videogames are inconsequential -- only causing (in this magical world where they are actually to blame) murderous violence in a whopping .00001%.

    16. Re:I just don't get it by Tweezak · · Score: 1

      Even more significant than mental illness is the fact that more than 50% of the murders in the US are committed by less than 13% of the population (http://bjs.gov/index.cfm?ty=pbdetail&iid=2221). Nobody will touch this issue because it is racially charged and is political suicide. Because the reaction to the slaughter of children with an AR-15 causes such a visceral response, our politicians jump at any idea that the polls seem to indicate is popular. Background checks, magazine limits, "assault weapons" etc. All of these ideas fail to address the real problem and will have no effect on murder rates. That's because psycho school/mall/theater shootings are a miniscule portion of the total number of murders in this country - but they look real good on the news. Never mind that psychos will always find a way to kill their victims.

      Of course, politicians are not interested in reducing murder rates. They are interested in getting reelected. If they have to leverage the deaths of children to look like they are doing something to get the votes, so be it.

    17. Re:I just don't get it by Sulphur · · Score: 1

      Preventing mentally ill people from getting guns is probably about as easy as preventing criminals from getting guns.

      Criminals don't tend to follow laws, and mentally ill people are not always labelled as such until after they've done something crazy.

      Obviously there should be safeguards in place to prevent dangerous people form getting *easy* access to guns, but it is naive to think that a law lone would have definitely stopped Newtown or any other massacre. It is simply too easy to illegally get a gun in this country.

      This one was labeled, and his mom got the guns legally.

    18. Re:I just don't get it by TsuruchiBrian · · Score: 1

      If having a mentally ill person with access to one's guns were a disqualifier to have guns, then Newtown would have not happened.

      So how can you say this?

  22. Beating a dead horse by EmperorOfCanada · · Score: 2

    This is one of the few topics where we should all be able to paste that classic animated gif of the guy beating the dead horse. I suspect these politicians don't actually give a crap about video games. They are just pandering to a noisy few people who pester them about it.

    I live in Halifax, Nova Scotia where the municipal politicians have internationally humiliated themselves regularly every few years over proposed Cat bylaws. I asked one councilor why they would ever bring up the stupidest idea regularly every half decade or so and he told me that it was the number one thing that people whined at him about; not taxes (which are off the charts in Halifax), not potholes, not all the crime, the dirt, the lack of jobs, the money wasted, or any of the actual pressing matters but the thing that made people intercept him in the grocery store was cats crapping in their gardens. So he just proposed the stupid bylaw and weathered the storm of stupidity so that he could shut them up.

    I suspect that these people who whine about Video Games are low IQ types who don't really understand the real issues facing the US but think they have wrapped their pea brains around an issue and then go off on their moral quest. Their parents were probably on about rap music and their grandparents had their knickers in a knot over satan's rock and roll.

    The ironic thing is that these same people were probably all wound up about a tiny rule stating that the president has to be born in the US while ignoring the most important, and first, amendment in the constitution they claim to hold in nearly the same esteem as their bibles. What I think it all boils down to is that people that drive laws like this don't like people having fun that they don't understand.

    1. Re:Beating a dead horse by jittles · · Score: 1

      I suspect that these people who whine about Video Games are low IQ types who don't really understand the real issues facing the US but think they have wrapped their pea brains around an issue and then go off on their moral quest. Their parents were probably on about rap music and their grandparents had their knickers in a knot over satan's rock and roll. The ironic thing is that these same people were probably all wound up about a tiny rule stating that the president has to be born in the US while ignoring the most important, and first, amendment in the constitution they claim to hold in nearly the same esteem as their bibles. What I think it all boils down to is that people that drive laws like this don't like people having fun that they don't understand.

      I find it ironic that you suggest that these people are conservative idiots when Feinstein is one of the most liberal senators in the US. How about we just call them idiots and not right or left wing idiots?

    2. Re:Beating a dead horse by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So he just proposed the stupid bylaw and weathered the storm of stupidity so that he could shut them up.
       

      If he has to do this again every 5 years or so I would argue that it isn't shutting people up and the politician in question had demonstrated a lack of adequate reasoning capacity (what;s the saying about repeating the same behavior expecting a different result?), and should be removed from his position.

      But yeah, it's the squeaky wheel that gets the grease. Even though generally speaking people who have time to bitch to politicians usually don't have any real problems and are therefore likely to be complaining about asinine things.

    3. Re:Beating a dead horse by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      THIS!

      If you're an idiot, it doesn't really matter what side of the aisle you stand on.

      You'll find good company in both.

    4. Re:Beating a dead horse by CrimsonAvenger · · Score: 1

      The ironic thing is that these same people were probably all wound up about a tiny rule stating that the president has to be born in the US

      Umm, no.

      There is NO Connstitutional requirement that the President must be born in the USA.

      What there is is a rule that he/she be a "natural born citizen".

      Note that if EITHER of your parents are American citizens ("natural born" or "naturalized", whichever), then you are a "natural born" citizen (even if you were born on a spacecraft halfway between the Earth and Mars).

      Much less in Kenya (even if that's where Obama was born)....

      --

      "I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
    5. Re:Beating a dead horse by EmperorOfCanada · · Score: 1

      Stupid rule now but it originated with the idea that they didn't want a ruler who was just some British lord (they had an at the time legitimate worry that the revolution could be unwound) and the natural born citizen has not been tested in court so nobody actually agrees what it really means. Another interesting untested oddity is that it may or may not be possible for say Bill Clinton to run again. It all depends on if they see the rule as two terms ever or just two consecutive terms. And then to make it completely bonkers nobody is sure if you can be prevented from running if you don't qualify. So a Canadian turned American might be able to run, win, but then not take office. It is interesting how many of these fundamental rules either were pretty wide open to interpretation (or at least endless arguing) or have become out of touch with modern times. Take the 2nd amendment. At the time one of the best weapons was a cannon, basically no repeating rifles, or revolvers were generally available. So they placed no real limits on the weapons. I doubt even the staunchest NRA member would think it a good idea that people have personal Nukes. But somewhere between Nukes and BB guns the line needs to be drawn. But many NRA people blah blah about home defense, yet the 2nd amendment wasn't about home defense it was about defense against out of control federal governments. At this point I'm not sure what you'd need to defend against the federal government but I suspect it would have to be pretty awesome weaponry. But there is another slashdot article that discusses a much better defense against a federal government and that is open access to government data. Information is power, far better power than from a handful of guns.

      But what I would guess that the first amendment was put in place to make sure that out of touch Nanny State nutjobs like Feinstein can't tell people what to think.

    6. Re:Beating a dead horse by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wait what? Where does he call them conservatives? He's just talking about idiots..

    7. Re:Beating a dead horse by CrimsonAvenger · · Score: 1

      Take the 2nd amendment. At the time one of the best weapons was a cannon, basically no repeating rifles, or revolvers were generally available.

      Umm, no.

      Look up "Ferguson Rifle" sometime. Flintlock repeating rifle, used in the American Revolution by...the British. Colonel Ferguson's Regiment, specifically.

      It had its issues, but was probably the most effective pre-caplock repeater, and might have been enough to give the Brit Regulars a fairly dramatic edge over the Colonial Army, if it had gone into general issue.

      Or not. The British dropped the weapon like a hot rock after Ferguson was killed, so we'll never really know.

      --

      "I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
    8. Re:Beating a dead horse by CrimsonAvenger · · Score: 1

      Another interesting untested oddity is that it may or may not be possible for say Bill Clinton to run again. It all depends on if they see the rule as two terms ever or just two consecutive terms.

      From the 22nd Amendment: "No person shall be elected to the office of the President more than twice".

      Nope, looks like he can't run again...

      Good try, though.

      Note also that the 20th Amendment pretty much covers the case of someone not qualified to run for President winning the election - he gets an "attaboy!", and his VP gets to be President. If neither Pres-elect nor VP-elect meets the requirements, then Congress gets to decide....

      In other words, if Clinton chooses to run again, his VP candidate will be President, and Clinton will be back in Arkansas (or New York, or wherever he lives these days).

      Which most likely means that the Democrats would never nominate him, unless they thought that his VP candidate was (a) unelectable, and (b) the guy they really wanted. And since the Republicans would not fail to point this out every chance they got, (b) wouldn't be enough to override (a), and Bill wouldn't get to run as a Democrat.

      --

      "I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
    9. Re:Beating a dead horse by EmperorOfCanada · · Score: 1

      That is why I said, "generally available". Going way off topic but something that has interested me is that often what look like revolutionary weapons have some serious issue. For example people cooked up clip driven weapons long before they came into general use. One of the key reasons they were dead on arrival was that bullets were just not reliable enough. You needed the revolver technology so that you could keep pulling the trigger to skip the frequent duds. Another example was the early M-16 it was borderline viable upon its introduction. Great weapon in many ways but initially it was really finicky about being clean and the ammo being perfectly made and in perfect shape. The first models were also a real pain to clear when jammed. They largely fixed all that but if you look at the AK-47 it was designed around poor manufacturing and poor ammunition quality along with poor maintenance. But the AK hasn't got a whole lot better while the M-16 turned out to be a good start that has been wildly improved upon.

      But when the people were cooking up the 2nd amendment they did not anticipate say remotely operated drones or guided munitions. What they did anticipate was that the federal government would grow aloof and potentially tyrannical; so they thought they would balance the equation by letting people have muskets and whatnot. At the time any generally popular engagement with the federal would have been fairly small scale, they probably saw a bunch of angry farmers march on Washington and chase the bums out, or a less supported revolution march toward Washington but get turned away. But now anyone talking of armed revolution to sort things out has rocks in their head. Just look at any of the various countries trying it (Syria) and ask if that is a good thing? So what is needed is something to balance the power of a central government; at this point the best weapon is information. Wikileaks should not be some little aberration it should be how all federal/local governments basically operate. I want to see the expenses, communications, etc of everyone from the president to my local dog-catcher. A great example of this would be in Britain someone leaked the images of a bunch of expenses turned by government leaders. One guy had filed a claim for his moat, others were claiming for residences where they hadn't been seen in years. Normally all this information was secret with this and that excuse given about privacy and the dangers of releasing it. Also they said that those expenses were "properly audited by highly qualified persons" but it took the press no time at all to find all kinds of fraud and waste. This was with one leak. Just think of how much clean up there would be if everything was exposed.

    10. Re:Beating a dead horse by EmperorOfCanada · · Score: 1

      Sorrry I was a bit wrong. The key is what happens if Bill is VP and the president becomes incapacitated? And yes nobody would run an obviously unqualified candidate it is just odd that you could.

      My point was that the people who tend to make the most noise about censoring things also tend to be the people who thump both the bible and the constitution. Which is funny because of how the most important and first part is all about not censoring things. Feinstein is listening to these zellots on issues like this. My problem with her is that she is doing the classic political thing of finding issues that "resonate" with a vocal minority instead of dealing with big boring issues like trade and finances. The result is all kinds of laws that please these vocal minorities at great cost to the rest of us.

  23. Honorable Senator Ignores the Painfully Obvious by LifesABeach · · Score: 1

    The first victim of the Sandy Hook event was the mother of shooter. 'Mom' gave the gun to the shooter, and taught the shooter to shoot. What saddens me more is that the shooter did not immediately turn inward. Thanks 'Mom'.

    Guns in the hands of the mentally unbalanced seems to be the most ignored issue, why?

    1. Re:Honorable Senator Ignores the Painfully Obvious by Experiment+626 · · Score: 1

      Guns in the hands of the mentally unbalanced seems to be the most ignored issue, why?

      Why would politicians want to tackle a difficult social problem when they can just demonize gun owners or gamers and still act like they are trying to "do something"?

    2. Re:Honorable Senator Ignores the Painfully Obvious by CrimsonAvenger · · Score: 1

      Guns in the hands of the mentally unbalanced seems to be the most ignored issue, why?

      Because putting someone on the "No 2nd Amendment for you!" list because he/she is depressed (or something similar) will discourage people who are depressed (or something similar) from seeking treatment.

      And it must be remembered that the overwhelming majority of mentally unbalanced people haven't actually gone on a murder spree.

      Tarring everyone in a group for the behaviour of one person might be seen as vaguely discriminatory, after all....

      --

      "I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
    3. Re:Honorable Senator Ignores the Painfully Obvious by LifesABeach · · Score: 1

      Discrimination is not good. Anytime a person is denied their second amendment rights, it is not good. But this does not apply to children and those that are insane. And not helping children or the insane is sinister.

  24. Easy fix with existing laws! by EvilSS · · Score: 1

    Since virtually every console and most games now require internet access and use back-end servers for something, the manufactures/publishers just need to add age restriction enforcement to their TOS agreements. "You must be 18 years old or older to play games rates M" and such. Then just have the feds arrest the little violators and charge them under the CFAA.

    Fixed! They were probably going to grow up to be felons anyway, so this just nips it in the bud early. As an added bonus since they will now be felons, they won't be eligible to (legally) purchase/own/use firearms!

    --
    I browse on +1 so AC's need not respond, I won't see it.
  25. Future Ban by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    June 25, 2015: This morning, President Obama signed into law banning 'Everything Bad' for the American people. Americans must now return straight home from their jobs and TOUCH NOTHING!! Recent studies have shown that, "...too much of anything is no good for you."

    This new law bans pornography, sex with anyone including so called "self sex", computing, video gaming, and drinking water, since studies have shown that 2 Englishmen die yearly from over-imbibing of the liquid. Film which would normally be at 11 about this latest development will not be shown, since the new ban now bans television.

  26. Enough Control on the "People" by l0ungeb0y · · Score: 4, Informative

    Let's get some control on Congress and the Corporations -- like that will ever happen. If I recall -- Feinstein was among the members of Congress found to be actively engaged in INSIDER TRADING by dealing in information given to her by Industry Lobbyists in exchange for "favors" and GIVEN A PASS! These members of Congress had claimed that they didn't know that Insider Trading was bad and inappropriate -- no charges or even fines will ever be levied against the Members of Congress or the Lobbyists who supplied the information by the SEC or DoJ.

    In the last 30 years Congress has redefined "The People" as the Corporate Entities and the .5%. They see their job as handing as much power and control over the Subjects of the US to them as possible. Controlling Freedom of Expresion and curtailing the Constitutional Rights of the Subjects is needed to achieve that end.

  27. Out with the old. by HeckRuler · · Score: 3, Informative

    Dear Senator Feinstein,

    The demographic you're trying to fear-monger votes out of is dying off and an ever-increasing percentage of voters think this makes you look like an unelectable fool.

    Sincerely,
    A democrat under 30.

    1. Re:Out with the old. by TsuruchiBrian · · Score: 1

      She is already old. She might die before she loses a primary due to shifting public opinion. There is no reason for her to change anything.

    2. Re:Out with the old. by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1

      It's almost as if she saw the idiocy that NRA talking heads were spewing about video games and "culture of violence" post Newtown, and decided that in the interests of equality both sides of the political spectrum must look equally stupid.

    3. Re:Out with the old. by CrimsonAvenger · · Score: 1

      It's almost as if she saw the idiocy that NRA talking heads were spewing about video games and "culture of violence" post Newtown, and decided that in the interests of equality both sides of the political spectrum must look equally stupid.

      This wasn't needed to make both sides look equally stupid.

      For the record, her "assault weapon ban" included the Ruger Mini-14 on both the BANNED list and the EXEMPT list. If it had a black plastic stock straight from the manufacturer, it was banned, but if it was originally sold with a walnut stock, it was exempt.

      Note that I own a mini-14 that came from the gunshop with a walnut stock. I replaced that stock with a synthetic stock with pistol grip (because the original stock was just too damned short for me) nearly 20 years ago. So, 30 round magazine + pistol grip + muzzle-brake (another aftermarket - I liked the front sight that came on the brake), but SPECIFICALLY EXEMPTED BY LAW from ever being considered an "assault weapon". And it's functionally identical to a Colt Bushmaster, which is apparently the most evil weapon ever conceived by the mind of man....

      Plus there was the language banning the 1832 Colt Revolving Shotgun (black powder, percussion cap, frontloaded, four shots, and such a bitch to reload that even a double-barrel is more dangerous)....

      NOTE: the Colt revolving shotgun was not mentioned by name, but is included under "any shotgun using a revolver mechanism"....

      --

      "I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
    4. Re:Out with the old. by Seumas · · Score: 1

      Unfortunately, not true. The elderly population is quickly dwarfing the rest.

    5. Re:Out with the old. by geekgirlandrea · · Score: 1

      I think you're assuming she's actually human without much supporting evidence there. I'm betting on her being an immortal blood-sucking space lizard, personally. :)

  28. Feinstein calls for spoon ban by MacColossus · · Score: 1

    Congress has learned that spoons make people fat. Senator Feinstein is now announcing legislation in conjunction with a PR push by Michelle Obama calling for a ban or at minimum a tax on all spoons to put an end to obesity.

    1. Re:Feinstein calls for spoon ban by desdinova+216 · · Score: 1

      I would think that would be something that Bloomberg in New York would be interested in.

    2. Re:Feinstein calls for spoon ban by MacColossus · · Score: 1

      True. Same party and same thought process. The entire populace is not to be trusted based on the actions of a few. We must be saved from ourselves. Bring on the nanny state.

  29. Re: Obscene by SpaceManFlip · · Score: 5, Informative
    Obscenity is defined by the "Miller Test"

    If an artwork/material/etc is considered obscene by the moral standards of the general community at large (in the pertinent locale) AND has no redeeming social/educational value, then it is considered obscene and should be banned.

    Any "obscenely" violent vidya game could simply take a page from Playboy's playbook, and insert some kind of PSA like "give the gift of Literacy" somewhere within the work that is prominently visible, and it would fail Part 2 of the Miller Test and therefore be Not Obscene.

  30. The only thing out of control? by fustakrakich · · Score: 1

    Congress, Ms. Feinstein in particular, but the rest of them also need to be thrown out.

    --
    “He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
    1. Re:The only thing out of control? by Minwee · · Score: 1

      Congress, Ms. Feinstein in particular, but the rest of them also need to be thrown out.

      So you're arguing that Senator Feinstein needs to be thrown out of Congress?

      I think there may be an important detail that you're missing there. This instructional video may help you spot it.

    2. Re:The only thing out of control? by fustakrakich · · Score: 1

      Well, golly gee! I did not know that :-/

      Gotta do what we can to make sure the bill doesn't become law... Out they go! Time for a fresh start...

      --
      “He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
    3. Re:The only thing out of control? by slothman32 · · Score: 1

      You may mean that Feinstein isn't a congresswoman.

      The names are confusing.
      Congress has 2 houses, the Senate and the House of Representatives.
      The people from the Senate are called senators.
      The people from the House are called either congressmen or reps.

      The only title a senator has is "Senator Smith".
      While reps. get two.

      Even though a senator is a member of a part of Congress they are not called congressman.
      Even though they represent people/states they are not called represntatives.

      Just to confuse things even more the word congressman isn't really capitalized unless it has a name after it.
      The same with representative and senator, unless of course you are naming 1 of the 2 halves of Congress.

      Congress as a whole/branch though is capitalized.
      I.e. Congress or congressman or Congresswoman Feinstein.

      And everything is capitalized at the start of a sentance.

      And of course you may mean something else entirely and this whole post can be ignored.

      --
      Why don't you guys have friends or journals?
    4. Re:The only thing out of control? by TsuruchiBrian · · Score: 1

      Even though a senator is a member of a part of Congress they are not called congressman. Even though they represent people/states they are not called representatives

      I am normally in favor of following existing conventions, because they normally make sense. I am in favor of violating conventions that don't make sense as a way of changing them.

      Thanks for pointing this out, as now I can violate it intentionally rather than inadvertently.

  31. Guns and video games don't make people violent by MikeRT · · Score: 1

    People like Feinstein don't want to face the judgmental reality that some people are just incorrigibly violent and dangerous. Many others are such that they won't have an epiphany about not hurting their fellow man until the system rains down fire and brimstone on their heads (ex. many small time violent criminals) often in a way that ruins their life.

    You are trying to understand low to non-existent empathy people from the perspective of normal empathy. You can't. Their brains are probably almost as alien in many ways as a jungle cat or a wolf's brain.

    Liberals don't like to face the fact that evil people are very often not insane. In fact they are probably some of the most brutally realistic people you'll ever meet and can function on a level equal to or higher than the average joe in the social order.

  32. If they can't pass gun control measures... by Brad1138 · · Score: 1

    This will be forgotten in a couple days.

    --
    If you could reason with religious people, there would be no religious people
  33. We Need better (Educated) Senators by Nyder · · Score: 1

    The truth is, our Senators are failing at their jobs. They make laws they know nothing about, and make a lot of laws that seems to be straight from corporation playbooks. But the sad truth is, the law makers do NOT understand Technology.

    Look, if video games were that bad, then most of us would be killers. Instead of me laughing at dumb ass people, I'd shoot them. Since I've played a lot of Grand Theft Auto, in reality I must be stealing cars and killing people right and left. But oddly enough, I don't. You can't say it's because I'm not criminally inclined, because I am.

    The truth is, some people are just plain fucked in the head. And they are going to lash out in a way that is public and we don't like. If you want to play the blame game, it's our faults for not giving everyone the mental health care they might need. Shit, I didn't get any till I was in my 30's. Why don't we put more money into the health care (mental included) for everyone in the United States, like a good government would do for it's people. That is, if they really cared about the people.

    --
    Be seeing you...
    1. Re:We Need better (Educated) Senators by TsuruchiBrian · · Score: 1

      Things our legislators don't understand: Economics, Technology, Logic, Math, Biology, Public Policy, Foreign Policy, etc. I suppose this really shouldn't come as a shock. Look at who elected them.

  34. 90% of crime rate changes linked to lead exposure by Memophage · · Score: 5, Informative

    Mother Jones recently published an article America's Real Criminal Element: Lead, detailing the correlation between decrease in environmental lead levels (mostly due to unleaded gasoline laws) and the decrease in crime rates (with a 20-year delay). The numbers are impressive, and they've correlated across areas of the country that enacted lead control laws at different times. The research is thorough and they make bold claims: "Gasoline lead may explain as much as 90 percent of the rise and fall of violent crime over the past half century." I highly recommend giving it a thorough read.

  35. The REAL solution is clear... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    We need Feinstein control.

  36. We Need Government Dumbass Control by SpaceManFlip · · Score: 1
    All damn day long every day you hear this or that Congressman or Congresswoman railing about new laws or new regulations to save lives or save the economy or save the environment. Either them or the celebrity President, who gets on TV to say "Shame on You" for not believing his lies and doing what he told you to do.

    All damn day long every day what you don't see is those Capitol Hill suits being handed the fat checks from lobbyists from the mega corporations who they really serve instead of the voting public.

    We need to protect amurca from the turrists! (READ: We needs to blow up lots of Boeing / Raytheon / GE munitions so they can sell us more and Profit!!!)

    We need to ban all the Weapons of War from Our Streets to Keep the Children Alive !!! (While the cops / border patrol / DHS all drive around in armored SUVs and MRAPs carrying full-auto machineguns and wearing battle armor)

    We need Health Care Reform to make Medicine Affordable (... so they force everyone to pay the insurance companies who are responsible for accepting the overbilling of every single medical procedure performed because doctors know they will pay so they bill double, instead of having the medical prices actually regulated to sane levels like every other civilized country in the world practially)

    /rant

  37. Gun supporters and Game supporters in same boat by SuperKendall · · Score: 1

    If you support gun control now, you are just helping lay the groundwork for stringent GAME control later.

    Just published, a good article on Kotaku making the case why game and gun supporters need to start treating each other with respect, instead of as enemies.

    --
    "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
    1. Re:Gun supporters and Game supporters in same boat by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What you're really highlighting is that people who support liberty need to start realizing that liberty applies to more than just their own pet causes, and that they all need to work together for everyone's liberty.

  38. Americans by Dunbal · · Score: 1

    Bombing people with drones and 12 years of endless war is ok, violence and murder is fine on television and in movies, but make a game about it? HELL NO!

    --
    Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
  39. By their logic... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If you follow her logic that playing violent video games leads to violent behavior by the people that play the game then we should all be running in fear for our lives from every military vet who ever served our country in a combat situation. If simulated violence is able to turn the average game player into a mindless killing machine, I can only imagine what is going on inside of the people who have had to be a part of real violence like war.

    My apologies to all the members of the military. I in no way believe the above statements.

  40. She's missing the point. by Minwee · · Score: 5, Funny

    Every shooting in the USA, every single one, without exception, has taken place in a state which had at least one Senator. The majority of shootings took place in states with two Senators.

    That even includes the District of Columbia, which is afflicted with two Shadow Senators even though it isn't a state.

    It's obvious even to a child of six that the problem is not video games, not guns, not even lack of access to health care for the mentally ill, it's the presence of Senators.

    Abolish the Senate and I guarantee you that the problem of shootings taking place in states with Senators will go away immediately.

  41. Re: Obscene by fredprado · · Score: 1, Interesting

    Bullshit. Obscene is defined by whatever the person that holds political power and is willing to define it want it to be. That is the problem with creating loopholes in constitutional principles that should be absolute.

  42. We need idiot control by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Vote all senators who voted for the Monsanto protection act out of the senate.

  43. Why not blame the bible and quran for violence by Vince6791 · · Score: 1

    "We need video game control"

    No, we need to control our government from going tyrannical. First they blamed literature, than pot, than liquor, than music, than movies, and now video games. How about we blame and get rid of the bible and Quran since these 2 books have a very major negative influence on society causing nothing but bigotry and violence, if we are going to play the blame game.

    You will always have assholes lurking in any society using religion or some other ideology to rape, murder, enslave, control the masses through government propaganda. Video games, movies, music, sports, art, literature, automobiles are the best things in life to keep you from going insane.
         

  44. Re: Obscene by SpaceManFlip · · Score: 3, Insightful
    I will see your call of "Bullshit" and raise you 1 citation of Current Law:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miller_test

    In the USA, fortunately, no one person holds all the political power.

  45. Fienstein = Moron by RudyHartmann · · Score: 1

    These people spend all their time trying to deny other people of freedom. If we need any kind of control, it's Senator control.

    Geez.

    --
    Oh, yeah! Wise guy, huh? Woob woob woob woob! Nyuk! Nyuk!
  46. No need for goverment help by ZombieBraintrust · · Score: 1

    FTC has been doing secret shopper tests on volutary rating systems. R rated movies, M rated games, Parental Advisory Music. Game stores have the best record. Their record has also improve dramatically in the last 10 years. In 2002 90% of the children secret shoppers could buy M rated games. Now it varies between 8%(gamestop) to 22%(walmart) http://www.ftc.gov/opa/2013/03/mysteryshop.shtm

    1. Re:No need for goverment help by Dahamma · · Score: 1

      Yeah, I just read that - interesting. Also that Walmart (the supposedly "moral" company in that group in that they sometimes self-censor what they sell) has the worst record...

    2. Re:No need for goverment help by Seumas · · Score: 1

      I find that hideous. The ESRB is voluntary rating. You know, because of the whole freedom of speech thing. A consumer -- even a 15 year old consumer -- should have the right to determine what they want to purchase, as far as consumable media. The ESRB can label something however they want for informative purchases, but it should not be a shopkeepers obligation to enforce adherence to informational-only labeling. Worse, this "censor yourselves or WE (the government) will do it for you" bullshit is absolutely vile. It's a way to end-run the constitution. It has already been declared unconstitutional for the government to censor content and if they did, you could address it in court.

      So, instead, they bully industry into imposing the same censorship *for* them -- only this way, they get all the effect without any of the liability of violating the constitution.

      And people are stupid enough to accept this. Or even praise it.

  47. Sandy Hook ACTORS... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Google 'Robbie Parker', and his scary wife, 'Alissa Parker', etc.
    Are you so stupid that you believe anything the Jew-owned media tells you?

  48. Leave it to the Left... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    to always want more laws to "protect the children" and control the people. Hitler was a socialist who passed gun control laws.

  49. Constitutional failure by onyxruby · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Feinstein has always had problems with Constitutional protections for anything she doesn't like. She likes to pretend that the Constitution only protects the things that she favors. If a Senator will blatantly attack the 2nd amendment, why would it surprise someone that she would go after the 1st?

    You have to give her credit in her consistent disregard for peoples rights, her track record is as bad as other Senator currently serving in Congress. She's a hardcore extremist and thinks nothing of using the law to trample anyone that doesn't think like she does. Left wing and right wing extremists are both just as bad at having trouble understanding rights are rights and that they should not mess with them.

    Moderate in the middle that supports all rights.

  50. We need Feinstein-control by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    We need Feinstein control. Keeping Feinsteins off our streets will make America a safer place. Come on, Californians, vote her out before she turns all of America into the communistic government that California has become! I've always voted against her, no matter who the opposition was.

  51. Good Guy/Bad Guy by snooz_crash · · Score: 1

    The only thing that'll stop a bad guy with a video game, is a good guy with a video game.

    --
    ceci n'est pas un sig
    1. Re:Good Guy/Bad Guy by Quirkz · · Score: 1

      Ha ha ha! I think this is the funniest thing I've read all week.

  52. Re: Obscene by cheekyjohnson · · Score: 1

    If an artwork/material/etc is considered obscene by the moral standards of the general community at large (in the pertinent locale) AND has no redeeming social/educational value, then it is considered obscene and should be banned.

    So in other words, it's completely subjective. What a surprise!

    --
    Filthy, filthy copyrapists!
  53. We would all be farmers... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If the fad of games influenced people, we would be imitating FarmVille!

  54. Less violence more sex by MytQuinn · · Score: 1

    I know how to make video games less violent, add more sex.... beating hookers, why not as long they have their tops on otherwise the NC-17 rating makes it un-publishable.

  55. Plenty of laws already..... by whizbang77045 · · Score: 1

    There already seem to be laws against everything, so why do we need more? If we aren't enforcing the laws we have, we obviously need a law making it illegal to break the law.

    1. Re:Plenty of laws already..... by TsuruchiBrian · · Score: 1

      So we can create more jobs for lawyers? We still want jobs right?

  56. Re:90% of crime rate changes linked to lead exposu by whizbang77045 · · Score: 1

    YGBSM

  57. A chance for video game studios to set an example by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I remember this kind of rhetoric was coming up in the news cycle a few months ago, and video game studios reacted as badly to it as gun companies reacted to talk about new gun control measures. Gun manufacturers immediately made the implicit assumption that any and all gun control measures violate the 2nd amendment (when the supreme court has repeatedly held this is not the case) by decrying new legislation as being unconstitutional before it's even written. Game studios were similarly quick to invoke the first amendment to protect themselves from the very idea of being held responsible for any of the consequences of the games they make. I'm an avid gamer, and I know that studies have shown that there is no correlation between violent games and violent crime, and that there is no logical reason to sensor violent games. That being said, I don't think it's unconstitutional to sensor media that leads to violence, and if a new study came out that verifiably showed a correlation between games and violence, I would support legislation to more heavily regulate games.

  58. Easier Targets by TheNinjaroach · · Score: 1

    She couldn't do what she really wanted to with the gun industry, so she sets her sites on video games. Less lobbyists = easier targets. (Puns might be intentional.)

    --
    I went to eat some animal crackers and the box said, "Do not eat if seal is broken." I opened the box and sure enough..
    1. Re:Easier Targets by meta-monkey · · Score: 1

      Isn't the video game industry more massive dollar-wise than movies? And guns? Why don't they have more lobbyists?

      --
      We don't have a state-run media we have a media-run state.
    2. Re:Easier Targets by CrimsonAvenger · · Score: 1

      She couldn't do what she really wanted to with the gun industry, so she sets her sites on video games.

      More likely, not enough campaign contributions from the Gaming Industry, so this is just another way of reminding them that they need to pay off the Democrats too...

      --

      "I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
  59. Crazy by ZombieBraintrust · · Score: 1

    No one wants to explore a health care system that would try and reach people like this early.

    The problem is that people don't wan't to admit that their love ones are crazy. You see all kinds of warning signs and you explain it away as bad behavior.

    1. Re:Crazy by MTEK · · Score: 1

      For starters, I wish people would stop using the word "crazy". It's not helpful.

    2. Re:Crazy by Seumas · · Score: 1

      Uh. Lanza was, by definition, crazy.

  60. Re: Obscene by fredprado · · Score: 2

    I know about Miller Test, but it is far from being an objective test and basically gives ground for a judges to consider whatever he wishes as obscene.

    And although no one person holds all the power in US, you are ridiculously deluded if you think that in US or in any country there aren't very small groups of people who do hold all the power. Usually those "people" are called corporations.

  61. Rome by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It also explains why the birthplace of such fine things as pizza and a plethora of delicious cured meats was once a murderous death machine that ran atop lead plumbing.

  62. This surprises you? by Sycraft-fu · · Score: 1

    She's long been one for getting rid of second amendment rights, without actually repealing the amendment. Something I think people forget is that the controlling/statist types don't stop at just trying to control the things you want them to control. They want to control everything. They'll ignore any rights they don't like.

    So this should surprise all of nobody. She's one of the "People have rights only until I decided I don't like them," types. Doesn't really matter what the right is. If they decide that more control is needed, they'll trample on it.

  63. We're DOOMed Anyway by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    We vote for video games the same way we vote for politicians: money. How is it that one can lobby to control the voting pool of the other? Does that mean the group of people who vote for video games with their money is essentially different than the group of people who vote for the politicians who wish to control them?

    Not that human choice in either video games or politicians has been particularly stellar.

    Maybe the loss in the end is that one group of people chose to vote for video games instead of politicians?

  64. Problem Solved by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "Video Game Control", much like "Gun Control" really just requires the use of two hands.

    (Discuss!)

  65. The problem is it is expensive by Sycraft-fu · · Score: 1

    Politicians don't want any part of the mental health issue because it costs a lot of money. A good mental health care setup would be pricey, particularly since you'd also have to combine it with campaigns to work on destigmaizing mental health care, slapping down employers who discriminated because of it, etc, etc.

    Right now, if you tell someone you have some illness, acute or chronic, and need to see a doctor, they are sympathetic. You tell someone you have mental problems and need to see a therapist and they look at you like you are toxic and they want nothing to do with you.

    The cost and complexity means politicians don't want anything to do with it. They want cheap easy fixes. There aren't any to be had, so they'll just invent them.

    1. Re:The problem is it is expensive by Seumas · · Score: 1

      That's not necessarily entirely accurate. The government - including our president - has been persistently pushing for forced psychological assessments of the entire population for a number of years, so far. In some cases, suggesting it should be part of required physician care (especially with any government medical assistance program) and other times that it should be something every student has to go through in school. Couple this with the DSMV's continual diagnosis of almost everyone on the planet with some sort of "mental disorder" (sometimes even in self contradiction so that you have a disorder no matter what side you fall on) and it seems pretty clear to me that mental health and over-diagnosis and over-prescription is being potentially used (or viewed, at least) as a tool against the population.

      Also, the difference between a normal medical condition and a mental medical condition should be obvious and it is an entirely rational concern. While I sympathize with someone who is schizophrenic, or bi-polar, or manic-depressive, or occasionally delusional, or paranoid, they are a far greater risk to my business, my safety, and the safety of my employees due to those illnesses than someone who has bronchitis or cancer or diabetes is due to theirs.

      Anyway, for one example, you didn't see everyone immediately cling to the "durp durp he has aspergers!" thing? Every fucking geek on the planet claims to have aspergers and it would be a politician's wet-dream to be able to declare people, at whim, as being suspect simply because they share some claimed association to a mental condition of some mass murderer. FURTHER, let's not just focus on mental condition (which I agree *is* important, even though potentially abused) . . . but how about on medication? Notice that a lot of anti-depressants state a warning about how they can actually cause more suicidal and unpredictable thoughts in younger people who are taking them? Notice how that is a common element of a lot of young people, from that kid who flew a plane into the bank building a few years ago to Lanza? So when we say "mental health", let's not forget the culpability and influence of either poor diagnoses or bad and/or over-prescribed medications.

  66. Not just mental illness by DMJC · · Score: 1

    The issue is not just mental illness. There are always going to be people who plan massacres. We used to think up ways of doing it without implementing it and I think it is a normal part of human nature. Some people just don't like the bulk of people. Having said that most people grow out of it and don't ever pull off anything. But some people actually go nuts and do go for it. When these people have access to tools to make their plans reality, all hell breaks loose. In my plans we used to make up, we used to put claymores at either end of a shopping mall in rubbish bins, in the middle of the mall we'd fire randomly into the crowd, then detonate the claymores and drop the gun and walk/melt into the hordes of people running. Naturally in my country !America, it's impossible to get a multi-shot firing rifle or claymores so the entire idea was never workable. It amazes me how easy it is to get a hold of multi-shot weapons in America. The amount of media that has the message it's okay to shoot someone if they've wronged you is immense. Combined with easy access to guns and you can see a problem. But the issue itself isn't the media. The ability to express free ideas has always been more important than the ability to own a gun.

  67. Her Priorities Are Screwed Up by organgtool · · Score: 1

    Would this be the same Dianne Feinstein that voted yea on a bill that limits the government's power to regulate guns? Not to mention that the regulations on the sales of games with mature content to minors is working very well and that the percentage of video games with a mature rating is pretty low. So yeah, Dianne, keep pursuing tougher regulation on video games instead of tightening regulations on guns - that definitely seems like the logical stance for a senator to make.

    1. Re:Her Priorities Are Screwed Up by CrimsonAvenger · · Score: 1

      Would this be the same Dianne Feinstein that voted yea [senate.gov] on a bill that limits the government's power to regulate guns [dailykos.com]?

      And the one that proposed and pushed through the last Assault Weapon Ban.

      And proposed the current one, for that matter.

      --

      "I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
  68. Re: Obscene by DigiShaman · · Score: 1

    Ding Ding Ding!!! And that folks is why the US Constitution is *NOT* a "Living Constitution". If there is a problem, there is an amendment process to go through. By design.

    --
    Life is not for the lazy.
  69. Those doggone Americans... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I have seen many forum posts and video game reviewer commentaries about how they believe "assault weapons" and hi-cap mags should be banned. I could go on to the same old rhetoric about semi-auto vs. full-auto weapons (if you don't know what I am talking about, google this debate). But there is another topic I think gamers need to realize. Just because a restrictive law does not affect your personal life, it does not mean you should not stand up for it. When we present solidarity to the federal government against eroding our rights on any level, then all rights (including the ones you care about) will be safe. If we split into little special interest groups that don't care about the freedoms of others outside their little world, then we all lose. We the people have to stand together or we will lose whatever rights people like Diane Fynstyn (yeah, I didn't think she was worth looking up the correct spelling) feel they want to trample on next.
    If you believe Diane when she says you are in danger from these type of weapons, then I guess this post is not for you. You probably also believe you are in danger from people playing MW3, too.

  70. Re:90% of crime rate changes linked to lead exposu by cogeek · · Score: 2

    Lead exposure has also been proven to reduce repeat offenders if applied in the 9mm, 40cal or 45cal doses.

  71. Re: Obscene by fredprado · · Score: 1

    Lately these amendments are used to restrict more and more our rights, though, and to give more and more power to the government and those who finance it.

  72. make up your mind by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If crime has dropped since DOOM came out, why are you defensively saying correlation != causation? You can't make both points at once.

  73. No, Senator... by Svartalf · · Score: 1

    We don't need gun or game control...

    We need SENATOR control. You're out of control and of your ever loving mind.

    --
    I am not merely a "consumer" or a "taxpayer". I am a Citizen of the State of Texas
  74. I agree but.... by Llian · · Score: 1

    I agree. We DO need more video game control. We need to be able to stop shitty games being made. Companies that make shit games, EA I am looking at you, that use draconian DRM, UBI....again...., and just generally bring the industry into disrepute, all need to be punished. Severely.

  75. Tons of Controls!?! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    https://www.google.com/search?hl=en&site=&tbm=isch&source=hp&biw=1077&bih=688&q=game+control&oq=game+control&gs_l=img.3..0l10.337.1664.0.1915.12.8.0.2.2.0.93.445.8.8.0...0.0...1ac.1.8.img.RCAs40SfkIE

  76. Re: Obscene by TsuruchiBrian · · Score: 1

    Isn't the amendment process *the* thing that makes the constitution living?

  77. That's why you don't let women into government by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    they mother the shit out everyone.

  78. "Assault weapons" Bullshit! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "Assault weapons" Bullshit!
    This lying crooked slimeball Feinstein wants to bamboozle the "Rubes" into believing that a lawful semi automatic rifle is a "machine gun", even going so far as to show an M16 in full auto as part of her bullshit dog and pony show where she dabs away crocodile tears and sniffs as she repeatedly refers to "Assault weapons" again and again! At no time did I hear ANYONE mention that select fire firearms have been unavailable to the American public since 1968! or that more people are killed with knives that rifles of any kind!

    These is the same people who want domestic drone surveillance, indefinite detention without judicial oversight, universal electronic surveillance and that sign agreements in their home districts guaranteeing 85% occupancy to private prison contractors!

    Got Freedom?

  79. Facts::: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It has been reported that the shooter was taking a prescription medicine for his mental health.

    Funny how that gets almost no attention. This isn't an isolated case, either. Others who have
    done similar crimes were taking the same or similar medication. It's not video games; it's not
    about legal gun ownership - these meds, under the right conditions, pose a public danger because
    their side-effects can allow people to perform horrific acts they wouldn't normally do.

    That's where the real focus should be...

  80. Violence by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    As someone who occasionally gets violent urges, I can say that video games are a main reason why I have not yet lashed out.

  81. The true axis of evil! by meta-monkey · · Score: 1

    It's a C-O-N-spiracy. At the top, EA, Microsoft, the NRA, probably the illuminati.

    Step 1) Make all video games use always online DRM.

    Step 2) Ban video games.

    Step 3) Shut off the DRM servers.

    Step 4) Combine the first 4 steps into "Step 1"

    Step 2) ??????

    Step 3) Profit!

    It's all so clear....

    --
    We don't have a state-run media we have a media-run state.
  82. Ask not for whom the bell tolls, it tolls for thee by Lord+Kano · · Score: 1

    Feinstein is of the mindset that we can legislate our way to utopia. She's in the Senate, so it's unthinkable to her that she can do nothing to address a societal problem.

    Gun legislation is an incredibly difficult uphill battle, but she still feels like she has to do something... FOR THE CHILDREN.

    Now it's this lunacy.

    Here on slashdot, I saw a lot of posts about how people don't care about my right to own a gun if it'll save one child's life to strip us of our guns. They weren't thinking long term. That kind of reasoning can be used to justify any intrusion.

    They weren't thinking about the long term consequences of that position. Now, it's video games again. Eventually, it'll be rap music and heavy metal again. The point is that unless we say no the bullshit when it's aimed at someone else, there will be no one to come to our defense when they target us.

    I'm a gun owning gamer. I'm not giving up either without a long, bloody fight.

    LK

    --
    "Hi. This is my friend, Jack Shit, and you don't know him." - Lord Kano
  83. Re: Obscene by Saethan · · Score: 1

    Lately these amendments are used to restrict more and more our rights, though, and to give more and more power to the government and those who finance it.

    Define 'lately'. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_amendments_to_the_United_States_Constitution#Ratified_amendments

  84. Historical Context by Prien715 · · Score: 1

    How many people here have discovered dead civil rights activists riddled with bullets? Hands? Yes Dianne?

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moscone%E2%80%93Milk_assassinations

    I think I'd be a bit traumatized too and probably not like anything with guns in it -- including games.

    While I disagree with this specific method, I'm glad Feinstein is trying to address the problem of gun violence with a solution other than "more guns, yehaw!". The GOP seems to think there is no problem that cannot be solved through a combination of tax cuts, guns, and Jesus.

    --
    -- Political fascism requires a Fuhrer.
  85. Re: Obscene by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    WINNERS DON'T USE DRUGS

  86. If you think that's bad by NotSoHeavyD3 · · Score: 1

    I knew somebody that claimed to be an anarchist but there was no big government policy they didn't like.(I guess they though it meant really liberal, not "without government.")

    --
    Did you know 80 to 90% of the moderators on slashdot wouldn't recognize a troll even if one dragged them under a bridge.
  87. Re: Obscene by ArsonSmith · · Score: 1

    not lately, it's been the SCotUS.

    --
    Paying taxes to buy civilization is like paying a hooker to buy love.
  88. Negative Correlation by Tancred · · Score: 1

    All of us probably mistake correlation with causation at times, but to think negative correlation equals causation is idiotic.

  89. Petition for a Lead-Crime Study? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I don't have 150 friends, to get a https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/ petition public. If enough people are curious about Lead-Crime study, a petition should be started. Its economic consequences would be quite large. Similar effects might apply to depleted Uranium.

  90. Please point me to your Kickstarter page by OglinTatas · · Score: 1

    n/t

  91. Need Laws Outlawing Senators by pubwvj · · Score: 2

    What we really need is to get rid of the politicians that can't understand the Constitution & Amendments. Feinstein is near the top of the list with her failure to comprehend the 1st Amendment and 2nd Amendment as well as the basic concept of limits on government.

    1. Re:Need Laws Outlawing Senators by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Maybe we should have an entrance test where you have to answer some open questions and write an essay on the importance of the constitution, like you would find in an english or history test in highschool. Anyone receiving a failing grade is instantly barred from retaking the test or ever taking an important position of power.

      Bonus points for weeding out people using obtuse language and factually incorrect statements.

  92. Christ, you're gullible by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You actually believe the bullshit that the Jew media has told you about Sandy Hook?

    Did Adam Lanza even exist? How convenient that he hadn't been SEEN by anybody for about two years before allegedly killing people. What a joke.

    Had Adam Lanza ever shot an animal? Why exactly did he want to shoot children, or adults for that matter? No explanation is given.

    It's cretins like you who give the Jew power.

  93. Maybe it's the -CA part... by Impy+the+Impiuos+Imp · · Score: 1

    If Senator Feinstein, D-California, really wants to save lives, she should get rid of the truth-in-advertising exemptions for herbalism, homeopathy, and other alternative medicines. She'll save more lives than all mass shootings for a hundred years put together, by several orders of magnitude.

    Seriously. Go run the numbers.

    --
    (-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
  94. ...Or aborted criminals by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The Freakonomics author's attributed the same drop in crimes to legalized abortion. Roe v. Wade is 40 years old now, about as old as the unleaded gasoline laws. It's really a choice between nature (lead metal) and nurture (mother's who hate their unwanted children).

  95. She needs to go by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Run her out on the next horse out of town.

  96. Mother Government wants....... by gelfling · · Score: 1

    To be your mother. It doesn't matter what you're talking about Feinstein wants to control it and limit you. That's her job. Well that and taxing you to pay for all that control.

  97. Maybe it's the DRUGS by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    A Brief History of Psychotropic Drugs Prescribed to Mass Murderers

    John Hinckley (1981) John Hinckley, age 25, took four Valium two hours before shooting and almost killing President Ronald Reagan in 1981. In the assassination attempt, Hinckley also wounded press secretary James Brady, Secret Service agent Timothy McCarthy and policeman Thomas Delahanty.

    Laurie Dann (1988) In 1988, 31-year-old Laurie Dann went on a shooting rampage in a second-grade classroom in Winnetka, IL, killing one child and wounding six. She had been taking the anti-depressant Anafranil as well as Lithium, long used to treat mania.

    Patrick Purdy (1989) Patrick Purdy went on a schoolyard shooting rampage in Stockton, CA, in 1989, which became the catalyst for the original legislative frenzy to ban "semiautomatic assault weapons" in California and the nation. The 25-year-old Purdy, who murdered five children and wounded 30, had been on Amitriptvine, an anti-depressant, as well as the antipsychotic drug Thorazine.

    Joseph T. Wesbecker (1989) In another famous case, 47-year-old Joseph T. Wesbecker, just a month after he began taking Prozac in 1989, shot 20 workers at Standard Gravure Corp. in Louisville, Ky., killing nine. Prozac maker Eli Lilly later settled a lawsuit brought by survivors.

    Kurt Danysh (1996) Kurt Danysh, 18, shot his own father to death in 1996, a little more than two weeks after starting on Prozac. Danvsh's description of own his mental-emotional state at the time of the murder is chilling: "I didn't realize I did it until after it was done." Danysh said. "This might sound weird, but it felt like I had no control of what I was doing, like I was left there just holding a gun."

    Michael Carneal (1997) In Paducah, KY, in late 1997, 14-year-old Michael Carneal, son of a prominent attorney, traveled to Heath High School and started shooting students in a prayer meeting taking place in the school's lobby, killing three and leaving another paralyzed. Carneal reportedly was on Ritalin.

    Kip Kinkel (1998) Kip Kinkel, 15, murdered his parents in 1998 and the next day went to his school, Thurston High in Springfield, Ore., and opened fire on his classmates, killing two and wounding 22 others. He had been prescribed both Prozac and Ritalin.

    Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold (1999) Columbine mass-killer Eric Harris was taking Luvox. Like Prozac, Paxil, Zoloft, Effexor and many others, a modern and widely prescribed type of anti-depressant drug called Selective Serotonin Reuptake Inhibitors, or SSRIs. Harris and fellow student Dylan Klebold went on a hellish school shooting rampage in 1999, during which they killed 12 students and a teacher and wounded 24 others before turning their guns on themselves. Luvox manufacturer Solvav Pharmaceuticals concedes that during short-term controlled clinical trials, 4 percent of children and youth taking Luvox - that's one in 25 - developed mania, a dangerous and violence-prone mental derangement characterized by extreme excitement and delusion.

    Larry Gene Ashbrook (1999) On Sept. 15, 1999, Larry Gene Ashbrook murdered seven people and injured a further seven at a concert by Christian Rock group Forty Days at Wedgwood Baptist Church in Fort Worth, Texas. Ashbrook then committed suicide. A doctor had prescribed the anti-depressant drug Prozac for Larry Gene Ashbrook, but investigators are unsure whether he was taking it when he killed seven people and then himself in a Fort Worth church last week, police said on Monday. Fort Worth's Lt. Mark Krey, who is heading the investigation into the largest mass shooting in the city's history, said police have found a Prozac vial in Ashbrook's name and want to ask doctors why it was prescr

    1. Re:Maybe it's the DRUGS by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Scary list

  98. Majority of NRA funding is from corporations by rsborg · · Score: 1

    The NRA is a group of people, a large group composed of several million people.

    While this may be true, the NRA is funded primarily by corporations [1], including many large gun companies. There is no way the gun companies live in fear of the NRA, they dictate what it does, because they fund it.

    [1] http://www.businessinsider.com/gun-industry-funds-nra-2013-1

    --
    Make sure everyone's vote counts: Verified Voting
    1. Re:Majority of NRA funding is from corporations by amiga3D · · Score: 2

      I think it's a symbiotic relationship. You have somewhere around 4 million people in the NRA and it's certain that these corporations see these people as customers. They want their loyalty. You do realize that these people buy tons of their stuff don't you? You really think they're interested in pissing off NRA membership? The tail is not wagging the dog here, both sides like each other. NRA members have a positive view of companies like Ruger and Colt.

    2. Re:Majority of NRA funding is from corporations by modecx · · Score: 1

      Hahaha, wow. Even if someone isn't a friend of the NRA, and they completely disagree with what they represent...if one were to take this article from an objective stance and compare it to reality, it's a complete load of shit. I had to laugh at this this paragraph in particular:

      Since 2005, the gun industry and its corporate allies have given between $20 million and $52.6 million to it through the NRA Ring of Freedom sponsor program. Donors include firearm companies like Midway USA, etc.

      As a customer of theirs, it should be pointed out that Midway USA is mentioned first only because their customers are given the option to round up their bill to the next dollar, or specify a small donation. That pocket change is accumulated across a multitude of orders, and is pooled together and sent to the NRA. The check they write as a result of these myriad micro-donations is sizable, to say the least.

      Anecdotal: I for one elected to do just that on most of my dozens of orders over the last 7-8 years, even though I wasn't a member of the NRA for most of that time.

      The best part, however, is this: they use a seven-year period to inflate this number, and make it look like these companies are coughing up seriously BIG bank, disregarding that consumers themselves are directly responsible for a sizable chunk of that number.

      Do the math: If we assume their numbers are right, over those last seven years, 53 Million dollars accounts for...get this...a whopping 3.1-4.5% of the NRA's total revenue over that same period, at best (that revenue being 1.1billion to 1.6 billion dollars, the median being somewhere in between), and the ads they sell in their magazines account for approx. another 10%, as admitted in the article.

      So, let's be very generous and say corporations foot the bill for 20% of the NRA's tab. That's funded primarily by corporations, how, exactly?

      --
      Constitutional rights may be respected, repealed, or modified; but they must never be ignored.
  99. hmmm by slashmydots · · Score: 1

    So if some nutcase living in a rural cabin with nothing but spy novels goes and shoots up his local congress, should we ban books, cabins, or living in rural areas? Oh and by the way, to stay consistent, he also sent 5 warning letters ahead of time, told his therapist about it ahead of time, and posted on Facebook, Twitter, and Pinterest about it ahead of time...so it's definitely the books' fault.

  100. Rants like yours are not helping by Sycraft-fu · · Score: 1

    When you talk about a governmental overreaction, which we have had for sure, making shit up and being extremely hyperbolic in your response is no more useful.

    First off there's your bullshit about the gulag. A Gulag was not a place where there are extra security measures of questionable usefulness. It was a forced labour camp. This is a place where prisoners in the Soviet Union were sent there to work as slaves, abused, underfed, and in general experienced a mortality rate of about 10%.

    If you are actually comparing the inconvenience of having to put up with the stupidity of the TSA's ineffective measures to that, you are an idiot.

    Then there's the "Oh the coming after the video games is new!" cry. No, it isn't. Perhaps you were not old enough to remember the Columbine shooting in 1999. However it was discovered that the shooters liked to play Doom, and immediately there were morons calling it a "realistic murder simulator" and calling for restrictions on videogames. However that was just more of the same shit. It has been rock music, comic books, TV, movies, etc in the past. Whatever youth likes that is new and different gets targeted at something that is the cause of all the ills. It has been going on forever.

    So, if you didn't know these things, then stop posting online rants about the US being a police state until you've spent time getting some historical and world wide perspective. If you talk without understanding, what you say has a much greater chance of being wrong. If you did know these things, then stop being an alarmist ass. It doesn't help. The response to government fear and FUD is not more fear and FUD. It is rational discussion, it is to bring this back down, help people understand that no, everything is NOT going to hell, we really are fine, chill out.

    Or, as the Brits said so well "Keep calm, and carry on."

  101. more like by Charcharodon · · Score: 1

    We need stupid Twats working in gov't control.

  102. Re: Obscene by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1

    Miller Test is a judicial creation, though, and it was created because there were laws trying to regulate "obscene" content in the first place. If Congress comes up with laws regulating "violent" content, they'll end up in SCOTUS for review, and these guys could decide that if Miller Test was able to set free speech limits on moral grounds, then they can devise a new similar but not quite the same test for violence.

    In the end, point is that the standing judicial interpretation of the First Amendment is that it can be restricted depending solely on the kind of content. That's fucked up, but unfortunately that's what we have, and it leaves the door open for any further restrictions.

  103. Dear Senator Feinstein by russotto · · Score: 1

    Why do you hate freedom?

    (it's gotta chap her ass to be following the NRAs lead after all these years of painting the NRA as the Devil. And the NRA doesn't even give a damn about video games; as others have pointed out they were just, mostly successfully, trying to deflect blame)

  104. Re: Obscene by Seumas · · Score: 1

    The constitution isn't a list of rights that you get to have as a citizen. It's a list of restrictions placed on government to protect citizens. Period.

  105. how about useful control by sjames · · Score: 1

    Since she is so determined to control something, how about cockroaches and mosquitoes? The pest control bill of 2013, hurry before summer starts!

  106. Re: Obscene by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If you cited wikipedia in law school, the prof would kick you out of the class and bring you on charges of academic misconduct...rightfully so.

  107. Re: Obscene by servognome · · Score: 1

    It isn't even an exhastive list of restrictions. The 9th Amendment states, there's stuff we haven't thought of, but that doesn't mean they aren't fundamental rights.

    --
    D6 63 0D 70 89 81 BB 8E 7B 7C 5F 5D 54 EA AB 73
  108. Re: Obscene by servognome · · Score: 1

    Winners don't get caught using drugs

    --
    D6 63 0D 70 89 81 BB 8E 7B 7C 5F 5D 54 EA AB 73
  109. No what we need is.. by houbou · · Score: 1

    Parenting.
    Stop blaming the video games for the ills of the world when it comes to violence.
    There is a saying: we cannot control what is around us, but we can always control ourselves.
    So, in that respect, parents need to instill their child with knowledge and responsibility and most of all, a sense of accountability.
    Parents should know what their child are doing and why.
    And they should be the one deciding their games.
    Video games are already rated for their target audience just like movies.
    But many parents want to be 'cool' to their kids and in the process will let inappropriate material for the sake of keeping the peace in the household.
    Wise up parents, you aren't your children's friend, you are their guardians, protectors and you are the one with your actions and your teaching that shapes the future of your kids.
    The least you could do is take it seriously.
    Its not easy being a parent
    The best parents are the ones who actually observe their kids and truly get to know their child.
    There is a baseline of good and bad, and then as a parent, there are the teaching of our parents before us.
    But parenting is about preparing your child for the future, so, like anything else, it means that you must be able to weed out the good and bad from your childhood in terms of parenting and you must apply what is best for your child as you get to learn your child's strength and weaknesses, personality, etc.
    Few people actually take the time to do that and be serious about the task of parenting.
    Most take the lazy road. "If it was good enough for me, it's good enough for my kid(s)", not realizing that, your kid(s) are not you. They are their own people.

  110. Compare copyleft by tepples · · Score: 1

    In which universe exactly can you achieve ever greater freedom and liberty by way of ever greater control and regulation of every aspect of people's lives? How exactly does that work?

    It works not unlike how copyleft licenses such as the GNU General Public License use the government-granted power of copyright against those who would take away the users' freedom to choose the maintainer of their software.

  111. bogart. by Waveguide04 · · Score: 1

    She is a troll in every sense and doesn't puff, puff, pass, just puff puff puff puffs. Seriously people elect like this that just suck the intelligence out of the world?

  112. The "Einstein" in Feinstein by tepples · · Score: 1

    I find it ironic that you suggest that these people are conservative idiots when Feinstein is one of the most liberal senators in the US. How about we just call them idiots

    It's hard to just say "idiot" when the surname is one letter away from that of a very famous German-born theoretical physicist.

  113. Video game control? by reboot246 · · Score: 1

    No, what we really need is stupid Senator control. What on Earth were you nincompoops in California thinking when you elected that ditzy bitch? Or the other two ditzy bitches from your state?

    Keep it up; you're only adding to your bad reputation.
    Fruits, nuts, and flakes!!

  114. I'm going to go out on a limb here... by Any+Web+Loco · · Score: 1

    I'm going to go out on a limb here and say that there's a good chance you're making one of those correlation/causation fuckups...

  115. Grand Theft Auto and IRL Auto Theft by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The US rate of auto theft has dropped by nearly half since the release of Grand Theft Auto.

    Correlation != causality, just a fun thing to say.

    (Source, Wolfram Alpha)

  116. Guns in public schools by billstewart · · Score: 1

    Dude, if you went to public school, it was because the liberals got ahold of the education system, and they also funded that city bus you took to get there. There are good arguments against having public schools, but it was the liberals who set up the system, particularly in New York State, where there were religious and secular charity-run schools before the public system forced most kids to go to government schools in the early 1800s, long before the "progressive" movement.

    We didn't have guns in high school in my part of Delaware in the early 70s, but we learned to shoot in Boy Scouts, and we certainly brought our pocket knives to elementary school, and it was simply not a problem. On the other hand, it was the suburbs; the rural kids may very well have brought guns to go hunting after school. And in junior high metal shop, the first rule was always wear safety goggles, but the second rule was "you can't make knives or other weapons"; the teacher was a blue-collar urban guy (and it was ok for him to have a battle-ax on the shop wall ;-)

    --

    Bill Stewart
    New Fast-Compression-only CPR http://preview.tinyurl.com/dy575ks
  117. Pelosi good, Feinstein bad by billstewart · · Score: 1

    I'm really tired of you right-wingers constantly attacking Pelosi and Reid for being the House and Senate majority leaders. Neither one of them are extreme ideologues; Pelosi's a bit too conservative for her district, and I'm annoyed at both of them for chickening out when the Republicans attacked them during the 2006-2010 years instead of fighting back and using the Democratic majorities that they had.

    Feinstein, on the other hand? Attack away! She supports most wars and dislikes the 1st and 4th Amendments just as much as she dislikes the 2nd, so if you want to say that makes her a conservative, go ahead. Her primary gun control positions are much more traditionally conservative - it's fine for her or her bodyguards to have them, just not for the rabble - but since she's a Democrat 1%er she's including you in the rabble and not just urban poor folks.

    --

    Bill Stewart
    New Fast-Compression-only CPR http://preview.tinyurl.com/dy575ks
  118. Need video game control like you for a senator by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    We don't.

  119. Fredric Wertham by hemo_jr · · Score: 1

    You'd think the community would remember history and not repeat it. Fredric Wertham, in _Seduction of the Innocent_ ,destroyed a genre of comic books in the 1950's making much the same fallacious claims that are now being made against the video game industry. Is this bozo going to be allowed to rise from the dead to wreck another generation's fun in an attempt to destroy the first amendment?

    I hope not.

  120. I'll repeat by Firethorn · · Score: 1

    Safety levers that lock the slide are preferred for a variety of reasons. It's considered a minor tradeoff that you can't unload the weapon without disengaging it in exchange for ensuring that the slide can't leave battery during whatever you're doing with it when the safety is on.

    With a gun that has a manual safety, you're probably going to have said safety on when carrying it and not paying as much attention to it. When you're loading or unloading the weapon, you should be paying attention. That doesn't mean that my 4 handguns that are of newer design than the 1911 don't have more safeties in them. My CZ75BD doesn't HAVE a manual safety lever, but the testing of it was rather extreme - they did things like load a dummy round into the chamber and then put it a vice and hit the hammer with a sledge. Fired blank = fail. It didn't fail. It has a number of internal safeties to ensure that it only goes off when the trigger is pulled. Even my revolver has a really small firing pin and a block on said pin until the trigger is pulled.

    I view your argument kind of like how congress mandated airbags that were powerful enough to kill people by requiring them to be powerful enough to help unbuckled adult males. That was eventually fixed, but it did get a number of people killed.

    With firearms, I'll have to ask:
    Would you consider my CZ75BD or the Glock line 'defective' because it lacks a safety entirely? The babysitter would have found it ever so easier to shoot his charge that way.

    I ask because there are many out there, including quite a few police officers, that consider a gun defective if it FAILS to fire when the trigger is pulled when a round is in the chamber.

    --
    I don't read AC A human right
  121. gawd by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    They have to be aware that most people know Sandy Hook was a fraud and nobody died yet they're still using it to push new legislation, ridiculous.

  122. Games kill people, not guns by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Yes, let's get down on games. It is the games that kill people, not the guns. Make guns more plentiful so other gunslinger wil think twice before shooting. But games? Let's forbid games. They are the real deathly force.

  123. But what about cops & robbers? by RogueWarrior65 · · Score: 1

    Kids use to go outside and play cowboys & indians and cops & robbers but they can't do that now because it's offensive to indians and robbers. People like Feinstein insist on anthropomorphizing the tool (aka the gun or the magazine) because banning them is an easier goal to attain (and thus looks good on a reelection fundraising resumé) as opposed to dealing with mental illness or making criminal punishment really something people will fear. The video game is no different. The number of guns in the US is estimated at around 270 million yet only a handful are used in horrific crimes by a handful of people. Grand Theft Auto is played by hundreds of thousands of people and less than a hundredth or a thousandth of a percent use it as an excuse to behave badly. The problem really lies in that tiny fraction of people who can't distinguish the fantasy from reality.

    The real crime is allowing politicians to avoid addressing the intractable problems while the go for the low-hanging fruit to as to ensure their legacy. Several things need to happen: 1) Term limits. And, no, I don't give a rat's ass about retiring supposedly experienced people because more than likely their experience is more about how to game the system and lining their own pockets than doing real work. 2) Proposed laws need to pass a constitutional test before a few courts before it gets to come up for a vote. People like Feinstein know full well that their legislation is unconstitutional but they don't care because they know it may take 10 years and millions of dollars in legal fees before the SCOTUS strikes it down. 3) Authors of laws determined to be unconstitutional should be removed from office or at least censured.

  124. cultural influence is subtle by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    But rock and rap have changed culture. Rock promoted an attitude of self indulgence and mocked principle. The boomers that grew up on that are self indulgent and (compared to the generation before them) lack principle. Consequently, the boomers have dismantled things built on principle like loyalty (as in 'downsizing'), honor/duty (as in divorce), and numerous other examples. Rap pushes an attitude that scorns humility and respects aggressively promoting one's own interests regardless of the impact on other people. Funny how the millennials are mostly turning out like that.

    Now of course there are many other factors that influence who people are, especially established values of the people around them, so no one cultural influence will simply rewrite anybody. It's more of a subtle change in people's perception of what is and what should be. Over time, the same relentless influence does seem to exert a gravitational pull on culture. Why do the few remaining Americans from the WWII generation, for the most part, generally try to be civil and polite while Americans from the millennial generation, generally (of course there are outliers) are pretty much alien to the idea of civility?- and will even completely ignore someone saying hello to their face if they have nothing to gain from that person?

    Do we really think that the shift towards selfishness and self indulgence has had nothing to do with the cultural influences like rock and rap? So you have people singing, feeling along with these pieces of art, getting lyrics tattooed on their body in some cases, and we're going to say that there is no influence whatsoever on those people? Again, of course there are other influences and music is just one of them, but it's a persistent factor. To say it is not is bury your head in the ideology of free speech- 'free speech can do no wrong' which is some kind of mutant version of an earlier view- 'free speech is so important it must be protected even though some of the consequences may be harmful'.

    Maybe in the case of video games we haven't run the experiment long enough. And maybe the impact is different than the monkey-see, monkey-do argument. Clearly people are becoming more selfish in our culture, and are seeing other people more as objects to be exploited,and less as fellow citizens, fellow humans, or really, fellow anything. Clearly we are living in a more 'gimme mine!' culture than 2-4 generations ago. This of course is due to many factors, but I'd like to suggest that first person shooters promote a sense of selfish separation from other beings.Violence, ending someone else's life is the ultimate form of selfishness.

    Our culture has other values that make killing actual people unpopular and unrewarding, but what about smaller kinds of everyday selfishness, from manipulating friends to screwing over people in the workplace? Everything I see suggests this has been on the increase. Would you say the millennials are more, or less likely than those from earlier generations to use people? What changed? Of course there's been immigration, much larger number of students in public schools, the economy hitting the wall with the various energy crises, changes in family structure, a decline in community involvement of all kinds, etc- so these things may be difficult to tease out. But I find it very difficult to believe that either violence in video games, or attitudes of self-aggrandizement and self-indulgence in music have nothing to do with any of the cultural changes. Most of ya'll are just such committed warriors for free speech that you're looking for any evidence against censorship you can find and ignoring all else.

     

  125. Re: Obscene by fredprado · · Score: 1

    It is both. Yes, it has several clauses that restrict citizens' rights, but it is also a list of restrictions to the laws bellow them, and as such it is a list of a citizen's inalienably rights.

  126. She's way off by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What we really need is senator control.

  127. Which Amendment do you wish to shit on? by Stubbyfingers · · Score: 1

    You're saying you can't take ANY limitations on the Second Amendment--we can't do ANYTHING to keep guns out of the hands of certified maniacs or former felons by doing extensive background checks.

    SO, let's just drop a load of shit on the First, Forth, and (probably) Fifth Amendments.

    What the problem is, the gun lobby is threatening to spank ongr€$$ with its on$iderable h€kbook. Since we the Gamers can't spend billions on owning our own private members of the national legislature--we get our amendments folded in 3 corners and stuffed up our @$$.

  128. Video Games DO Cause Violence... by Jason+Levine · · Score: 1

    ... I submit myself as proof. Why just today, I loaded some birds on a giant slingshot to fire at some pigs. This senseless avian-porcine violence could have been avoided had video games been banned. Someone please ban them before I raise some plants to help battle zombies.

    --
    My sci-fi novel, Ghost Thief, is now available from Amazon.com.
  129. Feinstein by gosgog · · Score: 1

    What did you expect from that SILLY BITCH, she was raised & lives in the land of the FRUIT & THE NUTS!!

    1. Re:Feinstein by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Feinstein the Einstein with an F.

  130. Analysis of liability by Firethorn · · Score: 1

    I could have gone on a long analysis of who was liable or not. I was simply pointing out that I do not believe that the gun manufacturer should have been held liable, and that is was held so mostly from a sense of sympathy and 'somebody has to pay, find somebody with deep pockets' because there was now a paraplegic child to worry about.

    I'll simply state that I believe that both the parents AND the baby sitter are to blame. The parents, as you say, for not locking the gun up. I thought about putting it in, but ended up not doing so. On the other hand, the babysitter, if you boil it down, pointed the gun at the child, took the gun off safety, and pulled the trigger. Gross negligence.

    But the babysitter wasn't deep pockets. The parents, well, ended up suing themselves for negligence on behalf of their child, winning/losing a big judgement so their insurance would pay. The kid won, of course. But the insurance was only a few hundred k. That goes quick with that level of medical.

    Sadly, they didn't discover until after the judgement that the 'deep pocket' gun company wasn't so deep pockets - only a few hundred K before that company was driven bankrupt as well, especially after the court battle. It was a small US Company producing cheap firearms and competing against the big companies, after all. Margins weren't that high, only enough to keep the owner in a middle class lifestyle. There wasn't even much in the way of equity - what wasn't leveraged with debt was burned by the lawyers during the trial.

    --
    I don't read AC A human right
  131. Wisdom follows, pay attention! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Fully automatic firearm = semi-automatic firearm + nailfile + ghetto negro "craftsman"

    "FPS" computer games are essentially civilian versions of military simulators, which are used to brain-program soldiers in training, to be able to kill people. Playing FPS indoctrinates your brain to be able to kill, without hesitation, people whom you do not know, people who are unrelated to you, it objectifies the act of murder.

    > the crime rate in the U.S. has gone down

    Half of infinite is still infinite large. The USA of 305 million people has much more gun deaths in a single year, than Japan of 135 million has in an entire human lifetime, say 80 years. In the USA everybody has a gun-fallen relative or friend or at least closely knows someone who has a gun-fallen loved one. That is not normal and the geek mindset is also not normal, if supporting the american firearms mania.

    Americans are too much pre-occupied with the "Lord of Armies" jewish God of the Old Testament and care too little about the christan God Jesus Christ of the New Testament. That is why violance plays such a huge role in US life and way of thinking and that is why jews, the race of warfare, have been holding the entire USA in a yoke to this day. Protestantism is thinly veiled judaism, that worships the God of "herem" genocidal wars. How many redskin indians are still alive in protestant USA? About 20k total. How many indians are still alive in roman catholic Central and South America? Tens of millions. Protestantism is the religion of firearms violence!