California Senator Wants Fewer Guns in Games

[frobalt]

If this doesn't prove just how backwards American politics is, nothing can.

A country should NOT be run by corporations. Biggest reason gun control is so hard to do is because gun manufacturers are leaning so hard on senators. So much that they think they can use video games as scapegoats. Capitalism FTW(!)

Actually it was never an issue with Capitalism. Its an issue with the individuals whom have made careers out of beeing a senator, They are our problems in the US. They are too old and stuck in their ways and are so sure of themselves because the vast majority of the US doesn't even pay attention to whom it is that they are electing to represent them. So honestly I think the problem is with ourselves and the people whom we get elected into office.

The thing with capitalism is that it drives people to get as much as they can. The good thing behind it is that it should cause companies to compete with others in the same business to provide a better service to their customers, as whoever has the best service is going to make the most money.

But, like everything, it has a weakness. As I said, that weakness is that it causes people to get as much as they can any way they can.

These people make careers out of being a senator as it works for them. Would we get better politicians if they weren't paid lavishly? After all, it would eliminate anyone that's in it for the money, but whether that is a good thing or not is another matter.

Admittedly, I probably jumped the gun blaming the situation entirely on senators, as the voting public can certainly influence what senators are elected. How many senators would still be for gun ownership if corporations weren't breathing down their neck, though?

There are so many things wrong with using video games as a scapegoat for gun violence.
For a start, is there any research to indicate that violence (especially gun violence) in video games influences mass shootings? A lot of people that claim this use correlation instead of causation, either because they don't understand the difference or (correctly) assume that the masses don't. Sure, there will be people out there that see violence in video games and decide they want to emulate it, but they are a rare minority.

I'd list other reasons too, but it's just pointless; I'm sure there aren't (m)any people here that think this sort of view is right.

What I can't understand is why there is a belief that gun ownership is a good thing. Also, why do people seem to think it being a constitutional right holds any grounds? Things that were useful centuries ago might not be any more. The average American doesn't need an assault rifle. If any country is able to invade the USA, random citizens armed aren't going to help them much. If anything, it would only get themselves killed - After all, an army being able to properly invade the USA must be a skilled army, and untrained citizens wouldn't do much good.

 

[Nowhere Man]

Speaking as an outsider, I find American politics to be a complete joke and yet somewhat disconcerting, since people that are involved in it don't seem to be in on said joke.

That all being said, I'm pretty sure this won't go anywhere. It is just another old wrinkle-bag latching onto the first scapegoat she could see without her glasses on. By the looks of that photo, she has one foot in the grave, so I'm pretty sure we can just wait her out.

Agreed on all points. This woman and her ilk are deluded and out of touch and I'm just waiting for all these old codgers to pass away so the next generation of politicians who take office will be the ones that have grown up with and have an understanding of video games, the internet and new media in general.

I have always strongly believed their should be a stronger video game lobby. Guns have a frighteningly super strong lobby in our country which is why you'll always see the blame for gun violence deflected to other irrelevant targets. The best the gaming industry has is the ESA.

http://thehill.com/blogs/hillicon-valley/technology/273905-video-game-lobby-silent-through-post-shooting-scrutiny-by-lawmakers

But these guys definitely need to have more clout.

 

[Aaron Starke]

The thing with capitalism is that it drives people to get as much as they can. The good thing behind it is that it should cause companies to compete with others in the same business to provide a better service to their customers, as whoever has the best service is going to make the most money.

But, like everything, it has a weakness. As I said, that weakness is that it causes people to get as much as they can any way they can.

These people make careers out of being a senator as it works for them. Would we get better politicians if they weren't paid lavishly? After all, it would eliminate anyone that's in it for the money, but whether that is a good thing or not is another matter.

Admittedly, I probably jumped the gun blaming the situation entirely on senators, as the voting public can certainly influence what senators are elected. How many senators would still be for gun ownership if corporations weren't breathing down their neck, though?

There are so many things wrong with using video games as a scapegoat for gun violence.
For a start, is there any research to indicate that violence (especially gun violence) in video games influences mass shootings? A lot of people that claim this use correlation instead of causation, either because they don't understand the difference or (correctly) assume that the masses don't. Sure, there will be people out there that see violence in video games and decide they want to emulate it, but they are a rare minority.

I'd list other reasons too, but it's just pointless; I'm sure there aren't (m)any people here that think this sort of view is right.

What I can't understand is why there is a belief that gun ownership is a good thing. Also, why do people seem to think it being a constitutional right holds any grounds? Things that were useful centuries ago might not be any more. The average American doesn't need an assault rifle. If any country is able to invade the USA, random citizens armed aren't going to help them much. If anything, it would only get themselves killed - After all, an army being able to properly invade the USA must be a skilled army, and untrained citizens wouldn't do much good.

While I can agree with most of what you said here there is one flaw with it and that is in the last paragraph. There is a belief that gun ownership is a good thing because historically it has been proven as such. When the bill of rights was made it shows great understanding and knowledge on the part of the writers of the document. They understood how governments can start to decline and cause problems for the citizens or there would be times that it can cause that. so they made certain rights untouchable by any means save for overthrowing the US government and starting a new one.

You say that normal citizens wouldn't be of any help? well i disagree as look at practically every revolution in every country and its the citizens whom were the leads in it. If for nothing else than they had the manpower, Look at the problems that the US military and the coalition forces are having with the insurgents in the middle east, they are citizens there not nearly as well trained as a modern military however they can blend into the civilians around there which causes huge problems.

Having gun regulations is not helpful in the slightest, as when you break things down to the basics laws are only for the law abiding citizens. Criminals do not follow those laws which is why there considered criminals. If they want a gun nothings going to stop them from having one, as how many armed gang banger's actually have the gun in their possession registered to themselves?

Just because its a constitutional right is exactly the reason for it to be able to hold ground. What people fail to realize is that if you allow the government to take away a single right of its citizens then you have effectively undermined your safety. If the US government removes the second amendment then all that really signifies is that the government succeed in removing the protection of our unconditional rights. If that were to happen what would be next? our first amendment right to freedom of religion, press, and free speech? or how about our sixth amendment rights to a speedy and fair trial in front of our Peers?

If we were to compromise our right to Bear arms, just think of what it is that we will actually be giving up. It wouldn't be the guns as that would become the least of our problems. How long after that would it be before some senators decide they don't like free speech because its against them? or that the states have to submit to the authority of the federal government completely, Or even our judiciary rights of being innocent until proven guilty. Our entire constitution believe it or not is build on the foundation of the Bill of Rights. Compromise any one of those and you can expect the entire constitution to be thrown out the window.

While I support the second Amendment fully i have other motives to support it other than just because it allows us to keep our guns, it is the entire premise on which i have just listed. And i wouldn't be surprised if at some level this is what clicked with many of the second right activists as being a possible outcome if it or any other of the first 10 amendments were compromised.

 

[Mycroft Holmes]

Best Regards,
Europe.

Dear Europe. You have no idea what you're talking about, please go away.

So much that they think they can use video games as scapegoats.

Because Diane Feinstein is a shill for the NRA and gun lobbyists? Rofl. You're either in the wrong thread or you don't know anything about Feinstein.

Capitalism FTW(!)

The US hasn't been a capitalist nation for over 100 years. Capitalist nations don't give out subsidies to their favorite businesses and they certainly don't have GSEs.

What an idiot. And she's MY f*cking senator. Why do people keep voting for her?

I've voted against her twice now. Anyone who voted for the patriot act and in her case CO-Sponsored it, needs to be kicked out on their asses.

This country is supposed to be about refusing to give in, it's supposed to dig in its heels and stick to our principles. It's not supposed to give away our freedoms because we are afraid. Or at least in theory, but hey tell that to Japanese-Americans right?

Is there some sort of conspiracy going on to make the states look as horrendously idiotic as possible?

This is how democracy works in a rich 1st world country. Especially America as we are still the richest and by and large the hardest working. The sane people go to school, they work their asses off, come home and don't have time to honestly pay attention. And they have too much to lose, no one wants to really make waves because it means quitting their job, it means decreasing their prosperity. It means they can't buy the new iphone or the big new plasma screen. We are shoved between people who are too overworked to put the mental effort in, and people who are too slothful rich and fearful of losing their relative prosperity to care. So when politicians try to get elected they realize that the bulk of the population is stuck in this ridiculous I wear blue, go donkeys! elephants suck! bullshit team spirit from people who don't have the time or don't take the time to get acquainted with the issues.

So they go after the only swing votes available the lunatics who scream about homosexuality at funerals, try to kill abortion doctors, who try to ban video games, or think that George Bush should be hung as a war criminal. Because they know everyone else is too afraid to lose their luxuries or too busy with work and school to actually learn any of the issues and vote beyond arbitrary party lines.

Because seriously, this sort of thing seems to be a special case of stupid not found anywhere else...

Then you must not be paying attention to other countries because there's a lot of stupid politicians saying a lot of things all over the place. Look at Egypts first round of elections. Or Switzerland banning a particular architectural style and France banning types of clothing because they were afeared of Mooslems.

 

[Jahandar]

While I can agree with most of what you said here there is one flaw with it and that is in the last paragraph. There is a belief that gun ownership is a good thing because historically it has been proven as such. When the bill of rights was made it shows great understanding and knowledge on the part of the writers of the document. They understood how governments can start to decline and cause problems for the citizens or there would be times that it can cause that. so they made certain rights untouchable by any means save for overthrowing the US government and starting a new one.

You say that normal citizens wouldn't be of any help? well i disagree as look at practically every revolution in every country and its the citizens whom were the leads in it. If for nothing else than they had the manpower, Look at the problems that the US military and the coalition forces are having with the insurgents in the middle east, they are citizens there not nearly as well trained as a modern military however they can blend into the civilians around there which causes huge problems.

Having gun regulations is not helpful in the slightest, as when you break things down to the basics laws are only for the law abiding citizens. Criminals do not follow those laws which is why there considered criminals. If they want a gun nothings going to stop them from having one, as how many armed gang banger's actually have the gun in their possession registered to themselves?

Just because its a constitutional right is exactly the reason for it to be able to hold ground. What people fail to realize is that if you allow the government to take away a single right of its citizens then you have effectively undermined your safety. If the US government removes the second amendment then all that really signifies is that the government succeed in removing the protection of our unconditional rights. If that were to happen what would be next? our first amendment right to freedom of religion, press, and free speech? or how about our sixth amendment rights to a speedy and fair trial in front of our Peers?

If we were to compromise our right to Bear arms, just think of what it is that we will actually be giving up. It wouldn't be the guns as that would become the least of our problems. How long after that would it be before some senators decide they don't like free speech because its against them? or that the states have to submit to the authority of the federal government completely, Or even our judiciary rights of being innocent until proven guilty. Our entire constitution believe it or not is build on the foundation of the Bill of Rights. Compromise any one of those and you can expect the entire constitution to be thrown out the window.

While I support the second Amendment fully i have other motives to support it other than just because it allows us to keep our guns, it is the entire premise on which i have just listed. And i wouldn't be surprised if at some level this is what clicked with many of the second right activists as being a possible outcome if it or any other of the first 10 amendments were compromised.

You just demonstrated more common sense and understanding than everyone else in this thread combined. Well done, sir.

 

[Therumancer]

Hey California, how about you focus on fixing your busted economy instead of wasting money pursuing legislation that will be over turned?

Well, that's the point of political boogiemen like this, it gives them something to pursue to pretent they are doing something and try and impress the people, while avoiding the big issues where any desician is likely to turn a lot of people against them. In general anything that will fix the economy, either state or Federal, is going to piss off huge amounts of people. The ironic thing about politics, at least in the US, is that it's by and large impossible to get into or stay in office if you actually do anything on the big issues.

To be honest even when it comes to the issue of control of real guns, as opposed to just more "video games are da evil" boogieman politics, it's largely to sidestep the larger issues. Case in point, when it comes to economies there isn't really one problem, it's a lot diverse issues adding up, all of which need to be addressed. At the core of the economy you of course have the workers, and that leads into questions about immigration, legal and otherwise, as well as the right of foreign workers to earn money in the American job market and then send that money (or a portion of it) to family out of the country, basically exploiting the American economy to send dollars into an economy where they are a bit stronger. This is both an issue for immigrant labourers in general, as well as "guest worker" programs where people come into the US temporarily to do a job, and then bring their wages back home with them after so much time in the US. That way companies get cheap labour, and don't have to worry much about seniority or benefits, while the workers themselves get a crappy US wage which happens to actually still be good money back in their country of origin, many of them paying money ahead of time to get a chance to work in the US and coming out ahead despite that. The point being is that it's a huge minefield touching on a lot of issues. In comparison complaining about guns, actual or virtual, is *relatively* safe in the current climate due to the exploitation of the Sandy Hook massacre.

 

[Xpwn3ntial]

You heard her.

More guns in games!

 

[rasputin0009]

You heard her.

More guns in games!

Facebook liked that shit.

Captcha: I'm sorry dave.
Who the fuck is Dave?

 

[Xpwn3ntial]

You heard her.

More guns in games!

Facebook liked that shit.

Captcha: I'm sorry dave.
Who the fuck is Dave?

I'm sorry, Dave. I'm afraid I can't do that.

Thanks for the "like."

 

[Voulan]

So it seems that people are still under the impression that only children play games. You can't blame them really - the industry is only 30-40 years old, so the old stereotypes are still fresh. People that had nothing to do with them don't realize that it has grown exponentially, and that those first gamers are now in their 30s, 40s, and so on. They all grew up, and so did games. As graphical violence also developed, so did the ratings rise to compensate. But of course, games are still for children and reflect their immaturity.

And then there's the whole debacle about these shootings and things happening before games were invented and the such-like, but I might be going a bit extreme for her to understand.

I'll just hope that things will work towards logic and be straitened out.

 

[Adam Jensen_v1legacy]

Great. Another irrational old political fuck messing with stuff she does not understand.

Actually it was never an issue with Capitalism. Its an issue with the individuals whom have made careers out of beeing a senator, They are our problems in the US. They are too old and stuck in their ways and are so sure of themselves because the vast majority of the US doesn't even pay attention to whom it is that they are electing to represent them. So honestly I think the problem is with ourselves and the people whom we get elected into office.

The largest problem is capitalism. When you live in a system where the wealthiest people and the corporations can fund political parties and their elections, it can't lead to anything good. It's not even a democracy at that stage. If corporations were unable to fund politicians, then the only way politicians could get elected is by actually doing what their voters expect them to do. As it is now, politicians are doing what the corporations are telling them to do because without corporate funding they don't stand a chance in the elections. Capitalism and the pursuit of the "holly dollar" is what killed democracy in America.

 

[KingsGambit_v1legacy]

Maybe take actual guns away from teenagers, rather than virtual ones. I'm fairly sure digital bullets aren't nearly so dangerous as their physical counterparts.

 

[tsb247]

Because Democrats are the ones who believe in exercising the Government's authority to save American lives, instead of just killing foreigners. Republicans mask their lack of humanity by claiming that having the government actually help people promotes dependency and corrodes the "maverick" American spirit. And they'd never agree to fix the healthcare system, just gut it to the point where the only thing the government will subsidize are their gay conversion camps.

Don't retreat, reload!

Yes, because Democrats can't be stupid, corrupt, try and pass bad legislation, or vote to send the country to war.

In case you were wondering, yes, that was sarcasm.

But hey, irrational generalizations about entire (large) groups of people make the world go 'round, right? If anything, Feinstein (A Democrat) is taking the stereotypical Republican stance and blaming video games for violence. Doesn't that make her (a Democrat) just as bad?

Feinstein isn't trying to do this to save lives. She's just bitter because he assault weapons bill got tossed (for good reason). The Senate would rather do something more useful like pass legislation that won't destroy people's rights, like background checks, harsher penalties for illegl purchasing, and mental health screenings. She won't be happy until the U.S. is disarmed, and she's pissed because she knows it won't happen. If anything, she's just trying to get attention. People are tired of listening to her, so she's trying to get them riled up about something else.

 

[Splitzi]

Now I'm sorry if this has only been said (only read the first page), but why has no one pointed out that there are plenty of games without guns? The PR around games tends to be focused on violent games, so if someone isn't a gamer how should they know about all of the different genres and tons of other options. Violent games are merely a portion of the market. To an outsider, it appears to be the entire market. The Senator sees violent games as a threat, or maybe she is just jumping on the bandwagon. People like this aren't the cause of the problem, they are a symptom of the ignorance people have around gaming.

 

[Arcane Azmadi]

Is she willing to oppose REAL guns as well as fake guns?

Because if she isn't, she's the biggest fucking hypocrite in the ENTIRE history of politics (hyperbolically speaking).

 

[Singularly Datarific]

But we don't want fewer real guns in the hands of people now do we?

Yes she does. She was the author of the recently proposed Assault Weapons Ban.

 

[scorptatious]

I'll give you my controller when you pry it from my cold, dead hands


OT: Dear Americans if you want to be viewed in a less negative light don't elect these people.

*Edited for a better joke*

Your avatar is awesome. XD

OT: Bleh, more politicians in my country acting like idiots. Not much has changed I suppose.