Senator Feinstein: We Need Video Game Control 424
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."
Feinstein is an idiot. (Score:5, Insightful)
News at 11...
I'm surprised... (Score:5, 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.
Re:I'm surprised... (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re:I'm surprised... (Score:4, Funny)
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 [youtube.com] is insane!
Re: (Score:3)
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 t
Re: (Score:3)
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) [wikipedia.org]
"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 conf
Re:I'm surprised... (Score:4, 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 . . . ?
Re: (Score:2)
How about their parents? They had them, they raised them or failed to raise them. They are responsible.
Re: (Score:3)
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... ;)
Re:I'm surprised... (Score:5, 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.
Re: (Score:3)
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.
Re:I'm surprised... (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?
Re:I'm surprised... (Score:5, 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.
Re: (Score:3)
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 boat
Re:I'm surprised... (Score:4, 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.
Re: (Score:3)
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 poin
Re:I'm surprised... (Score:5, Interesting)
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.
Re:I'm surprised... (Score:5, 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 [vpc.org]
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 [vpc.org]
Re: (Score:3)
Truly. Considering that CA is the land of Pelosi who makes Feinstein appear to be a conservative.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
It pisses me off too. The purpose of the second amendment is to furnish the means to guarantee the first amendment.
Re: (Score:2)
> 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
Re:Feinstein is an idiot. (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
She is. She is a disgrace to the ideals of liberalism.
Re:Feinstein is an idiot. (Score:5, Insightful)
No, she is a disgrace to the ideals of freedom.
Re:Feinstein is an idiot. (Score:5, 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.
Re:Feinstein is an idiot. (Score:4, Informative)
Sadly the Republican party is no longer the party of small government or fiscal responsibility.
Re: (Score:2)
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?
Re: (Score:3)
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.
Re: (Score:3)
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, equal
Re: (Score:3)
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?
Re: (Score:3)
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.
Re:Feinstein is an idiot. (Score:4, 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) .
Re: (Score:3)
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
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:3)
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 ar
But has it gone down *enough* (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!
Video games have made us safer (Score:4, 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.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Ban violent comic books (Score:4, Funny)
Thanks to banning violent comics in the 50s there was no violence in the 60s.
Absolutely no seducing your innocents allowed.
What do you expect? (Score:4, 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.
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:3)
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 fi
Feinstien is senile (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.
Clearly unconstitutional (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.
Re:Clearly unconstitutional (Score:5, 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".
Re: Obscene (Score:5, Informative)
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.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miller_test [wikipedia.org]
In the USA, fortunately, no one person holds all the political power.
Re: (Score:3)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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!
Re: (Score:3)
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 t
Re:Clearly unconstitutional (Score:4, Informative)
Well, they can at least prevent them from being sold to minors.
The U.S. Supreme Court would disagree with you. [wikipedia.org]
No need for goverment help (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:3)
Since I don't have mod points today, I will say "mod parent up". Seriously, Feinstein should have been recalled or impeached decades ago.
Re: (Score:3)
So just shut up and let them make things better.
Re: (Score:2)
Speaking of bad childhood influences... (Score:5, 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?
Fuck Nanny Feinstein (Score:2)
where are the Dead Kennedy's when you need them?
Re: (Score:2)
I have an idea (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 [esrb.org].
Re: (Score:2)
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.
We Need Congress Control... (Score:2, 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.
Bread and Circus (Score:2)
I just don't get it (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.
Crazy (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:3)
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 th
Beating a dead horse (Score:3)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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?
Honorable Senator Ignores the Painfully Obvious (Score:2)
Guns in the hands of the mentally unbalanced seems to be the most ignored issue, why?
Re: (Score:2)
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"?
Easy fix with existing laws! (Score:2)
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 fe
Enough Control on the "People" (Score:5, 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.
Out with the old. (Score:4, 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.
Re: (Score:2)
If they can't pass gun control measures... (Score:2)
We Need better (Educated) Senators (Score:2)
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
90% of crime rate changes linked to lead exposure (Score:5, Informative)
Mother Jones recently published an article America's Real Criminal Element: Lead [motherjones.com], 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.
Re: (Score:2)
Gun supporters and Game supporters in same boat (Score:2)
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 [kotaku.com] making the case why game and gun supporters need to start treating each other with respect, instead of as enemies.
Americans (Score:2)
She's missing the point. (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.
Fienstein = Moron (Score:2)
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.
Constitutional failure (Score:4, 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.
Plenty of laws already..... (Score:2)
Easier Targets (Score:2)
Need Laws Outlawing Senators (Score:3)
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.
Re:Duh. (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Duh. (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...
Re: (Score:2)
Don't get me wrong,
Re: (Score:2)
We can't ban...oh wait someone just sent me an extra life in Candy Crush, must try and get to the next level!
Re: (Score:2)
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...
Re: (Score:2)
As well as the birthrate...
Re: (Score:2)
Win-win! I wonder if John Carmack knows that he's an amazingly effective social worker?
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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 [youtube.com] may help you spot it.
Re: (Score:2)
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.