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."

64 of 424 comments (clear)

  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 fustakrakich · · Score: 5, Insightful

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

      --
      “He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
    2. 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
    3. 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.

    4. 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.
    5. 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.

    6. 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.

    7. 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.

    8. 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) .

    9. 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."
    10. 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.

    11. 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"

    12. 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.

    13. 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
  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. 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 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.
    2. 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
  4. 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
  5. 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 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.
  6. 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 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!
    3. 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.

    4. 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.

    5. 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.

    6. 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
    7. 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
    8. 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"

    9. 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!

    10. 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
    11. 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?
    12. 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.

    13. 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.

    14. 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
    15. 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.
    16. 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.
  7. 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.

  8. 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 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.

    3. 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.

    4. 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.

    5. 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.

    6. 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
  9. 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...

  10. 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?

  11. 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
  12. 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...

  13. 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."
  14. 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.

  15. 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.

  16. 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.

  17. 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.

  18. 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.

  19. 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.

  20. 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.

  21. 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.

  22. 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.

  23. 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.

  24. 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.

  25. 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.