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."

36 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 amiga3D · · Score: 3, Informative

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

    5. 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) .

  2. 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.

  3. 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
  4. 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.

  5. 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 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
    5. 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"

    6. 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!

    7. 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
    8. 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.

    9. 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.

  6. 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.

  7. 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 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.

    3. 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.

  8. 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...

  9. 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?

  10. 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
  11. 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...

  12. 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.

  13. 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.

  14. 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.

  15. 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.

  16. 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.

  17. 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.

  18. 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.

  19. 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.