Calif. Petitions Supreme Court On Violent Video Game Bill 204
eldavojohn writes "You know the drill, violent video game bill struck down because: "We hold that the Act, as presumptively invalid content-based restriction on speech, is subject to strict scrutiny and not the 'variable obscenity' standard from Ginsberg v. New York. Applying strict scrutiny, we hold that the Act violates rights protected by the First Amendment." Well, that didn't satisfy a PhD child psychologist turned Democratic California State Senator named Leland Yee who states in his press release that "California's violent video game law properly seeks to protect children from the harmful effects of excessively violent, interactive video games. I am hopeful that the Supreme Court — which has never heard a case dealing with violent video games — will accept our appeal and assist parents in keeping these harmful video games out of the hands of children. I believe the high court will uphold this law as Constitutional. In fact in Roper v. Simmons, the court agreed we need to treat children differently in the eyes of the law due to brain development." His appeal (in PDF) is here and you can find some industry reactions to the Supreme Court hearing at GamePolitics. Unfortunately Yee seems to be a bit more competent than old Jack Thompson, who is pushing a bill in Louisiana today."
WTF? (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:WTF? (Score:5, Insightful)
The stupid thing is, parents already have those capabilities, no new laws required. A parent controls their child's finances, access to electronics, and most other decision making.
A parent can easily keep their kid from violent games. Don't buy a console, use proper precautions with computers (like requiring root access to install software and withholding the password), or failing that own a computer that can't be used for gaming (old, cheap or both). Don't buy them the games and assure relatives that you do not want the games given as presents. Do some very basic research.
None of these things are difficult. Most don't even require action, merely inaction, on the parent's part. A modern luddite, like those who support these laws, shouldn't find it difficult.
So, there are only two excuses for this idiocy. The first is that the people supporting these laws really are that lazy, or that unable to say no to their children. In which case, they need only look into a mirror to see the real problem. Laws won't solve the problem, unless those laws make reproduction a privilege.
The second, more likely, explanation is that they want to enforce their own style of parenting on everyone. Which isn't "assisting parents", it's forcing them to do things their way.
Re: (Score:2)
The most likely explanation is that this is simply being pushed for a political agenda. Anyone who knows anything about anything knows you can't actually stop kids from playing violent games without putting a tracking collar on the little fuckers.
Re: (Score:2)
The most likely explanation is that this is simply being pushed for a political agenda. Anyone who knows anything about anything knows you can't actually stop kids from playing violent games without putting a tracking collar on the little fuckers.
I could not agree more but if you do have a video game machine (PC or console) at some stage you are going to get the kid playing games. It really is up to the parents to control what their child plays keeping in mind that the more control you exercise the greater the chance the child will find a way to play the game you don't want them to play. I find it is best to show an interest in what the child likes or is getting pear pressure to like and if necessary hire the game and sit with them as they play it.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The stupid thing is, parents already have those capabilities, no new laws required. A parent controls their child's finances, access to electronics, and most other decision making.
I think we got the problem backwards.
We should outlaw children. That would solve the parents problem all together.
Re: (Score:2)
Your example only serves to underscore my point.
If the parent doesn't want their kid playing a game they got off a friend, all they need to do is ensure the kid doesn't have the means to run it. No console means no borrowed console games. An old computer, or an computer other than a windows box would also serve. If you've got some state of the art game-ready PC, then require a password to install software (always a good safety procedure anyway, especially on a windows machine, since you never know what f
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
You're bigger than they are, and you can kick their ass anytime you feel like it! End of discussion.
That may work when they are fairly young (a good thump can save allot of pointless arguments) but it doesn't when they get older especially when you have 14 year olds bigger than you. When that happens you better start talking to them.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
What exactly is the harm with a young kid playing a violent video game?
Re: (Score:2)
Good point. However, please note that when I made my post, it was not directed at the sensible parents of gamers (like yourself).
There is a regrettably large percentage of people who are, for lack of any less insulting term, knee-jerk Luddites. People for whom this sort of technology is "Evil". Those are, by and large, the ones who want to ban video games - always "for the children", mind you, since that makes it okay.
To these people I say, keep the consoles away from the kids, limit the use of computers,
Re: (Score:2)
Well, I think the reasoning is that if they're fat AND violent, then it's easy to outrun them.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Where is California going to find the money? (Score:5, Interesting)
Wouldn't it be better to actually spend the money on the children in California, rather than pay lawyers to take this clearly unconstitutional law to the supreme court? What with California's budget woes; you would think they would want to save the money so they don't have to cut as much from education and health care for poor children.
Mod Parent Up (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Where is California going to find the money? (Score:4, Interesting)
Roper? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Irregardless of what happens (I could care less), bringing up the Roper case is a perfectly cromulent tactic.
I remember this guy (Score:5, Interesting)
This is the same Leland Yee who has three times been pulled over on suspicion of cruising for prostitutes in San Fran (while holding public office), but never been charged? The same Leland Yee who was arrested for shoplifting in Hawaii, but had all charges dropped without prejudice?
Is it just me, or are those with the biggest axe to grind usually the ones with the most delicious skeletons in the closet?
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Speaking of axes to grind, until you can produce evidence, the answer to all your questions may as well be "no." Seriously, how is this modded Informative or Insightful? There's not a single link to evidence for these claims. In a quick Google search, I found nothing about Yee being picked up for being a john - though lots to suggest he has fought against prostitution for years - and the only thing about shoplifting was this article [sfgate.com] referencing a 1992 incident that appears to have been a big, dumb mistake.
M
Re:I remember this guy (Score:5, Informative)
If you didn't find the links, you weren't trying very hard.
Re: (Score:2)
Uh, cuz it's true?
If it's true, then you'd have no problem producing, you know, evidence then right?
I'm sorry if your Google skills suck
As much as yours? I notice that you didn't manage to produce any links either, and it's you that seems to have a point to make.
There is an old and wise saying, of which I think you should take heed:
"Put up or shut up."
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I think that perhaps everyone has skeletons in their closet, because the perception of appropriateness in society is a fabrication of an ideal that not only doesn't exist, but that nobody really wants to exist.
The deliciousness of the skeletons in the closets of people like Mr. Yee comes from the perception that they are the instigators and promoters of the fabrication that we all quietly disagree with. The exposure of their hypocrisy is enjoyable in a very schadenfreudian way.
In my opinion, they are largel
Why a law in the first place? (Score:5, Insightful)
assist parents in keeping these harmful video games out of the hands of children
Wait, so parents can't refuse to buy violent video games for their kids already? They can't confiscate them if the child (or, more likely, teenager) saves up their allowance and goes and buys it themselves?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
No they can't.
The ones that do end up getting killed by their kids.
Re: (Score:2)
Giving parents the right to confiscate (read: search and seize) property from their kids, EVEN if they bought it with their own hard earned money, implies that children have no property rights at all.
Re: (Score:2)
Giving parents the right to confiscate (read: search and seize) property from their kids, EVEN if they bought it with their own hard earned money, implies that children have no property rights at all.
You imply that children can have their own money.
With the possible exception of creative works, most state law believes that parents have a right to their kid's services and earnings.
Re: (Score:2)
my point exactly.
The law needs to recognize parental sovereignty and just get the hell out of the home.
Re: (Score:2)
They can't confiscate them if the child (or, more likely, teenager) saves up their allowance and goes and buys it themselves?
If you live in a country where 18 is classified as adult then R18 rating games (if your country has this rating) are restricted to adults that can show proof of age if asked. Most countries that have this normally make it illegal to sell R18 games or media to minors. In Australia were I live it illegal to sell alcohol, tobacco, knives (no this is not a typo) or even any form of gambling content to a minor (I wonder if our politicians have heard of the name "two up" which you can play with two coins). What i
Except the stores didn't sell to the kids (Score:5, Insightful)
Someone needs to remind Mr. Yee that, at least in all the cases I've heard reported on, the store didn't sell the video game to the kid. They sold it to an adult relative of the kid, who then gave it to the kid without bothering to check on what exactly their "little angel" had been bugging them for. And then when they found out exactly what little Timmy had gotten, they dove headfirst into that river in Africa and started looking around for someone else to take the blame for their failure. No law about selling video games to minors will do a single blessed thing about that, where there's no video game ever sold to the minor.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Can you give me an example of what governments can do to encourage parents to care about their kids' lives?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I'm not a big fan of tax credits. Why not subsidize the cost of kids' soccer instead?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I agree with you here. There probably are a small number of sales to teens, but the vast majority are to parents, grandparents and other relatives.
I wish I could find the article now, but back when the Hot Coffee scandal broke for GTA:SA, there was some grandmother so upset that content like that would be in a game she got for her 11 year old grandson. Apparently the fact that the game was called Grand Theft Auto wasn't enough of a clue that it wasn't child appropriate.
Side note: with the whole Hot Coffee
Re:Except the stores didn't sell to the kids (Score:5, Insightful)
Why is it OK to have sex with a hooker to recharge your health, then kill her to get your money back, but Hot Coffee was the *bad* part? Boobies. A one second glimpse of a booby will melt your kid's brain (and gannets aren't much safer, says I). Explains the whole wardrobe malfunction flap as well.
Correction (Score:4, Insightful)
"California's violent video game law properly seeks to protect children from the imaginary harmful effects of excessively violent, interactive video games."
FTFY
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
"California's violent video game law properly seeks to protect children from the imaginary harmful effects of excessively violent, interactive video games."
FTFY
Anyway all the people in California who want a so called inappropriate game will drive to the next state and purchase the game anyway. What are they going to do have strip searches at the border and xray all game imports from say Netflix or even monitor all downloadable game content. If they do this it is time to polish up your boots, practice the "goose step" and watch out for that man with the "Charlie Chaplin" moustache. :)
Sure, he wants to protect kids from violent games, (Score:2)
unlikely (Score:3, Interesting)
A capital punishment decision that was only 5-4 is going to be extended so far as to justify prior restraint on free expression. In fact - yes, this is a legal argument but it just barely passes the laugh test.
Brain development... (Score:2)
[...] we need to treat children differently in the eyes of the law due to brain development.
Why did I understand that as "We need to treat their brains, so they stop developing." and "At least they got any brains. Which we clearly don't. Let's nuke them!"
Maybe I'm just tired. ^^
But I don't know it it's from the retardedness of such people, or from fatigue. ^^
Sure, but do the same for religion (Score:3, Insightful)
California Being Stupid (Score:4, Insightful)
As one of the most expensive states in the Union already, and with an electorate who just told you today that we want less government for less money, why are you spending your time on this kind of garbage? Don't you have bigger problems to face?
This worked so well for Illinois... (Score:4, Informative)
role of government.. (Score:2)
...and assist parents in keeping these harmful video games out of the hands of children.
Parents don't need yet another law to give them the ability to keep harmful video games out of the hands of their children. They already have that ability. They just need to exercise said ability more often.
It's not the government's job to raise our children.
The proper role in this situation would be more like posting an advisory that certain studies link video game violence to this that or the other(assuming said studies even exist) but it should be up to a parent/guardian to make the decision.
Re:I hate that I have to say this cliche comment (Score:5, Insightful)
Maybe there are deeper issues then just 'guns be evil.'
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Wikipedia usually doesn't steer us wrong
US has the most Guns per Resident" [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
In more news...
US Sitting at 8th Place with murders by firearms [nationmaster.com] right between Costa Rica and Uruguay.
Repeat after me (Score:5, Insightful)
Steering people (yes kids count as people, they are not sub-humans incapable of reasoning) away from the wrong direction gives them no ambition to move towards the right. Quite the contrary, they resist. We all know this because there is a little trait of people that causes illegal things to not "go away". Guns in "gun-less countries" are still there, and underage drinking has not gone the path of the dinosaurs either, we can't expect something as unregulated as video games to take a different route. So what should the government do to take care of this 'catastrophe'? Nothing. That's right boys and girls, it's in fact the job of the people to raise their children. Parents need to go out and take the initiative to buy their kids games that are non-violent that keep their kids preoccupied and away from violent video games. You may say, "how do I manage to find one?" It's called online reviews and talking to game store employees. Now you've run out of excuses. Go out and raise your kids. If you can manage that.
Re: (Score:2)
"Guns in "gun-less countries" are still there,"
But not as much, when there isn't a ready source of legal ones to steal.
But I agree with your point in general. Drugs do not go away because they're banned, for instance. I would dispute this has anything to do with steering people though. Steering people has dropped drunk driving figures massively in the UK. Steering via education, not changes in the law as it was already illegal.
There's a hell of a lot that can be done in terms of public information and educa
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
And the List of countries by firearm-related death rate [wikipedia.org] holds that the only country with more firearm homocides than the US, is North Ireland... yeah, where terrorists are bat-shit crazy.
Take this as another example. Australia recently banned guns, and had their firearm homocide rate TRIPLE!!! Yet, they were still well below half of the US firearm homocide rate.
US citizens have a mentality and a culture of "if I don't get caught", and an idea of a lack of responsibility to others. This is what caused the
Re:I hate that I have to say this cliche comment (Score:5, Insightful)
>
Take this as another example. Australia recently banned guns, and had their firearm homocide rate TRIPLE!!!
[Citation Needed]
The only "evidence", if it can be called this, of an increase in violence are opinion pieces such as blogs and editorials. There are no statistics or research to back this up. As an Australian I am proud of our gun control laws and laugh every time I see some gun-nut claiming they've done harm.
This is just one site that shows how murders have NOT CHANGED and that gun related accidents have changed. They even state that assaults & other crime cannot be seen as a direct result of gun control laws.
http://www.gunsandcrime.org/auresult.html [gunsandcrime.org]
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I don't intend to defend the statement about Australia, but it would not be inconsistent with what statistics show about other nations.
The statistics that were quoted on Wikipedia are from a more detailed survey that also cataloged gun ownership and gun control laws across those same countries. In college, I read the entire thing, but I can't find it online anywhere. The results show that legal gun ownership is not proportional to non-suicide gun deaths. Interestingly, if you throw education into the mix
Re: (Score:2)
"Really it makes sense: Criminals use guns to kill people, and gun laws do not affect criminal gun ownership. Hence, you can't legislate away murder."
You can legislate away a portion of impulse murder and accident by otherwise law abiding citizens, the V-Tech and Columbine things probably wouldn't have happened either.
Also, if you don't believe that low availability of guns affects their price and availability to criminal elements... well anyway.
Re: (Score:2)
You can legislate away a portion of impulse murder and accident by otherwise law abiding citizens
Agreed. I guess the fact that such laws don't impact crime significantly tells us that these are not a significant portion of murders. It might be that those very same law-abiding citizens are the ones most likely to use their guns to stop crimes, thus canceling out the effect of reduced impulse murders.
Also, if you don't believe that low availability of guns affects their price and availability to criminal elements... well anyway
I hold no such belief. You are probably right: It seems like it should make them more expensive. But that doesn't change the fact that these laws aren't doing anything to reduce gun-related crime.
Since
Re: (Score:2)
This is just one site that shows how murders have NOT CHANGED and that gun related accidents have changed. They even state that assaults & other crime cannot be seen as a direct result of gun control laws.
Well lets see. We spent huge amounts of money and resources on the gun buyback. We curtailed EVERYONE's freedom. Farmers have less tools to get rid of pests. The barrier to entry for learning to shoot as a sport is way up.
What did we get in return? A few less idiots shot themselves and others. If I'm r
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It makes it much harder and more personal.
Also, check out the crime figures - the US has a very high rate of murder and of rape. "gunless" countries tend to have higher rates of minor crimes, but the violent ones seem to be favoured over there in 'merica.
Bad Parenting vs. Gun Control. (Score:5, Insightful)
Yet Canada has more guns per capita then the US, and the same video games but also does not have teens prone to violence.
Maybe there are deeper issues then just 'guns be evil.'
Yes, there are definitely deeper issues, and making stricter gun laws is not ever the answer, as evidenced by statistics where strict gun laws did nothing but increase crime rate.
I hate to say the blatantly obvious, but don't try and take my guns away because people generally suck at parenting, which tends to be the true root cause of this issue. If people can't manage to keep an ESRB teen-rated GTA game away from a 9-year old, that is not anyone elses fault, and certainly has NOTHING to do with my other inalienable rights. There's plenty of tech out there to protect your children from the Internet and they already should not be able to walk into WalMart and buy a violent game.
Just another lame-ass excuse to grab guns and excuse parents from actual responsibility.
Re: (Score:2)
There's plenty of tech out there to protect your children from the Internet
You mean tech the average kid doesn't understand far better than the average parent?
and they already should not be able to walk into WalMart and buy a violent game.
Like that's going to help... Ever seen a little boy who just learned to walk and starts exploring his surroundings? The first thing he'll do is pick up sticks and start hitting things with it. There are certain things hardwired in our brain. That's a good thing. You just have to show them when is it appropriate to destroy things. TV doesn't cut it.
Re: (Score:2)
You mean tech the average kid doesn't understand far better than the average parent?
You're right. There are certainly kids out there that know more about computers than their parents. But if you're suggesting that the parents are too stupid to outsmart their kids then we're back to a serious problem with the parent's ability to parent.
First, don't allow your kid to sit in his room in private with a computer for hours at a time. You are the parent. Require the kid to use a computer in the office or living room where you know how its being used. Require the kid to spend time interacting w
Re: (Score:2)
Let me suggest a different ruleset:
1. The kid can do whatever the hell they want with the computer, as long as they remember it's not necessarily reality.
2. There is no rule 3.
I want my children to think for themselves, and gain as much experience about it as possible, while they're under my supervision, so when they're not, they can lead a life worth living. Isn't that what raising a child should be all about?
Re: (Score:2)
Whether Canada has more guns than the U.S., the second point is valid. And we do have a lot of guns, and in Switzerland, where they have mandatory military service, everyone keeps the gun they trained with in their home.
The difference is the attitude towards guns and violence in general. In Canada, as in Switzerland, violence is recognized as a state monopoly. We leave that for the police in time of peace, and the army in time of war. The temptation to pick up a gun and use it on someone is regarded as crim
Re: (Score:2)
If he's none too bright (and that describes about 10 to 15% of any population)
Except we're talking about the US here. Their percentage is closer to 51%, as shown by this scientific study : http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2004/pages/results/president/ [cnn.com]
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Americans believe they have the right to defend themselves with firearms. But what constitutes self-defense? Who decides?
Law enforcement and a jury of our peers.
America's problem isn't just too many guns, it's the fact that people carry them around and feel that they have the right to use them.
Back that up with something credible and it might be worth discussing. People with carry permits tend to be the most well-trained in the use of guns, and aren't likely to be found using them for the kinds of ridiculous reasons you state. At least we pretty much agree about the games.
Re: (Score:2)
Back that up with something credible and it might be worth discussing. People with carry permits tend to be the most well-trained in the use of guns, and aren't likely to be found using them for the kinds of ridiculous reasons you state. At least we pretty much agree about the games.
I call shenanigans! You can't prove because someone has a permit they understand not to do stupid things with their guns. America's problem was already stated above. We don't know or care about responsibility, we don't want to face consequences, we don't want to raise our kids, we don't want to care about our neighbors or less fortunate individuals, in fact, we just don't give a crap about anyone that doesn't make us money or please us in some way. Guns should be banned until we as a society learn to stop being douche bags, but that will never happen! So buy up what you can, and go hunting with that assault rifle... GO MERICA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Well, if you're trying to prove your point about people being douchebags, you're doing a good job. Just look up statistics for gun crime rates among concealed-carry permit holders versus the population in general and you'll see that it's much lower for the permit holders. I don't have links handy here at work, but a Google search or two should turn up the info.
Re: (Score:2)
Heh... I'm not sure how complete Wikipedia's list of US school shootings is, but it suggests that Canada has about 1/7th the number of school shootings of the US with only 1/9th of the population.
Re: (Score:2)
First Canada, than the US.
Re:I hate that I have to say this cliche comment (Score:5, Insightful)
Cars kill more people (42,000) in the US each year than do guns(30,000, more than 1/2 of those suicide), and there are more guns (200 million) in the US than cars(70 million). I know, why let the facts get in the way of a knew jerk reaction to guns?
Bowling for Columbine should be focused upon the Pharma industry, which has more to do with two kids going wacko than the guns and games did.
But that is MY opinion.
Re: (Score:2)
It's not just how you die, it's how you live. If you are killed in a car accident, you have lived your normal life right up to that point. On the other hand, if you have an abusive spouse with a gun or a gang-ridden neighborhood, you have to live in fear for years until the time when it is possible realized. Besides, when someone dies by a gun, there is usually at least one other person who either spends life in prison or lives forever with regret.
Re:I hate that I have to say this cliche comment (Score:4, Insightful)
So, what you are saying is that Assholes (Abusive Husbands) and Criminals are the problem, not guns.
And are you're saying that when people die in car accidents there is no living forever with regrets or prison?
I don't think you thought much about what you are saying.
Re: (Score:2)
Accidents occur with firearms as well, just ask Dick Chaney. There are plenty of people who enjoy firearms for pleasure and plenty of others who carry them due to their profession (hint: not just the prof
Re: (Score:2)
What the fuck are you talking about?
What if you're an alcoholic and you die in an accident you caused while drunk. Bonus points for taking out small children in the accident.
According to you this is living a normal life.
Way to go with comparison (Score:2)
Re:Way to go with comparison (Score:4, Insightful)
Guns (Specifically "arms") are in the Constitution, cars are not. Seems like they are pretty important to me, but what do I know?
I one of those wacky libertarian people who thinks the Government ought to fear the people, rather than the other way around.
Re: (Score:2)
Cars are not necessary. Compare the number of car deaths to the number of mass transit deaths.
At least half of gun deaths are accidental, since half of all gun deaths are suicide. The smaller the number of accidental deaths the safer the object is.
Car deaths are mostly unintentional. That means cars are inherently dangerous when used in their intended purpose.
Look at the stats:
There are more guns than cars.
There are less deaths from guns than cars.
Most car deaths are accidents.
Most gun deaths are intenti
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Wow. TERRIBLE comparison. For it to be a little more accurate you'd have to get half the gun owners in the country to take out their guns and start firing them for two hours every day. You think death by firearms would raise once that started happening? Throw in a good helping of 18-25 year olds firing guns after a night of drinking and see what you get.
Wow. TERRIBLE logic there. If the primary use of guns was to be taken out and fired randomly for two hours a day, then you might have a point. Since they aren't, you don't.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
I misread that as "Japanese teen gundam prone to violence" and I thought, sheesh -- of course they're prone to violence, that's what they were *built* for.
And then I realized that it's no longer naptime, but apparently I'm still dreaming.
Re: (Score:2)
They have violent video games in Japan, yet Japanese teens gun prone to violence. Modify the gun laws.
Not trying to be the grammar police, but that sentence makes no sense. Assuming I understand the point you are trying to make, it should read:
Japanese teens have violent video games, yet the Japanese teens are not prone to committing violence with guns. We need to modify the gun laws in the US.
Disclaimer - I'm against modifying the gun laws in the US, as it leads to a slippery slope towards an outright ban on guns. I am just trying to reform your thoughts into coherent sentence structure.
Re:I hate that I have to say this cliche comment (Score:5, Interesting)
And not to be pendantic, but it is rather obvious that even the outright banning of guns would not stop people or children from murdering others, and it is my personal convition that it wouldn't even make much of a statistical dent.
Re:I hate that I have to say this cliche comment (Score:4, Insightful)
"A well regulated militia, being necessary for the security of a free State, The right of the people to keep and bear arms SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED."
And the Supreme Court has upheld this. It's pretty simple really. Michael Moore, Dianne Feinstein, etc. can hate guns all they want. It doesn't change our rights to keep and bear arms. If they don't like it, the freedom exists for them NOT to own any guns. Let's analyze that a little closer... The RIGHT of the people to KEEP and BEAR arms SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED. Period. End of story. You're free to be a gun-free zone at your house, car, closet, yard. But you have no right to tell me I can't carry/bear arms. (And forget the felon racket crap... felons broke the law, and half of the time they can't even vote.) Mod me troll if you must, but I'm getting TIRED of the broken record "modify the gun laws" "ban 'assault weapons'" nonsense. Get over it.
Pick another "feel good" cause and leave the guns alone. It's cliche, but bears repeating: "Guns don't kill people. People kill people." It may be a worn out phrase, but it's true. So stop the insanity and leave the Bill of Rights alone... God knows the government tries to assrape the Constitution every chance it gets... We don't need anti-gun morons gangraping the 2nd amendment under some nebulous "for the children" crap. Makes me sick and ashamed that people can actually be for this yet cry foul when the First Amendment is trampled, and when the 4th (even in the "new" Obama administration) gets gutted. We need to start standing up for individual liberty and stop this nonsensical garbage that undermines the very document that wrote down what we already should've known... I mean, really, folks. Is it that hard?
Re: (Score:2)
That's kinda how I feel: I don't care that much about gun ownership, one way or another, but I don't want the Bill of Rights chopped up piecemeal. If the government intrudes on one, it'll try intruding on other parts I actually care about. Sort of like how I feel we need to defend the right of neo-Nazis to publish their propaganda: suppress that, and it gets too easy to suppress worthwhile people saying something unpopular. (I also really haven't noticed consequences, one way or another, with the Minn
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The swiss have a huge gun culture. Very high rates of ownership. Most of the population is trained in firearm usage.
They have very few gun deaths.
Please explain this.
Re: (Score:2)
No you don't want to ban guns you just want to regulate them to the point that they are effectively banned.
You don't say why it will help. Why do you think it will help?
All numbers taken from the CDC via http://webappa.cdc.gov/sasweb/ncipc/mortrate10_sy.html [cdc.gov] for the year 2006.
Stronger regulation can't help.
There were 30,896 fire arm deaths in the USA. 642 of those were unintentional. For comparison there were 43,664 unintentional deaths caused by automobiles. Water unintentionally killed almost five tim
Re: (Score:2)
I was reading your huppi link and what is the increased regulation?
The swiss has a "must issue" for hang guns licenses. My state has neither permit nor registration system for any firearms.
Many states in the USA have "may issue" which is more strict than the swiss.
There is _no_ regulation on carrying rifles in Switzerland.
Where is this increased regulation you speak of?
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Why not just pass a law against kids being idiots? Solve a lot more problems that way, and has about the same chances of doing anything as these censorship measures do.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Seconded.
I also propose kicking trouble makers out of schools and onto the streets, then filling those desks with puppies.
Re: (Score:2)
Seconded.
I also propose kicking trouble makers out of schools and onto the streets, then filling those desks with puppies.
There would be fewer puppies on the street that way.
Re: (Score:2)
Puppies will grow up to helpful to society.
Re: (Score:2)
As always, it scares me a little when my joke posts get modded "insighful/interesting/informative" and when my insighful/interesting/informative posts get modded "funny."
Re: (Score:2)
Well, I wouldn't say "all" here. Slashdot is not (quite) a monoculture. Personally, I think it is pretty close to unimportant whether states require adult consent prior to selling violent video games or not, what with me not being a minor and all. It's not like kids really have a complete complement of rights anyway, and ultimately the parents have the right to decide whether to let them have/play such games anyway, so these laws really don't take away any rights except the right of game dealers to not h
Re: (Score:2)
It's a petition for a writ of certiorari, which for all practical purposes, is an appeal, albeit not a guaranteed one. That said, I don't think I used the word "appeal" anywhere in my post.... I described it as a case, which it is. The case has been decided, but they are asking the SCOTUS to review it and possibly overturn it, so it is still effectively ongoing until such time as they deny certiorari.
I also didn't mention the Roper case or violence. Are you sure you meant to reply to me?
On the issue of
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
To be fair, Arnold's trying.
Agree with him or not on specific issues, he's one of the best examples of a politician the country has seen in ages. He tries hard, he isn't ridiculously corrupt, he's not afraid to call people out, he doesn't put party lines first, and it's obvious he actually cares about California.
He just gets fucked over by the state legislature in terms of getting anything done, and gets attacked by unions when he tells firefighters and teachers to shape the fuck up.