A Bill for Video Games Arrives before a Bill for Guns


More likely that politicians feel that people who like guns vote in higher numbers than people who like video games.

Furthermore, you can say you want to study and restrict who can buy certain video games, and no one fears Obama is going to come take Tetris away from you.

But say the same exact thing about guns, and certain people just go insane with fear and paranoia.

Also, it should be stated that video games are not one of our "inalienable rights," and therefore they should not be considered on the same level as guns. Because like it or not, the law of the land is you can own guns.

No such protections for video games.
Efforts to restrict gun ownership are foiled by gun owners, not the gun industry.
Well said Charles.

Hey, gun nut vampires: fuck you.
Two Thoughts...

1. Did the video game industry forget to mail their campaign donation? Hopefully, Congress won't be "forced" to pass a sin tax on violent video games.

2. It's easier to get people to repeat a journey than venture a new one. For example:

Do violent books make our children violent? We banned them; some fought their way back onto the shelves. By the time the books returned fewer children could read. Success?

Do violent movies make our children violent? We rated them and raised the violence along with the price of admission.

Do violent television programs corrupt our youth? We researched, rated and v-chipped it. Cable TV expanded its market share.

Do violent music lyrics make our children violent? We labeled and re-labeled it. Kids pirated. RIAA created a national police state for THEIR intellectual property rights. MINE! MINE! MINE! means MINE! ...and don't you forget it.

Do violent words make our children violent? We passed a Patriot Act to keep track of everyone's words just in case we may want to investigate, detain or kill you later.

Have a nice day.
Where's the debate on mental health care? Where's the legislation to improve mental health care access?
Targeting violent fantasy is an easy... target.

What would make more sense is targeting real-world violent and inflammatory speech that divides people, pits them against each other, and promotes a life-and-death sense of survival. Fascism, race-baiting, religious paranoia ("the War on Christmas/Christians/Etc."), moral apocalypticism, etc., cheapens life and inflames the minds of those with poor impulse control.

It's time to cleanse the radio airwaves of those pandering to a sense of imminent demise of the white, Christian male and filling them with a sense of hate. We have a right of free speech in this country, but the airwaves are publicly owned, and by charter, licensed (for free!) to those who would serve the public good. It's time to take a look at violent and demeaning speech. We, the people, own those airwaves and have a right to control who gets the licenses.
Video games? Really? Senator Jay Rockefeller is a fucking horses ass.
Crack down on gun owners! Crazy talk! Why, those people have GUNS!
And what about heavy metal music? Is that too '80's? I feel like something has been left out.
They're just going through their amendments in numerical order.
Another delightful turd dropped on America from West Virginia. Go fuck your mother, Rockefeller.
Ah, violent video games, the great scapegoat. Though, with the internet much stronger than it was during Columbine (when video games became the great scapegoat) I don't know if it will have the power it did back then.

And even back then, it didn't work very well...just ask Jack Thompson.
Eh, well, proposing research done by the NAS is not the same thing as outright legislation.
In fact, it can be beneficial - even if it just reinforces how irrelevant it is on something like this...or just how it fits into our cultural ecosystem.
@6 Why stop there? All Republicans are responsible for Newtown! They should all be put away in jail!
Well, the thing with FPS video games is not that it "makes" anyone violent, it's that they measurably improve your hand-eye coordination.
Chaz, since I've been alive, its all about political parties:

Video Game / artistic censoring = Republican

Gun restrictions = Democrat

This was posted yesterday by a popular gaming youtuber and it makes some great points regarding this issue: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5uwAo8lcA…
Look on the bright side. The last few times this happened, the video game industry wasn't nearly as big. As you point out, they're now bigger than the gun industry (and the movie industry, I believe). This time, they can hire lobbyists and mobilized their customers (contact your representative--here's their info since we know where you are--& unlock this cool thing). Congress is used to treating video games like a wimpy kid. They may be about to discover that they've grown up and have been learning how things work in DC (wouldn't it be fun to watch the gaming industry take down someone like the banks took down Luger, just to show they can?).
Eh, I'm not so sure he doesn't fear the lobby. It's only for research. Back in the days of Lieberman, Gore, and HIllary Clinton, we'd be talking about bans.
Maybe some day we'll lock up the scary, scary gun nuts instead of the pot smokers, drug addicts and mentally ill. Maybe when video gamers amend the 2nd Amendment.
@18 I still love Twisted Sister's We're Not Gonna Take It being on the filthy 15. Of all the tracks, that's the most innocent one.

I also believe that Tipper Gore and the PMRC was one of the primary reasons Al Gore lost the election.

Free speech isn't one of our inalienable rights?
What's ridiculous to me is that the self-regulating video game industry is even more conservative than the MPAA. I've played video games that contained content that would have passed muster in any PG-13 movie, but was rated "mature". Even the Sims is rated teen, when it contains nothing I would consider objectionable for any child old enough to work the controls.
Looks like they are going after the 1st amendment too, all the political elite care about is regulation your life.