The thing is, she doesn't want to ban all guns from games, so this will never work. The Supreme Court has recognized video games as being protected by the first amendment. And you can ban certain proclamations or images from falling under the first amendment
entirely, but you can't set an upper-limit quota for them.
If you ban them you assume that they're so damaging to society that they can't be used at all, but since guns are allowed in art and film, they're deemed unharmful, so they can be used in video games as well. And the government can't set a certain quota, because then that would mean that individual developers might be constrained by social trends which they have no power over (precisely the interest which the first amendment seeks to protect).
But I do love news stories like these. It makes the comments section the ideal place for target practice. Let's see what I can bag this time...
theSteamSupported said:
Isn't violent crimes at an world history low?
Actually, speaking worldwide, crime is estimated to be higher than throughout history, owing to the rapid growth of populations in countries and regions which are more susceptible to crime (read: corrupt nations and cities). Also, the rise of video surveillance and computer technology has affected the way in which we monitor crimes and process associated records so that more crime can be documented and thus attributed to statistics. This separates modern crime figures from older ones. However, taking all that into account, it is true that there is less
recorded crime in the United States and most other Western nations.
But even if there were fewer crimes your argument would still be a very weak argument, considering that there is no causal link between the two trends of more people playing video games and fewer violent crimes being committed. It's like saying: "It rains more often the morning after we do this rain dance." It might be a factually correct statement, but it doesn't prove any scientific causality. So scientifically speaking, it's entirely possible that video games stimulate aggressive behaviour on an individual and psychological level, while not showing up in sociological studies (although it's worth noting that there is no scientific research which proves the psychological link either).
theSteamSupported said:
People usually commit murder, theft, rape etc on the basis of lacking decent living standards.
Again, as far as poverty and crime are concerned, although there is academic consensus that the two are related, the cause and effect are very much disputed among scientists. It is entirely possible that crime is the basis for "lacking decent living standards", rather than the other way around. On which side of the argument you fall really depends on your position on the political spectrum and less on what is factually correct.
Grabehn said:
My entire mid to early highschool was spent playing GTA and CoD, and I almost fainted when I sliced the side of my finger while pairing an orange. I'm totally a sociopathic killer, obviously, desensitized to blood... yeah right.
Right, because your individual perception is the way things are. "
I own a gun and
I never shoot people with it, so no other gun-owner ever shoots anyone." Or: "We had the coldest winter ever, so obviously Global Warming is a myth."
DTWolfwood said:
"First Amendment rights protection! Come at me bro!" ~Violent Videogames.
That's what I'm talking about! Or... writing about at least.
valium said:
It is not an American thing, it is an idiot thing. They happen to be all over the world, we just have a bad habit of electing them into office.
I think that might say quite a lot about Americans as well, though...
Rogue 09 said:
I would feel better if we just had randomly selected people picked up off the street and forced to serve to two years...
Except Hippies.
Never Hippies...
Right, because who the hell wants leaders who are dedicated to everlasting peace? Of course, I say that sarcastically now, but I'd be singing a very different tune
if when China invades and my own country no longer has a formal military.
LysanderNemoinis said:
Yeah, problem with that is that most of the hippies back then are the people in power now.
Not most, "some", maybe... Thing about power is, there isn't much of it to go around, or else it wouldn't be power.
Mr.K. said:
You know if there was a law against stupidity passed first things would move along much quicker.
There is. It's known as Darwinian evolution. It's just that it doesn't look very fast in a human lifetime.
BoogieManFL said:
Maybe if senators were force to retire before 50 we'd be led by people more in touch with reality and life.
So... people over 50 have nothing left to offer to a society? I'll remind you of that when you turn 50. Also, in theory people on the Hill are older because they've been around longer and are thus more experienced. Do you really want to sacrifice
all people who are more qualified because
some of them are "out of touch" with your own demographic on one single issue?