EU Seeks Unified Restrictions on Violent Game Sales

January 18, 2007 -
In Europe, the debate over violent games has taken a new turn as European Union officials discuss the enactment of unified rules restricting the sale of violent games to minors.

An Associated Press story reports that EU Justice and Home Affairs Commissioner Franco Frattini met with Germany's Interior Minister Wolfgang Schaeuble (left) and Justice Minister Brigitte Zypries on the issue.

Of the talks, Frattini said:
The protection of children cannot have borders... What we can do is to raise awareness about the sensitivity of the issue and also to increase and to encourage ... measures to be taken in a practical way by police authorities, particularly about checking the identity of the minors... 

Luxembourg's Justice Minister Luc Frieden added:
Access to children should be cut off. We have to ban some games.

According to the AP report, Frattini is seeking a to implement a standardized content labelling system among the 27 EU member nations. Such labels would indicate age restrictions and parental warnings.

Germany, Britain, Greece, Finland, Spain and France are said to be backing Frattini's efforts at an EU-wide games policy.

Via: Gamasutra

Comments

@ Illspirit

If violence isn't easier with guns, then why did the white settlers beat the Native Americans, who only had bows and arrows? Guns are far more powerful than almost any other weapon. When was the last time you heard of someone getting robbed with a knife? Granted it does happen, but it's rare. Why? With a knife it's harder to cause physical damage than with a gun. With a gun it's possible to kill from a long distance and with a knife the killer has to go up to the victim. Before there were guns, people killed each other with swords and arrows but it obviously wasn't as effective as guns or people would still use swords and arrows.

Also, I think that politicians should impose very strict laws against guns. If they were to impose laws that say that anyone carrying or selling a gun will get say twenty-five years in jail, then criminals wouldn't try it because the penalties would be too steep and that would all but end violent crime. My main argument here is that violent games don't kill people. Guns kill people and cars are neccesary because without cars, it would be hard for people to get around and there aren't enough buses to get people where they need to go. Also, when people drive cars, they don't intend to kill people as they also mentioned in that episode of "All in the Family." As I heard on a legal program one time, a prosecutor said, "You don't point a loaded gun at somebody unless you intend to use it." Guns are made for killing. Killing is their purpose and why do we need that in our modern society?

I hope they stay the heck out of Ireland with that crap. As an U.S.-Irish Dual citizen, if they ever do pass any sort of VG legislation, I'm gonna run off and start a hippie-esqe gamers commune.

This is a really dumb stance to take on games, but there is a single idea that is potentially a good one. I like the idea of a standardized rating scale, however I still doubt that the actual enactment of any such scale is going to be as ideal as it should. For one, it will most likely be gov't regulated instead of independant. This also makes it easier to create restrictive laws. However, under the circumstance that, once created, it keeps absolutely no relationship with the government, then it is a pretty good idea.

Hahaha. I'm sorry, this is too unbelievable anymore. I'm out.

A: Europe has the PEGI. It is standardised (mostly).

B: Britain has the BBFC. It works, it has force of law.

(UK resident, 15)

@ Illspirit, Brokenscope and Yoshiko

Brokenscope said the most important thing. Criminals aren't affraid of the legal system because it lets them off too easily. Sure sometimes they get long sentences but then they get out well before their time is up. I heard about one crazy man one time on the T. V. show, "American Justice" this man had committed horrific crimes and kept getting out of jail after serving almost no time even though his crimes were very violent. Finally, he kidnapped and killed a little girl and they finally decided to put him away for good. Laws need to be stricter and people need to stop blaming violence in the real world on video games. I think tougher gun laws and tougher laws, in general, would decrease violence in the real world.

Everybody knows the difference between fantasy and reality. Blaming the fantasy world of video games for real world problems is ridiculous. If you want to decrease violence in the real world, for God sakes, man, blame something real. Stricter laws need to be put in place.

@ Illspirit, Brokenscope and Yoshiko

Brokenscope said the most important thing. Criminals aren't affraid of the legal system because it lets them off too easily. Sure sometimes they get long sentences but then they get out well before their time is up. I heard about one crazy man one time on the T. V. show, "American Justice" this man had committed horrific crimes and kept getting out of jail after serving almost no time even though his crimes were very violent. Finally, he kidnapped and killed a little girl and they finally decided to put him away for good.

The justice system is too lenient. Lawmakers should beef it up a lot. Maybe gun control for everyone is a bit of an exageration, but at least put in stricter than strict laws for people who have committed any crime. They should at least make laws saying that people who have committed any crime will be sent to jail for thirty-five years for carrying a gun. That will cut down on violent crime. Also, I've heard that, at least where I'm from knives longer than three inches are considered deadly weapons and are illegal. Another thing, how often to burglaries happen? Why can't people just get security systems that will automatically call the police if someone breaks in?

I don't think that in Japan people break the law very often because there are very strict. We call that oppression, but I've heard that guns deaths happen a lot less there because they don't play around with criminals. They lock them up. A Japanese person once told me that the penalty for smoking marajuana in Japan is five years automatically no BS playing around with the perpotrator. Society needs to stop playing around with criminals and put them where they belong in jail.

Also, the reason why I'm in favor of gun control and stricter laws is because those are real and I think that's the problem in the real world. I also think it is childish and irrational to blame violent video games for crimes. Those are members of the fantasy world. Guns and laws are members of the real world. These politicians need to go attack the real problems in society and stop saying that violent video games are causing people to not be able to tell the difference between fantasy and reality. If looking at things that aren't real makes you lose sight of the difference between fantasy and reality, everybody would be crazy. I don't like that theory that attacks video games and I find it to be offensive that images on a screen can effect and impact our lives in the real world. What's the matter? Did you all lose your dignity? Can't you all see how ridiculous and flat out insulting that theory is?

Rational means distinguishing between fantasy and reality. If you're rational, that means you know the Batman and Superman aren't real. You know that the characters on a screen aren't real. Also, you know that what people do on a screen can't be done in real life. Running with an AK-47 and blowing up cars and killing people and getting away with it can be done in Scarface, but not in real life. We all know the difference between fantasy and reality don't we? The more I think about it, the more insulting it seems to think that these politcians are saying that we can't discern fantasy from reality.

I got on the weapons thing because I think that harsher gun laws and harsher laws, in general would help get rid of violence in the real world. However, maybe I was a bit extreme on that. There are other ways, such as, telling people that they can only have guns in their houses and going anywhere with them could be a very serious crime. That might help decrease violence in the real world. The only thing I'm 100% sure of is that getting rid of violent video games isn't going to help anybody and everybody can tell the difference between fantsy and reality. Blaming fantasy images on a screen isn't going to solve anything.

@ Brokenscope

I think you might be right about some of that. However, my argument is that if a law were passed that would put people away for a long time for owning guns, criminals wouldn't try to own guns. I should have said that earlier, but if the penalties were very steep, criminals wouldn't have guns because it would be too big a risk and no one would sell them to the criminals to begin with. No criminal would carry a gun if the penalty for that were say twenty-five years. It would be way too big a risk and the crime rate would probably go down that's how to make the violent crime rate drop by imposing strict gun laws that would make criminals stop carrying guns.

Good Idea: Standardized Video game rating system in the EU
Good Idea: Forbid the sales of some games to minors
Ok Idea: Making the rules to govern Games sale consistent in the EU
Bad Idea: Banning the games from adults

They have some good idea's they are just going about it wrong. It’s not an all or nothing matter. This is how it appears they are going about it, however.

Europeans, fire up your word processors - I think we're going to have some letters to write...

Personally, I'm hoping that the "We have to ban some games" quote is a mistranslation.

Like I said before. What a dolt. These games are not harmful. They should NOT be banned.

In a dennis miller quote "I see through this guy like used clearasil"

This guy is riding the "do it for the children" spiel harder than a bronco rider at a rodeo.


European Politicians: your children are not as stupid as you think they are, give them a chance.

"Access to children should be cut off. We have to ban some games."

Does he mean restricting sales for minors, or making them illegal by law altogether?

Either way, it's a scary free-speech violation. I hope Europeans start getting together and protesting this ant-game business before it gets out of hand.

Sometimes it's not so good to be an American...but sometimes it is.

YOU ARE SO FULL OF BULLSHIT THAT IT IS UN FUCKING BELIEVABLE.

"Also, I’ve heard that, at least where I’m from knives longer than three inches are considered deadly weapons and are illegal."

BULLSHIT! UTTER BULLSHIT

I can go to the store and buy "deadly weapons" in packs of 200 so I can eat my dorm food without having to wash dishes. I can go to my local macys and get a dinner set with some of them. God, I hope they don't raid your local super market. I've got pocket knives from when I was still in boy scouts that are 3 inches long. My dorm kitchen has a knife block with 12 deadly weapons chained to it. Ive got 2 deadly weapons sitting on my desk that I take when I go camping.

You are flailing. You have no argument. You have no idea what you are talking about. The only thought that moves through your skull is that postal 2 is gods gift to man. How sweet innocent and pure it is and how happy it makes you to call jack thompson names. Everything you say is built around protecting those thoughts, no matter how irrational, redundant, or just plain stupid it is.

Either you are trolling or you are too stupid to use a computer.

At this point I go with trolling.

Umm, no, Daniel San, the Second Amendment says:

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

The right of the people, not the right of the militia. The same "People" mentioned in Amendments 1, 4, 9, and 10. Or do you believe freedom of speech and freedom from unfair search and seizure only apply to the militia as well?

But, hey, even then you'd actually be right, because The People are the militia. According to Federal law, every male citizen between the age of 18 and 45 are part of the unorganized militia mentioned in Article I of the Constitution. And in some states, like my own, every citizen male and female (or those who have declared intention of becoming citizens) age 17 - 65 are the militia too.

So to put 2A in modern terms: because a well armed and well trained (which was the martial definition of "regulated" at the time) populace (the militia) is needed to maintain freedom and homeland security, the right of The People to keep arms shall not be infringed. 'Tis kind of hard to have an armed citizen army without arms, now, isn't it? Also kind of hard to maintain a "free state" to keep secure if we're not free to begin with. Locking up half the population for refusing to be defenseless, groveling sheep bowing to the might of the State hardly sounds free to me...

Not to mention that Constitutionally, government does not have rights, only powers. People have rights. Why on earth would the government be given a right to arm itself when it doesn't even have a right to exist without permission from the people? Remember, they work for us and stuff...

And of course guns are dangerous. Criminals are dangerous too; with or without guns. In fact, without guns they are more so, as the elderly, disabled, women, and otherwise weak will be helpless prey to the larger, stronger criminals. Like in the "good ol' days" before guns, when big guys with swords/knives/clubs totally dominated the weak. Or, even like today, where, again, 40% of robberies involve no weapons. Just big scary hoodlums (or groups of smaller ones) intimidating or beating people up for their property.

You know what else is dangerous? Freedom. Don't like the big, scary world? Go submit yourself to a maximum security prison where you'll have steel bars and police guarding you 24/7. But, oh, even then, you still won't be safe from criminals. Even without guns, they may still kill you with a sharpened toothbrush or something. Like Benjamin Franklin once said:

"Those who exchange liberty for security will soon find that they have neither."

And, yea, like Yoshiko just said, criminals still kill people despite the risk of the death penalty. Why would they worry about getting another 5, 10, 25, or even 100 years stacked on top of already being condemned to die? That's like threatening to break someone's fingernail after you've already put their arm in the wood chipper...

As to machine guns being illegal, maybe they are in your state. Federally, they are not.

Fine, then they won't have a gun.

Then what happens when a deranged guy breaks into my house and comes at me with a machete, or any other bladed insturment and hacks me to death while my family watches. Sadly all the firearms training I have no longer means anything, the fact that the guy has 100 pounds on me prevents me from protecting my family because I'm still a novice in hand to hand combat, even though I did start going to the dojo 3 times a week.

Lets say I do stab him with a small knife. Didn't get anything vital, and the drugs he has in his system are making him not give a shit about the pain or the wound. He then stabs me to death with the knife. Kills my family.

Lets say I buy my family enough time to get into a room with a lockable door. Well now my kids get to grow up without a father.

Lets say I get my family in a room and we lock the door and call the cops. This guy didn't break into to steal the TV he wants my wifes jewelry. Unless I have a fire door on my bedroom, hes going to be in the room pretty quickly. He gets in and takes the jewlry box then sees my wife necklace and starts demanding it, she panics. oops, my family is dead.

Lets say is during the day. Kids are at school. My wife goes home because she forgot something. Doesn't see the window in the back of the house is broken and open. My wife goes into the house, she notices the broken window, and starts going back through the front hall and out the door. Robber sees her and chases her through the front door and drags her back into the house. He isn't wearing a mask. My wife is dead because she saw his face.

With the world the way it is now however this is how the situation would go.

I hear the front door get knocked down. I grab my pistol chambered in .45 gap, with hollow points, out of the small numberless lockbox. My wife gets my children into the master bedroom and I look down the stairs. See robber order him to stop. He looks at me and charges up the steps since the drugs don't make him think about what the gun pointed at him can do. My 4 years of once a week at the range and several gun classes kick in and I square up and fire 3 shots at his center of mass and he falls down the stairs.

Or alternativly
I square up tell him to stop moving, he brings up his hand cannon firing and I drop him with 3 rounds to the chest. I have to replace the carpet and fill in some holes in the Sheetrock.

5 minutes later the cops get there, one of them is a friend of mine. First thing he says after see the body is "Andrew, I am damn glad that I got you to start going to the range. It saved your life. If this is who I think it is, he would have done alot more than steal your your tv. He been responsible 4 break ins and 2 other murders in the area." I might need some counseling because I shot a guy, but hey my family is still alive. That worth a lot more than counseling.

My wife comes in sees the glass gets the small pistol out of her handbag/holster and starts leaving the house. The guy comes out of the kitchen and surprises her, and comes at her, she fire 3 rounds he falters and she runs to the neighbors house. Sits with the neighbor till the police arrive.
Turns out she hit the guy, hes on the floor. Paramedics take him to the hospital. Our friend says "Thank god you took those firearms courses" Guy goes to jail, one less criminal is on the streets.

Not every burglary is going to try and kill you, murders tend to get more work done on a burglary. However you get insurance even though most homes never burn down.

The average violent criminal has committed enough crimes to be put away for 20 years. However not every crime committed by a criminal gets prosecuted when they get caught. Then there are those annoying factors like parole, concurrent sentences , reduced sentences, ect makes it really damn hard to keep them there for a meaningful length of time some times. Then there is the fact that we already have an overworked legal system. An over crowded prison system because of all the little things we have instituted jail time for. Then there is that little issue of cruel and unusual punishment. You know how the punishment needs to be inline with the actual crime.

Hey! We can raise taxes to fix that. We can also increase the police powers so they can find all those guns. We can build more jails, add more ADAs (assistant district att.), infact we can do all this and make great claims for the first six months... then crime rates climb again, infact they SPIKE! then stay at the top of that spike. Then people like you sit there with the thumbs in their asses wondering why crime is so high? We got rid of the guns? Why hasn't utopia fallen from the fucking sky and landed in the ghettos.

A crime can be likened to an equation.
0= no violence
1= no right to own guns
2= right to own guns
f(x)=(x^3)-2x

If f(x) is / 0 the people benifit. (greater than or - to zero).

Since this equation is defined as x=>1+ (Approaches 1 from the positive) it will never reach zero. Mainly because people will never cease to be violent. You do the fucking math.

The government has no right to tell me I cannont protect myself in a realistic fashion.

Daniel.

If criminals didn't commit crimes because of the risk, there wouldn't BE criminals.

There would be no RAPES.

There would be no MURDERS.

There would be no CRIME.

If someone wants to do something badly enough, they WILL find a way to do it. The law has never stopped people from committing crimes.

"No criminal would carry a gun if the penalty for that were say twenty-five years."

The penalty in most states for MURDER is either DEATH or 25 to LIFE in a MAXIMUM
FEDERAL PRISON. And yet there are STILL MURDERS. You are a fucking moron living in your own delusional world. Get the fuck out of the gene pool.

Bowling for Columbine? Err, while I did find it an amusing political satire and/or propaganda piece, there was so much wrong with that movie. Tons of editing to take twist things out of context (like skipping over all the paperwork and waiting period when he got his free duck gun from the bank to make it seem like they gave them to anyone on the spot, for instance) and such, but then it was supposed to be entertaining, so, yea.

As for Japan's tough on crime approach, well, what works for Japan won't necessarily work for us. Historically, Japan has a very rigid and strict social structure built on centuries of tradition. What seems normal and even desirable to them would be viewed as repressive/oppressive here. Were the US govt. to attempt to import such policies here, not only would they piss off all the gun owners, they'd have the anti-gun types, the ACLU, and most of the State govts. enraged. Possibly to the point of Civil War 2. :p

And violence is much harder without guns? Then how, pray tell, did people kill each other by the billions before guns were even invented? And how do you explain that a knife vs. gun fight within, say, ten feet often ends with knife guy winning? If guns make violence easier, they thereby make defending against violence easier, no? So should the elderly, women, and disabled people be disarmed to protect the criminals who would otherwise overpower and beat/rape/rob/kill them?

The truth is, any advantage or disparity of force makes violence easier. And as Sam Colt said a hundred plus years ago, guns are a great equalizer.

How are cars necessary? Take a bus/subway or ride a bike. The carbon dioxide emissions from privately owned vehicles are liable to wipe out the entire freakin' planet. The cost/benefit/need ratio there does little to make them seem better than guns.

And, err, people still hunt for food. Personally, I'm a vegetarian, but I think it's great that people can and do take on the responsibility of being self sufficient as such. 'Tis also a good thing because without hunters to thin the population, you'd end up with overpopulation forcing deer/bears/whatever foraging deep into residential areas and causing chaos. But, hey by the whole "store" logic, you no longer need potable running water. After all, you can buy bottled water from the store, right?

I also fail to see how people hundreds of years ago needed guns to defend themselves from danger, but we don't today. Is there no danger left in the world? Last I checked, there are still plenty of marauding, violent criminals out there. Guns are only used in about 60% of homicides, but with violent crime as a whole, guns are only a factor like 30% of the time. That's a boat load of danger which taking guns away will only make worse.

Guns are used defensively somewhere around 2.5 million times per year, most of the time without even firing a shot. The DOJ under the rabidly anti-gun Clinton White House even did a study admitting as much. Needless to say, that 2.5M is a much bigger number than the 15-16K people murdered with firearms.

All that danger, and we still haven't touched on the geopolitical. Why, just over a half decade ago, a Japanese admiral decided against invading the US mainland because, and I quote, "there would be a rifle behind every blade of grass." If you think such a war can never happen again, keep in mind that's what everyone thought after WWI. ;)

And, no, not all of Europe has "realized that guns were no longer necessary." Switzerland has more guns per capita than we do, and the govt. hands out full-auto rifles to all male citizens of militia age. They even auction off surplus artillery and such to their citizens! But, strangely enough, they have one of the lowest crime rates in Europe. And, on the flip side, our neighbors to the south in Mexico have some of the strictest gun laws in the world, but they have more firearm related deaths per capita than we do.

"Only the police and the military should be allowed to have guns. No one else should have them."

Hmmm, where have I heard that before? Oh, that's right, from the Nazi officer Heinrich Himmler:

"Germans who wish to use firearms should join the SS or the SA - ordinary citizens don't need guns, as their having guns doesn't serve the State."

Or, more recently from Mayor Nagin in New Orleans:

"No one will be able to be armed. We will take all weapons. Only law enforcement will be allowed to have guns."

...Which he said before ordering SWAT teams to go house to house in unaffected areas of the city to kick in doors, beat up old ladies, and illegally confiscate all the guns. Guns, which they only knew where to look for them because they were owned by law abiding citizens (read: not the ones doing the looting) who had jumped through all the loops and had a paper trail.

The city got sued over this, and a Federal court ordered them to stop the seizures and return all the stolen property. He's refused to return them so far though (and might goto jail for contempt as a result), and, look, now that criminals and cops are the only ones in the city with guns, they're having a bloodbath "crime emergency." This isn't to say taking the guns caused the crime (correlation vs. causation, and all that), but it sure as hell didn't make anyone safer. Well, except maybe the criminals....

@ Brokenscope and Illspirit

I admit it, it's possible to get guns even if they're illegal, but I saw a film one time called, "Bowling for Columbine." In that film, they said that Japan has one of the lowest shooting rates in the world and we have the highest. Also, someone told me one time that, in Japan, if someone smokes marajuana, that person goes to jail for five years, so if the penalty for smoking marajuana is that steep, then how hard do you think it is for owning a gun? The Japanese are smart. They don't screw around and play games with criminals. They lock them up and throw away the key. We need to have tough laws like that here.

I agree with a quote from the film, "Judge Dredd." "We need to have stricter punishments to include lesser crimes." Going after images on a screen and blaming imaginary things is crazy. That's like saying, "The devil made me do it." When you think about it hard enough, that's how ridicluous it is. I saw that episode of, "All in the Family" where Archie was against gun control. I think that definately. You're right that violence can still happen without guns, but it's much harder without guns. Images on a screen can't hurt anyone and as for your argument, Brokenscope, cars, knives and other things are neccesary. Why do we need guns?

Hundreds of years ago, people in America needed guns to hunt and defend themselves from dangers. However, today people can go to the store to get food and there's no need for guns. They've outlived their usefullness. We don't need guns in today's modern world. If the stupid government officials would stop attacking images on a screen and impose heavy penalties on guns dealers, violent crime would go down.

Also, I have my own theories about why more people get shot in America than anywhere in Europe. America was settled after Europe. I think that in Europe, they realized that guns were no longer neccesary and people didn't buy them as much. However, America two hundred years ago was basically a collection of small towns and the settlers had to defend themselves from Native Americans and wild animals, as they headed west because of Manifest Destiny, so this caused guns to be a neccesary part of life here and since guns are such a big part of our history, we don't want to give them up, but it's definately time. We don't need them anymore and they're only causing problems and death. Only the police and the military should be allowed to have guns. No one else should have them.

@Daniel

I said in one of my first posts on the subject that the problem is with criminals getting out early! Here's some random stats, though they're from 2003/4 or so, but my internet won't play along so I'm working from memory....

@78% of all homicides are by criminals with a history of felonious violent crime

@64% of homicide victims are other criminals with a history of felonious violent crime

Somewhere near half of homicides by firearm are committed by violent felons on parole/early release/probation or out on bail pending trial.

Ergo, we have a lot of violent criminals who should be in jail still who are killing each other (and others).

Lock them up for violent crime and keep them there, regardless of the weapon type (or lack thereof) and crime will drop.

Blaming guns for crime is just as irrational and childish as blaming video games. Both are inanimate objects with no free will. Focusing on the weapon only serves to make the criminal seem like the victim of the tool. Focus on the tool too much, and they'll simply use another tool. For instance, you always hear the Brady Campaign and such ramble on about how we need to ban handguns. A DOJ study of inmates said that if handguns were banned, they'd simply switch to more readily available shotguns. Then saw them off to conceal them.

A sawed off shotgun is like 100 times more deadly than a pistol. Pistols must be aimed, and, here's a little secret, most gangbangers can't shoot worth crap. Most of them don't practice much since cops frequently hang out at shooting ranges. And with the way many of them hold their guns all sideways and upside down, they're lucky if they shoot someone in the toe (I actually knew someone that happened to). With a sawed off shotgun, they only need point it in your general direction to blow your whole face off.

(And if you focus on all guns, you'll have cunning criminals using edged weapons to kill so they can get a lesser sentence. What difference does it make when dead = dead? In all actuality, you'll have criminals with a higher degree of mens rea (Latin for "guilty mind," the cornerstone of American criminal law) getting lighter sentences when they not only killed, but specifically did so in a way to get out of jail sooner to do so again.)

But, alas, those blaming games and/or guns generally do not understand them. Irrational fear of that which one doesn't understand is, err, irrational. ;)

Seriously. Read a website/book on firearm safety (or better yet, take a class), and go down to a pistol range and try one out. If you're not old enough (21), ask your parents to take you (say it's educational research). I bet you'll be surprised at just how un-terrifying the things are once you actually shoot one. In fact, after you miss the paper for the first half dozen times, you'll probably wonder how anybody manages to kill anything...

Thanks hayabusa75, just trying to do my part to defend and promote all of the BOR.

Now, Daniel, do you really believe adding another law against inanimate objects would have prevented Columbine? As it was, Klebold and Harris had already broken about 20 Federal and State gun laws before they even started shooting. Added up, it would have been enough to send them to prison for centuries had they been caught before the shooting. Not gonna bore you with all of them, but I'll touch on a few.

First, they bought the guns illegally from someone who, in turn, had also bought them illegally. Thus, they're already two "degrees of separation" into what one might call a mini black market. And if there's anything the War on Drugs has taught me, it's that banning things has little effect on illicit supply and demand. Seeing as 50% of the US has tried or actively uses marijuana, it stands to reason that everybody knows someone who knows someone who knows a dealer. Not only does this work metaphorically, but there are plenty of drug dealers with access to illegal weapons. So, yea, 'tis possible a total ban may have made it harder to find a source, but it would in no way guarantee it.

But speaking of bans, one of the weapons, the Tec-9, was covered by the "Assault Weapon" Ban passed five years prior. Guess that didn't work so well. :x

Oh, and perhaps the most deadly weapon in their arsenal was a sawed-off, 80+ year old, breech-loaded, double-barrel shotgun (as in, the kind you "fold" open and put shells in the barrels manually after every 2 shots, sorta like Elmer Fudd used). Possession/manufacture of unregistered short-barrel shotguns/rifles has been banned since 1934. Perhaps most interestingly, this type of gun, sans sawing, would even be legal in jolly ol' England, despite their draconian gun laws.


On the subject of England, while it's true you don't hear about school shootings there, it's not as if the gun laws would prevent it. If you browse through any gun-related intertube sites or, say, Fark, there's news all the time from across the pond about kids with guns. In the span of an apparently crazy few days a couple of months back, I read about:

1. Some 14 year old girl getting busted selling submachine guns to other teens. 2. Some yob going into a McDonalds and shooting someone to death and injuring others. 3. A "BMX gang" with guns doing a "drive-by" on a whole neighborhood. And 4. some 12 year old caught with a pistol he purchased on the street for half the price it would go for over-the-counter here. Had any of them decided to go shoot up a school, what would have stopped them? A "no weapons" sign on the door? Or an unarmed police officer or teacher asking them politely to stop killing everybody?

And what about the recent school massacre in Germany? Gun control there is very strict, yet the shooter managed to kill a bunch of people with muzzle-loaded pistols. While they were allegedly "legal" (and in case you're not sure of how they work), a muzzle loader is basically a length of pipe closed up at one end with some gun powder and a metal ball jammed into it, and some sort of spark to make it go boom. This technology is like 500 years old now, and with a few bucks and some motivation, even a moron could make one in an hour or so.'Tis essentially a pipe bomb with an open end to launch things out of.

And what of Japan and their strict laws we should emulate? Hmm, well, umm, they kinda had one of the deadliest school massacres in the world in Osaka back in 2001. But I suppose the gun control "worked" after all, because all 8 of the victims were killed by one guy with a knife. Dead is dead. Or to paraphrase Archie Bunker off that old TV sitcom, "would it make you feel any better if they were pushed out of windows?"

Furthermore, Japan barely has one fifth the total murders per capita as we do murders where no guns were involved. So even if we had their laws (and the existing guns magically vanished), we'd still have five times the death and violence. As such, something tells me that the gun ban isn't the whole story, and it certainly doesn't affect unarmed violence. ;)

Brokenscope,

If there was an Amendment like that from the beginning, it would have killed the debate on lots of things. There'd have been no Prohibition, no laws against various types of "sexual deviancy" or prostitution, no War on Drugs, etc.. And the damn think-of-the-children cultists wouldn't be able to run around banning video-games, playgrounds (or running on them), lawn darts, and so on.

Too bad you weren't around at the time to suggest such a thing. But then the Founding Fathers probably thought all that was covered by the whole 'life, liberty, and happiness' bit and/or the 9th and 10th Amendments...

@ Illspirit

That amendment to the Constitution says a militia's right to hold and bear firearms shall not be infringed. A militia, not ordinary everyday citizens, shall be allowed to own guns. Also, I have heard time and time again that it is already illegal for an ordinary citizen to own a machine gun and has been for a long time. You're right that some of the Indians thought that the white settlers were gods. They saw what they had with them, mostly their horses and guns, and like wise thought they were gods and smallpox played a very big role in giving the settlers to upper hand too.

Not all encounters between white settlers and Indians were violent. You're right about that, but still there is no denying that a big factor of why the whites were able to push around the Indians was because of guns and superior weapons, such as cannons. Also many politicians are in favor of gun control. Think about this. If guns aren't a lot more dangerous than almost any other kind of weapon, then why do soldiers use them in modern times? Why don't they use swords still? Could it be because guns are more dangerous? It would be very hard to have gun laws, but I think that guns are dangerous, not images on a screen.

What I think politicians need to do it to go after the real threats and stop attacking video games. Video games are fantasy not reality and have nothing to do with reality. I think that attacking video games as the cause of violence is irrational because rational means being able to tell the difference between fantasy and reality. If they can't tell the difference between fantasy and reality, they're crazy. I maybe wrong about gun control. Maybe that isn't the solution to violence in our society, but at least gun control is about going after something real that kills people.

You know, this whole debate would be moot if there was an amendment that said "the government shall make no law designed to protect a person ,of sound mind, from them self".

That is one of the big rationalizations now a days. Gun owners are supposedly dangerous to themselves.

Umm, Daniel San, you did say we defeated them because they had no guns. When the settlers first arrived in what would later become the US, we didn't kill them all right away. Aside from some skirmishes as we were feeling each other out, as it were, the genocide didn't start in earnest until the 1700's when we started moving west. By that time had already traded lots of guns to the Natives in exchange for corn and stuff. Or, in cases like the French Indian War, they were armed to help fight the British.

As for Cortez and his conquest of Mexico. The main reason he was able to do so as easily as he did was because the Aztecs thought he was the freakin' second coming of Quetzalcoatl. Which goes back to what Yoshiko just said about the white men lying and tricking them. Cortez also had help in his conquest from the Totonacs and other tribes/nations whom he allied, in part through yet more trickery. In fact, a large portion of his army was made up of natives!

Then, by the time of the Louisiana Purchase, the great move westward, and say, Custers last stand in 1876, whitey had immigrated and reproduced at a rate where we did outnumber the indigenous peoples.


And, umm, what other kind of arms would the Founding Fathers have had in mind other than guns?! They just fought a bloody revolution because the British tried to take our guns at Lexington! If you want to get technical, the Second Amendment most likely refers to any small arms which a person can bear. EG, swords, rifles, pistols, etc..

Or, as Tench Coxe said in 1788:

"Who are the militia? are they not ourselves. Is it feared, then, that we shall turn our arms each man against his own bosom. Congress have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birthright of an American."

But even if you think that limits The People to small arms, Article I of the Constitution gives Congress the power to grant Letters of Marquee. In case you slept through history class, letters of marquee is an archaic term for allowing/hiring private warships to to officially fight on behalf of the country which grants said marquee. Yep. You read that right. Private warships, which includes guns, cannons, and all the accouterments of war. See also: the War of 1812 (and bits of the Revolution), where Privateers helped fight off the British navy.

And, err, what are you talking about? there was no Constitutional Amendment banning machine guns. Not 70 years ago. Not ever. In 1934, Congress passed the National Firearms Act (a law, not an amendment) creating a tax on MGs, short-barrel rifles/shotguns, and destructive devices. In 1986, a rider was slipped into another law shutting down the tax registry on machine guns, essentially banning the purchase of machine guns manufactured after 1986 by fiat. Civilians can and do still own nearly a million machine guns made prior to that date. Anyone with a spare $10K+ burning a hole in their pocket and a clean criminal record can go buy one.

Anyhoo, 'tis probably pointless arguing about why we should have guns with you, so, instead, I'll ask how exactly you think you could change that...

You say everyone who possesses a gun should goto prison for 25 years? Well, erm, where exactly are you going to find the prison space to store nearly 40% of the entire adult population?! Again, there are some 100 million gun owners in this country (out of a population of 3 mil). 42% of households are said to own guns. And that's not counting all the criminals and tinfoil-hat types who buy guns through private sales to avoid a paper trail.

Where are you going to get the money to jail so many people when 40% of the taxpayers are in said jails? Especially considering they'll take a good 70-80% of the taxes with them, seeing as gun collectors are statistically rich folk.

And, perhaps more importantly, who is going to enforce it? The cops? Half of them are also gun owners, and support the right of citizens to keep and bear arms. The military? Even if you suspend habeas corpus so they could do so, a large portion of the gun owning public is made up of active duty and retired military personnel. Are they going to arrest themselves?

Or, assuming you would propose some sort of "amnesty" or "buyback" a la Australia, where are you going to find the money to buy 285million+ guns, at an average cost of $500 a piece from the public? Maybe you could borrow the money from China? And then when they come to collect, they'll be able to march into any and every city unopposed by the populace. Brilliant!

Somehow, I don't think you've thought your cunning plan all the way through...

But, yea. Molon labe.

HAHAHAHAHA.
HAHAHAHAHA

For someone who claims to be a history major you have a weak grasp on history. How many fascist dictatorships in the 20th century banned private gun ownership? Ill give you a hint. One of them started an incredibly violent conflict that pulled much of the world into it.

Why don't you go quote us some crime statistics from japan. I would be interested to know how what the crime rate looks like with knifes and other hand weapons.

Actually you must be naive if you think a gun ban prevents criminal from getting guns. Maybe for 6 months since the supply is lower. Then it picks up again once the supply get back up.

You know what. While we are at it lets ban anything that can be used to kill numbers of people. Cars, cleaning agents, fertillizers, lawmowers, swords, knifes, bottels, anything mildly toxic, anything that can be used as an accelerant or and explosive, and ban all of them.

Banning weapons doesn't stop violence. People still have fists and they still want power,control, and what other people want.

@ hayabusa75

"Sometimes it's not so good to be an American." DUDE! In America, there's freedom of choice. In America, the government doesn't ban games. When is it not good to be an American? Anyway I think that all over the world politicians, who are worried about violence in the community, should all make it illegal for private citizens to own guns. Guns are dangerous, not violent video games. Make it illegal to own guns and violence in society will decrease tremendously.

@ Illspirit

I think that you may have a point there that criminals are a bigger problem than handguns, but I also think that if guns were banned, then people like Eric Harris, Dylan Klebold and Micheal Carneal wouldn't be able to go on shooting sprees and kill people and that would end the fight against video games and America needs to be more strict on laws like Japan is. A lot of violent video games come from Japan and almost no one gets shot there because they have very strict laws against owning guns.

@Daniel:

You regularly take shots at JT whether he's featured or not, so don't give me that. Many bars in many countries around the world stay open into the early morning, although most will stop serving liquor before they close. Some stay open as late as 6-8am. I'm not going to start listing them.

@Illspirit:

I thought you'd probably jump in on the gun ban thing, so I didn't say anything. You can explain that stuff way better than I can.

Hmm, let's see...standard Daniel post...

Failure to read my entire post? Check.

Complete misinterpretation of said post? Check.

Displays utter lack of subtlety and comprehension? Check.

Non sequitur into off-topic rant? Check.

Repetitive insults to Jack Thompson? No? Hmm, well, if this wasn't the real Daniel, I apologize.

This may be the shortest post I've ever had to explain. I said sometimes it's not good, but sometimes it is. That's my way of politely stating that I'm glad I don't live in Europe, while simultaneously acknowledging that America isn't perfect, either. When is it not good? When I can't see boobies on TV commercials, for example. Or when the bars close at 1:30am. I'm bad, I know.

@ hayabusa75

Yes, I am the "real Daniel." I did read your whole post. The reason why I didn't comment on the last part is because I agree with the last part that it's good to be an American. The reason why I didn't insult Jack Thompson was that he isn't in this entry. Also, what country has bars open all night?

At what point did you all start thinking this will get anywhere? This isn't the United States, you know?

@Daniel

"Guns are dangerous, not violent video games. Make it illegal to own guns and violence in society will decrease tremendously."

No. Criminals are dangerous. Lock up violent offenders, then keep them locked up (instead of handing out plea-bargains and probation like candy), and violent crime will decrease tremendously.

Look at the UK. After they banned handguns and most rifles, the violent crime rate went off the meter as criminals realized they had a safe environment to ply their trade. Not only have the criminals boldly taken to using melee weapons against the sheeple at a rate which has prompted the government to try to ban knives, glass bottles, and blunt objects; the ban has yet to decrease "gun crimes." The rate of shootings, gunpoint robberies, etc.. has doubled since the ban in '97.

Meanwhile in the US, the number of privately owned firearms has continually grown at a rate faster than the population, and violent crime has been on the decrease for over a decade until a @1.5% increase last year. Likewise, since Florida passed their right-to-carry concealed weapon law in '87, state after state has followed, with all of them seeing their crime rates drop below the national average. On the other hand, there are places like DC, NYC, and Chicago with a virtual ban on handguns skewing the statistics in the other direction.

So tell me again how banning guns will make us safer?

This type of blame-shifting, personal responsibility/accountability shunning mentality is the same thing behind the movement to ban games. All either does is to take the focus off of failed social policies which leave people in a position to think committing some sort of crime will solve their problem. Banning inanimate objects does little to fix whatever it is that would cause such people to misuse them (weapons) or imitate them (games).

At any rate, before you start going door-to-door to confiscate all the guns, bear in mind the number of gun owners in the US outnumbers the military by a scale of like 1000:1. Granted, 99.999% of us are law-abiding, so most would grudgingly comply (or bury them somewhere..). But if even 1% resisted, you'd be looking at an insurgency which makes Iraq look like a schoolyard scuffle. And, lest we forget, the Revolutionary War was in part caused by the British sending troops to confiscate and destroy private arms at Lexington.

Um, shouldn't you be happy, all? As stated, standardization across the European Union and restricting the sale of some games to minors are both great ideas for the typical citizen of a European country. If standardization occurs, people like Frieden and the rest of the minority are going to have to leave their opinion by the wayside. That's much better than having some video games completely banned in a few countries (here, Luxembourg).

Actually, now that I remember it, I think that law is that you can't carry a concealed knife longer than three inches and my main point is blame something real. You can't kill someone with a game, but you can with a gun. At least go after something real that people use to kill and put tougher laws in place against criminals.

Daniel. What are you? Twelve?

I could write another of my huge replies debunking everything you said, just so you could skim over it and go "LOL I'M A HYPOCRITE" at every turn, but I'm just going to stop and tell you right now that if you seriously believe in everything you've posted thus far on GP, then you are a sad individual who understands nothing about human nature or any of the sciences. Also your use of caps lock and twelve !'s doesn't make your point any less idiotic than it already is.

Oh, and we don't know "anything about anything"?

For one, the white settlers from Europe were able to push around the Indians because they lied to them, tricked and deceived them, ate most of their crops, and wiped out entire tribes with smallpox and other diseases that weren't native to the America's- all added to fact that they had more advanced armour and artillery.

Secondly, I'm sorry, how many people are calling you out on your bullshit? Is it what, three? Four? Around there? All with intelligent responses slapping you down to your lowest- and let's see... How many people are agreeing with your psychobabble? Zero?

Hm. Yeah. You're right Danny. You are obviously the only intelligent one here who knows everything about everything.

@ Brokenscope

You brought up an interesting point there. Yes, it does say that we have a right to bear arms, but it doesn't say what kind. It doesn't say that people have the right to own GUNS. The word GUNS isn't there. There are other types of weapons and there was an amendment added to the constition about seventy years ago that says that private citizens can't own machine guns. In the 1920's, people were allowed to own Tommy guns, which were the first portable machine guns. To clarify, the Gattling guns used in the Civil War were the first machine gun, but a single person couldn't pick it up and fire it because it was too big and heavy. The Tommy guns used by the gangsters and rum runners of the 1920's during prohibition were the first portable machine guns.

Anyway, the point is that it can always be changed and that it doesn't specifically give people the right to own guns. The founding fathers certainly meant guns, of course, but back then, they were a necessary part of life and there's not dening that now guns aren't nearly as important as they were back then. Also, starting with the Winchester repeating rifle not long after the Civil War, guns have become increasingly more dangerous. You don't have to reload after every shot, so they're much more dangerous and I think that a new amendment should be added to the Constition to outlaw the ownership of guns. Real dangers to human life are what politicians should be worried about.

@Daniel

Daniel. This is not europe, its the united states. We have a piece of paper. Part of it is called the bill of rights. Certain rights are outlined and guaranteed by that document. One is called the right the bear arms. It is the teeth of the 1st amendment.

@ Illspirit and Yoshiko

I never said Native Americans never had guns. Notice I said when the SETTLERS ARRIVED. The key word is SETTLERS. When the first white men came to the NEW WORLD, the Native Americans didn't have guns at the beginning and most of them didn't have guns for a long time. JESUS CHRIST!!!!!!! TALK ABOUT NOT GETTING IT. I never said that they NEVER HAD GUNS!!!!!! However, it took a long time for them to get guns. Why do you think the white settlers were able to push around the Native Americans they encountered at the beginning even though they were vastly outnubered.

If you don't know that the original white settlers were outnumbered, you don't know ANYTHING ABOUT ANYTHING. How do you think Hernando Cortez managed to push around the Indians in what is now Mexico even though he was outnumbered at least twenty-five to one. How do you think the white settlers pushed around a much larger Native American force? It wasn't all because of smallpox. I never said the Native Americans never had guns ever. They did get guns, but only after a very long time and it obviously wasn't enough because the white men kept pushing further west. Did you know that? Obviously, the Native Americans didn't have many guns, or they wouldn't have put up with the nastiness of the white people.

The white men broke treaties at will and somehow almost always came out on top. Can you explain that? They were almost always out gunned which means that they didn't have nearly as many guns as the white men. The only real win that the Native Americans ever had against the white men was the victory over General George Armstrong Custer and even that wasn't really a win because the U. S. Government took a harder stand against them after they won that battle.

If I said that they never had guns, I meant at the beginning and that's why I used the word SETTLERS meaning the first Europeans to come to America and they were seriously outnumbered, yet they pushed around the Native Americans all they wanted because of guns and if they didn't have superior weapons, North and South America wouldn't have been settled by the white men. Bows and arrows were no match for guns and that proves that guns are FAR MORE DANGEROUS THAN ALMOST ANY OTHER WEAPON except explosives.

Guns make it easier to kill at long range, yes. But at the distance most crimes occur, the gun's advantage is lessened. An attacker with a knife within 10-15 feet can easily kill someone before they can even draw and aim a firearm. Here's a video on the subject, but be warned, some of the photos of knife wounds at the end are gruesome:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-8884586003342147853

Not to mention the fact gunshot wounds from pistols only have a @25% mortality rate.

Err, Native Americans bought and traded guns from the settlers who weren't trying to kill them (yet). Have you never heard of General Custer and the Battle of Little Bighorn? You know, the one where the Cheyenne and Lakota spanked a whole US Calvary division using a combination of guns and bows?

And where on earth did you get the impression knife robberies are rare? Guns are only used in about 40% of robberies on average in the US. Knives make up another 20%, and strongarm robbery with no weapons whatsoever make up the last 40%. Google "knife robbery" and there are thousands upon thousands of news articles. Pay special attention to the stories from the UK or Australia, where knives are used 2 to 3 times more often than guns in robberies.

And, umm, your argument that games don't kill people but guns do is spurious, at best. In both cases, it's people killing people. Inanimate objects don't just go out on a rampage on their own. Just as less than 1% of gamers flip out and copycat GTA or whatever, 99.999% of gun owners (or their guns) haven't killed or attacked anyone. There are 100 million plus gun owners here, owning like 285 million guns (compared to only like 230 million cars). If guns caused violence, everybody would be dead.

"Getting around" is hardly a "need" to have a car. Again, use a bike. Not enough buses? Tell your city council/governor/congress critters to fix it.

And people who use cars don't intend to kill with cars, so that's supposed to make it okay when they do? Even though cars kill like 10 times as many people? Even though there are, again, more guns than cars. What about the 99,984,000 or so people who use guns for target practice/competition, hunting, simply collecting, etc.. who have no intention whatsoever of killing anyone? Or what of all the people who do use cars with the intention of killing? More police officers are murdered in the line of duty by vehicles per year than are killed by firearms (and like half that are shot are killed by their own weapon). Plus several thousand civilians killed intentionally by vehicles.

What does how modern society is have to do with anything? There are still criminals and psychopaths who prey on the weak. There are still despots and cult leaders in the world who seek to kill and conquer. No matter how modern our technology is, the nature of man remains the same as it ever was. As such, why shouldn't we have modern weapons to defend ourselves? Aren't modern tools a prerequisite of living in a modern society? Especially since criminals will continue to be armed regardless of what the law says; even those on an island nation like the UK where one would think they could control the border. We can't stop millions of people and millions of pounds of narco/arms traffic from pouring in from the south here as it is. Not to mention the thousands of firearms which are stolen from law enforcement per yer, or in some cases sold by dirty cops.

And if society doesn't need guns, then why do the police have them to protect themselves in the first place? Why do politicians and rich people (even the rabidly anti-gun types) have professional armed security? Or in some cases (like the hypocrite Senator Feinstein, who also wishes to confiscate all the guns) carry their own concealed weapons for protection? Why do we have a military? Perhaps because, oh, I dunno, mankind is just as savage as it was 30 thousand years ago despite our advances in technology?

Oh, and, as to the efficiency argument of guns vs. swords (damn lack of an edit feature), err, the violence happens as soon as the attack starts. The speed at which it's finished does not change the fact that the end result is death or injury. It's still violence either way.

Personally, I'd much rather be die instantly from a head shot than be brutally hacked to death with a machete or some such. Maybe that's just me though...

@Yoshiko-
Yea, I'm having serious doubts about the whole "history major" thing as well. I seriously lol'd at the bit saying Native Americans never had guns. And I slept through most of my history classes. ;)

Illspirit - You're my new hero.

Dannyboy-

"Guns are made for killing. Killing is their purpose"

Guns are made for protection and they are misused in the wrong hands.

U R REEL SMURT, DANYEL.

Seriously. Keep posting the liberal propaganda your parents have spoon fed you since you were a tot, it makes me giggle. Also, how are your history classes looking? Because from here they look a lot like bullshit.

Before I get called crazy, the Chinese invading is highly unlikely, but it was an example.

so this is the EU that is more than happy to dole out compensation money to prisoners who thought their cells were too dirty and didn't have enough DVDs in there but wants to use computer games as a scapegoat for all of societies ills.

the human rights of criminals is more important than our harmless hobby apparently well bollocks to them hopefully they'll fall victim to their own human rights act which garuntess the right to freedom of expression.

@ Jabrwock:
But that's only for things like economics and environmental issues. It's an entirely different matter when it's For The Kids©.

Weren't they just talking about how each area has it's own standards, and no one wants say, Sweden, dictating to France what is and isn't acceptable, just like Sweden wouldn't want France doing the same in return?
-- If your wiimote goes snicker-snack, check your wrist-strap...

The end of my post should read.
if f(x) >/ 0 then he people benefit (greater than or equal to zero)
if f(x) 1+ (Approaches 1 from the positive) it will never reach zero. Mainly because people will never cease to be violent. You do the fucking math.


Also, feel free to tell all the people you are going to lose their jobs because you don't want the scary guns around. I'm willing to bet the legal firearms industry employees 50k+ people in this country. That does not include independent guns smiths. That doesn't include companies that provide hunting supplies. It doesn't include places like gun ranges. It doesn't cover taxidermists or butchers who deal with meat from hunting exclusively. It doesn't include people who train hunting and bird dogs. It doesn't include people who run huge private hunting reserves. It doesn't cover the people who make there living teaching people how to use and store firearms safely and appropriately. Then again, its all in the the name of utopia.

Oh now we have that pesky deer population to deal with. What? You didn't know that private hunters are the only thing that really keeps deer from becoming over populated and starving to death in huge numbers. Well hey, we can raise taxes to help pay from government run hunts to thin out the deer population in areas. Man that is a lot of meat thats going to go to waste because the government couldn't get it to the butcher fast enough.

Are you going to arrest people for using pvc to make a potato gun too? I mean I could kill someone with that too.

""Access to children should be cut off. We have to ban some games.""
First games then media then free thought,the dominoes are set...all it takes is the correct action to start the fall of man.

Hmm, I think I'm going finish my slightly modified constitution just so I have a copy for after the zombie apocalypse.

@Daniel

Then who the fuck is the militia? Huh? Who the fuck is the militia if not the average person who gives a fuck about their country. Who cares enough that if they are needed would heed the call to defend against an enemy who has invaded our actual homeland if our military was unable to do so.

With your attitude i would have to run to the local armory to get a gun. Any intelligent invader would know where most of those are since they would sit out.

So at that point we are fucked. Don't give me the whole "Well then join the military". I hate to break it to you but the country needs a good portion of its population to remain as civilians so that industry can support a large defensive war from china or any of the other country that could realistically attack and possible defeat this country in standard non nuclear war.

I trust myself to provide immediate and direct security for myself. If an armed robber breaks into my home I don't have time to wait for the police, because I have no Idea what that persons intent is.
 
Forgot your password?
Username :
Password :

Shout box

You're not permitted to post shouts.
ZippyDSMleehttp://www.afterdawn.com/news/article.cfm/2014/04/15/riaa_files_civil_suit_against_megaupload04/16/2014 - 8:48am
ZippyDSMleeEither way you get stagnation as people can not afford the prices they set.04/16/2014 - 8:47am
Neenekowell, specifically it helps people already living there and hurts people who want to live there instead. As for 'way more hurt', majorities generally need less legal protection. yes it hurt more people then it helped, it was written for a minority04/16/2014 - 8:30am
MaskedPixelantehttp://torrentfreak.com/square-enix-drm-boosts-profits-and-its-here-to-stay-140415/ Square proves how incredibly out of touch they are by saying that DRM is the way of the future, and is here to stay.04/16/2014 - 8:29am
james_fudgeUnwinnable Weekly Telethon playing Metal Gear http://www.twitch.tv/rainydayletsplay04/16/2014 - 8:06am
ConsterTo be fair, there's so little left of the middle class that those numbers are skewing.04/16/2014 - 7:42am
Matthew Wilsonyes it help a sub section of the poor, but hurt both the middle and upper class. in the end way more people were hurt than helped. also, it hurt most poor people as well.04/16/2014 - 12:13am
SeanBJust goes to show what I have said for years. Your ability to have sex does not qualify you for parenthood.04/15/2014 - 9:21pm
NeenekoSo "worked" vs "failed" really comes down to who you think is more important and deserving04/15/2014 - 7:04pm
NeenekoThough I am also not sure we can say NYC failed. Rent control helped the people it was intended for and is considered a failure by the people it was designed to protect them from.04/15/2014 - 7:04pm
NeenekoIf they change the rules, demand will plummet. Though yeah, rent control probably would not help much in the SF case. I doubt anything will.04/15/2014 - 1:35pm
TheSmokeyOnline gamer accused of murdering son to keep playing - http://cnews.canoe.ca/CNEWS/Crime/2014/04/15/21604921.html04/15/2014 - 11:50am
Matthew Wilsonyup, but curent city rules do not allow for that.04/15/2014 - 11:00am
ZippyDSMleeIf SF dose not start building upwards then they will price people out of the aera.04/15/2014 - 10:59am
Matthew Wilsonthe issue rent control has it reduces supply, and in SF case they already has a supply problem. rent control ofen puts rent below cost, or below profit of selling it. rent control would not fix this issue.04/15/2014 - 10:56am
NeenekoRent control is useful in moderation, NYC took it way to far and tends to be held up as an example of them not working, but in most cases they are more subtle and positive.04/15/2014 - 10:24am
PHX CorpBeating Cancer with Video Games http://mashable.com/2014/04/14/steven-gonzalez-survivor-games/04/15/2014 - 9:21am
Matthew Wilsonwhat are you saying SF should do rent control, that has never worked every time it has been tried. the issue here is a self inflicted supply problem imposed by stupid laws.04/15/2014 - 8:52am
E. Zachary KnightNeeneko, Government created price controls don't work though. They may keep prices down for the current inhabitants, but they are the primary cause of recently vacated residences having astronomical costs. Look at New York City as a prime example.04/15/2014 - 8:50am
NeenekoI think free markets are important, but believe in balance. Too much of any force and things get unstable.04/15/2014 - 7:25am
 

Be Heard - Contact Your Politician