Town Holds Violent Videogame Buyback Program

[Headdrivehardscrew]

I heard they we're paying $25 a game. If so here's a plan you should exploit.

1. Go to local used game shop
2. Buy every cheap $5-10 violent game you can
3. Turn in for $25 each
4. Repeat till you got ALL THE MONEY!!!!!

One minor fault in your logic. They're not handing out hard cash. They're handing out gift certificates. You know, like those food stamps or other great socialist ideas.

I wouldn't mind if I could amass hundreds of dollars in $25 'certificates' that I could use all over town, be it for food or whatever daily needs I might have.

Browsing through the Southington Chamber of Commerce register @ http://www.southingtoncoc.com/templates/business_directory.cfm?letter=A I find a whole lot of places that I might want to throw my violent game censorship appreciation tokens at, but, as of now, I have absolutely no idea who amongst them actually takes part in this stunt. If I only get ice cream or religious supplies, it's not that cool a deal, methinks.

Beyond that, it smells of burning books, really. And a Good Guy? strategy to stimulate the local market.

 

[pppppppppppppppppp]

So what are they going to do with all the accumulated buy backs. Book err Game burning anyone?

Obviously they're going to hold the most hypocritical school fundraiser in the history of EVER. Duh.

Then they'll use the profits to buy back even more games, and soon enough they'll basically be Gamestop

 

[yundex]

This story should make you weep.

Once more the story has been skillfully shifted away from 'nutter has guns and kills bunch of kids' to 'man driven crazy by home entertainment, goes on killing spree'

So why should this make you sad?

Well its a great way for those in authority to stick the boot into the game and movie imdustry, which has some clout and avoid pissing off the NRA which has LOTS of clout and significant campaign contributions to the people who make these sorts of decisions.

So cue several months/years of politicians and media pundits scoring cheap points of games/books/films while avoiding the real issues, until this happens again. Exactly how many kids need to die before anyone enacts real change?

I should state now, I'm not against banning guns entirely, they have their uses in hunting, farming and sports, and i'm certain theres a large proportion of intelligent gun owners that keep their weapons secured properly and use them responsibly.

All I would argue for is mandatory gun liscences that involve taking regular mental health check ups and police inspections to make sure the guns are being kept stored and used properly.

Any criminal convictions or doubts over mental health then that person should lose all their guns (the number of guns should also be limited) Gun clubs should also be made a part of this as well, keeping regular records of their members and raising alerts if someone or something strikes them as odd.

Also ammo should be taxed heavily, and the amount someone can buy be limited.

What the? Any criminal convictions and people should lose their guns? Strangers should come into your house regularly to make sure you're being a good boy? Increased ammo tax which only serves to hurt recreational shooters? PRIVATE clubs forced to track their members and report anything "odd"?

This is too orwellian for me to take without hard justification. I'm surprised you didn't go full on insanity and suggest putting CCTV cameras in peoples houses like they do in Britain.

Well we DONT have cctv in our homes, just in city centres like in most civilised countrys (including america)

And dont abuse the term orewllian, have you even bothered reading 1984? Or just too busy masturbating over guns'n ammo? A gun is a lethal weapon, far more lethal than a knife and the potential to maxmise a body count if someone loses it is all to clear from history. A firearms liscence is a simple way of letting responsible people own guns and giving authorities the ability to take them away from people who shouldent, of course if any law was enacted, people with driving offences or jaywalking wouldent lose their liscence, just people with history's of violent crime. This is not 'orwellian'.

oh and guess what? I doubt very much wether the king of england is ever going to invade and try and reclaim the colony's so the whole reason for americas liberal gun laws is idiotic, seriously its a big joke outside america.

Probably too late to bother responding, but I totally forgot about this thread. But all you did was defend currently existing US law and fail at insulting me. Other than you going from "any criminal conviction" to "people with a history of violent crime", you didn't actually answer my other questions. Expanding on the one question you did answer: what do you consider a "history of violent crime"?