California Senator Leland Yee Tells Gamers To Shut Up And Let The Grown Ups Talk

from the awww...-your-pet-legislation-got-shot-down-by-the-Supreme-Court...-u-mad-bro? dept

As we've noted, recent events have pushed the discussion of video games (namely the violent ones) back to the forefront. Even the President has chimed in, authorizing the CDC to perform a study to determine if any link exists between violent media (including video games) and so-called “gun violence.”

While most gamers (and indeed, most people who can put two and two together without adding a bunch of rhetoric into the equation) have come to the rather sensible conclusion that violent games do not create violent people, the floor is still open to debate, most likely for the next several years. The sheer number of violent video games sold has failed, over the course of many years, to be matched by a comparable escalation in violent crime. If you're a gamer, you've probably thrown this argument into the debate a number of times and wondered why more people, especially those who active work to censor violent games, haven't arrived at the same conclusion.

Well, if so, here's your answer, courtesy of California State Senator Leland Yee, whose last effort to censor video games was shut down by the US Supreme Court.

“Gamers have got to just quiet down,” Yee, D-San Francisco, said in an interview Tuesday. “Gamers have no credibility in this argument. This is all about their lust for violence and the industry's lust for money. This is a billion-dollar industry. This is about their self-interest.”

You got that, gamers? No credibility. None. Beat it. If we want to talk about video games, like grown ups, we'll do it without you. We'll just talk to senators and the CDC and concerned parents' groups and the NRA. But we won't be talking to game developers. No way. And certainly not gamers, whose opinion amounts to nothing in a debate of this (periodic) importance.

You know who else won't be included in this conversation until absolutely necessary? The Supreme Court. Because if anyone's opinion is invalid, it's the highest court in the land.

Yee, a former child psychologist, believes the court set the standard too high for any study to firmly link the cause and effect of violence.

Yes. This court, which stated that any effects caused by violent video games were too small to be distinguished from effects produced by other media, needs to butt out. Fortunately for Yee, the Supreme Court rarely offers an opinion until asked directly, unlike the millions of gamers who spout off in every forum imaginable.

Yes, Yee is right about the industry being self-interested. It does have a lot at stake, especially if some sort of government regulation results from this renewed attention. Pleasing a government censor is a lot harder than pleasing an independent ratings group. One has a political motivation to save humanity (mostly “the children”) from “violent media.” The other has an interest in preserving its autonomy by doing its job properly and giving each game a rating that reflects the content. In other words, one is more willing to kill the end result of $30 million in production costs in order to score political victories while the other wants to make sure mature content doesn't end up with a family-friendly T slapped across the front of the case.

Elsewhere in the article, you can find thoughtful comments from the very people Yee feels should just shut up. Kris Graft, editor-in-chief of Gamasutra, feels the violent video game problem is one of perception.

“It's not all about shooting people in the head and guts everywhere, but that's what the public perception is, and probably rightfully so,” said Kris Graft, editor-in-chief of the San Francisco-based site Gamasutra, which along with its print magazine sibling, Game Developer, covers the video game industry. “There is plenty of diversity in video games, but I don't think it's being highlighted enough.”

So does Kate Edwards of IGDA:

“It's important to point out that some of the most popular video games in history are all titles such as 'Wii Sports,' 'The Sims,' 'Super Mario Brothers,' the Pokemon series and 'Tetris,' ” said Kate Edwards, executive director of the trade group International Game Developers Association. “So while the games containing more violence get the attention, they're not a reflection of the game industry as a whole, just as a single genre of film, TV or literature doesn't represent that medium as a whole.”

Edwards also welcomes the CDC's study, stating that it will add to the “large body” of existing studies that have failed to show a link between fake violence and real violence.

But Yee doesn't want to hear from these people, who are rightly concerned because they have an investment in this industry and who feel this added attention is doing harm to not only their careers, but also to the games they love.

The people who should be keeping their mouths shut, or at least, sitting in the back with their hands folded until called upon, are those who know nothing about video games beyond scare reels put together by like-minded individuals and anecdotal “evidence” cobbled together out of headlines like 'Adam Lanza played Call of Duty' and 'Hans Breivik said Call of Duty taught him how to use guns.' Without a broader overview of the history, the industry and the culture, they're operating with a damaged data set culled from all the worst humanity has to offer and linked together by a single, gossamer strand of self-identifying as “gamers,” ignoring the millions of other self-identifying gamers who are indistinguishable from others who have never played a game in their lives, united by the much thicker linkage of never having committed a violent crime.

Filed Under: , , , ,

Rate this comment as insightful
Rate this comment as funny
You have rated this comment as insightful
You have rated this comment as funny
Flag this comment as abusive/trolling/spam
You have flagged this comment
The first word has already been claimed
The last word has already been claimed
Insightful Lightbulb icon Funny Laughing icon Abusive/trolling/spam Flag icon Insightful badge Lightbulb icon Funny badge Laughing icon Comments icon

Comments on “California Senator Leland Yee Tells Gamers To Shut Up And Let The Grown Ups Talk”

Subscribe: RSS Leave a comment
162 Comments
gorehound (profile) says:

Re: To summarize...

Fuck him !!! Another Asshole Politician who won’t work on the real causes like Gun Control and Mental Health.These Assholes keep Cutting Off Funds that would Treat the Sick.
They will keep on doing the same Corrupted Things they do.
I hate this Government !!! F#ck Off !!

Playing some more Mass Effect and then I will go wacko and think the General Population has been Indoctrinated and I am Commander Shepard the Renegade.Must stop those Reapers.Thinking all those people walking down the Street are Enemies.

Dream on Asshole Politicians ! You won’t stop me Gaming and you will never attack my Punk Rock Music and think you can succeed.You do realize that they will start at Games, Attack Music like the Punk Rock I play, Attack the films we watch, and Censor Books.They will want it all.Games will just be their first casuilty.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:3 To summarize...

Leaving loaded weapos where children can pick them up is the sort of gun control failure i was thinking of.
By the way, for self defence unarmed combat is much more useful, as trying to draw a gun when being directly threatened by a knife or gun likely to result in its use.
How many of yout police have been killed by weapon when confronting a suspect with a holstered weapon?

btrussell (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:4 To summarize...

“Leaving loaded weapos where children can pick them up is the sort of gun control failure i was thinking of.”

That wasn’t very obvious. But those same children probably steal their parents car, or money, whenever they want too.

“By the way, for self defence unarmed combat is much more useful, as trying to draw a gun when being directly threatened by a knife or gun likely to result in its use.”

I’ve only had one person come at me with a weapon. He tried to use it. He got a real life lesson on how when using a weapon against someone, it can be used against them. He will never use a weapon on another again. I was unarmed, as usual. I don’t condone using weapons of any kind on another human being.

“How many of yout police have been killed by weapon when confronting a suspect with a holstered weapon?”

What are we talking about here? A shootout at dawn?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CqABkG1JpHM

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0iK2ndUyKE8

Jeff (profile) says:

Hmm… World of Warcraft taught me to use magic… to bad that doesn’t work in the real world… because I’d like to cast a ‘Silence’ on him.

Seriously – granstanding politicians aren’t winning themselves any more favors. Gamers constitute a *huge* voting population now – from the aforementioned Call of Duty players, World of Warcraft players such as myself, to grandmothers playing Farmville… We are legion!

foolish politicians will be foolish…

shane (profile) says:

Re: Sorry, Tim, you made a mistake.

Hehe. Good point! lol

What this boils down to is that human beings make a distinction between good and bad violence. It’s intriguing to me that this is a Democrat. One of the calling cards of their way of doing business is to eventually medicalize everything and come at it from that direction. You see Yee here making the comment that he is going to have the decision studied to see what new angle they can come at it from. It will likely be based on this little tidbit here –

“California?s Act does not adjust the boundaries of an existing category of unprotected speech to ensure that a definition designed for adults is not uncritically applied to children.”

They won’t end up needing to prove the kids do anything wrong. Merely that there is some documented “medical harm”.

shane (profile) says:

Is this the law?

BROWN, GOVERNOR OF CALIFORNIA, ET AL. v.
ENTERTAINMENT MERCHANTS ASSOCIATION ET AL.

I think the more interesting question that is not getting raised here is why people continue to object to violent video games and their perceived marketing to children. This decision is fairly one sided, and the Supreme Court took it up apparently to put an exclamation point on the fact that these sorts of laws need to stop coming up, but they still do.

There are apparently a lot of people out there enraged at the gaming industry, and I think entertainment just in general, over what is perceived to be a torrent of negative, unwanted entertainment that kids then harass their parents for. I know some parents just feel beleaguered by a culture seemingly steeped in violence and filth, and nothing ever seems to stem that tide.

I am not for these laws. I love violent video games in fact. But there is something to this – something that is not getting a lot of airtime either in media or among most pundits. I think people are just growing sick of sickness being the status quo.

John Fenderson (profile) says:

Re: Is this the law?

what is perceived to be a torrent of negative, unwanted entertainment that kids then harass their parents for

So then why can’t they be honest and say “we want the law to shut the media up because my kids are annoying me.”

This whole “for the children” argument just screams “bad parents want to get out of having to parent.”

PaulT (profile) says:

Re: Re:

The average age of gamers is actually 30, which has actually just dropped by a few years since the rise in casual gaming (source: http://kotaku.com/5931077/the-average-age-of-a-gamer-just-dropped-by-seven-years-um-what).

If people are still so out of touch as to consider gaming not to be an adult activity, they certainly don’t deserve to have a say in how to regulate it.

Andrew Norton (profile) says:

It was going so well for Kate Edwards, right up until she mentioned Pokemon. I mean sure it’s wholesome. I mean it’s an unaccompanied minor, wandering around the country, and getting his animals to fight wild animals and other professional trainers in organised fights.

Nothing wrong with that at all. I think wholesome sports stars like Michael Vick were probably a big player of Pokemon…

Rikuo (profile) says:

Re: ROFLMAO

The closest I ever got to “Video games taught me how to shoot in real life” was the light gun on the NES. Or of playing House of the Dead in the arcades. Yet, of course there’s a few key differences.
One, I know those are fake
Two, I never have to physically reload
Three, I never have to properly care for the gun, maintain it.

Anonymous Coward says:

At least...

This nut is confined to impacting only California law where there seems to be an awful lot of people who seem to have a masochistic love for idiotic over-regulatory legislation.

And yes, here in Texas we are embarrassed that we can’t seem to deport Lamar Smith to some place very dark and very cold where he can’t attempt harm anyone ever again.

vilain (profile) says:

Pure trolling

Until I heard Rachel Maddow’s show on the NRA Obama’s Kids ad (it was really about trolling), I had no context for comments like this. And they would piss me off. Which is exactly what Yee wants. And to rally like minded people to his cause or show someone that he stands for something.

Guess SCOTUS telling him to STFU isn’t enough. Maybe holding lawmakers in contempt (e.g. tossing them into jail for a week, a month or maybe a year) might be a solution. It worked for the the terrorists at Gitmo, right?

I’m bordering on trolling here myself but I have a problem with lawmakers infringing on what I can do legally in my own home on my own time. Belmont when after smoking in condos and apartments (which I don’t do but reserve the right for anyone to smoke in their own home).

Now he wants to come after video games? You’ll have to pry the keyboard out of my cold dead fingers, Senator Yee.

shane (profile) says:

Re: Pure trolling

Another non smoker here who thinks smoking laws have gone too far. Then again, I think drunk driving laws are starting to go too far too. They have this thing here in Austin from time to time, “no refusal” such and such a day. If you refuse a breathalizer, they’ll take that as probable cause. They have judges set up working overtime to then rubber stamp warrants to take your blood instead………

Mutosheep says:

Re: Pure trolling

If you vote for Marxists you have no right to complain. Pretty much everybody on Twin Dolphin Lame drove their Prius hybrids to the polling stations and pulled the lever for openly socialist Democrats across the board like obedient little Obamabots. I guess you people didn’t care as long as it wasn’t YOUR rights that were infringed. The fact that you watch Wretchel Madcow shows your guano brain.

Gwiz (profile) says:

“Gamers have got to just quiet down,” Yee, D-San Francisco, said in an interview Tuesday. “Gamers have no credibility in this argument. This is all about their lust for violence and the industry’s lust for money. This is a billion-dollar industry. This is about their self-interest.”

By changing a few words, this ludicrous statement can be slung right back at Mr. Yee:

“Politicians have got to just quiet down,” said some anonymous guy the internet Friday. “Politicians have no credibility in this argument. This is all about their lust for control and their lust for campaign contributions. This is a billion-dollar industry. This is about their self-interest.”

Chosen Reject (profile) says:

Re: Re:

I came here to point out the hypocrisy in this statement. Let’s change a few more words:

Doctors have got to just quiet down,” Yee, D-San Francisco, said in an interview Tuesday. “Doctors have no credibility in this argument. This is all about their lust for medications and the Pharma industry’s lust for money. This is a billion-dollar industry. This is about their self-interest.

Record Labels have got to just quiet down,” Yee, D-San Francisco, said in an interview Tuesday. “Record Labels have no credibility in this argument. This is all about their lust for copyright control and the Recording industry’s lust for money. This is a billion-dollar industry. This is about their self-interest.

Movie studios have got to just quiet down,” Yee, D-San Francisco, said in an interview Tuesday. “Movie studios have no credibility in this argument. This is all about their lust for copyright control and the movie industry’s lust for money. This is a billion-dollar industry. This is about their self-interest.

Cable companies have got to just quiet down,” Yee, D-San Francisco, said in an interview Tuesday. “Cable companies have no credibility in this argument. This is all about their lust for monopolies and the telecommunication industry’s lust for money. This is a billion-dollar industry. This is about their self-interest.

I could keep going, but you get the point. Some company comes to politicians crying that they are a billion dollar industry and politicians bend over backwards to make the populace bend over forward for those industries. But games come up and suddenly being a billion dollar industry is a liability. I guess the real problem is that game companies aren’t lobbying hard enough.

shane (profile) says:

Re: Re:

I hadn’t played a video game in years, and the game that suckered me back in?

Grand Theft Auto IV….

So um…. I guess I like violent, filthy video games.

In GTA IV’s defense, the smut is not particularly graphic… I don’t know how much of a defense that actually is given the graphic nature of the VIOLENCE, but the smut is pretty tame.

Apparently violent misogyny is ok as long as it’s not sexually graphic.

iambinarymind (profile) says:

Video Games are Not Violent...

Video games are not violent. They are inanimate objects.

Instead of repeating the false rhetoric of “violent video games”, I believe it would be more helpful, to those who are against censorship of video games, to use the following rhetoric:

“Fantasy Violence in Video Games”

or

“Video Games that portray fantasy violence”

…etc.

Using false rhetoric such as “violent video games” only helps the authoritarians in spreading their collectivistic nanny state propaganda.

Anonymous Coward says:

as per usual, in true Senatorial fashion, Lee is just trying to get his name in lights by getting a new law introduced. the fact that it wont reduce the violent acts of some troubled individuals, it sounds good! i wonder what comment he would come out with if he was told to ‘shut up’ over certain things senators do, being told that others would sort it out?

Anonymous Coward says:

It’s important to point out that some of the most popular video games in history are all titles such as ‘Wii Sports,’ ‘The Sims,’ ‘Super Mario Brothers,’ the Pokemon series and ‘Tetris,’ ” said Kate Edwards, executive director of the trade group International Game Developers Association. “So while the games containing more violence get the attention, they’re not a reflection of the game industry as a whole, just as a single genre of film, TV or literature doesn’t represent that medium as a whole.”

But those ARE very VIOLENT games!

-Wii Sports is a game of sports, and people get hurt all the time in sports! Look at all the Baseball and Football players who get injured a year! So don’t tell me that Wii Sports isn’t VIOLENT!

-The Sims may SEEM like playing the life of someone else, but you can play an EVIL & VIOLENT life of someone. You can lock people up in rooms and let them STARVE to death! Or get them to dive into a swimming pool and take away the ladder so they DROWN! And The Sims includes SEX which is related to PORN! Kids play The Sims, so that makes the VIOLENCE and SEX totally unacceptable!

-Mario games are VERY VIOLENT to! It teaches kids to jump on top of turtles! That’s ANIMAL ABUSE!

-Pokemon, come on, it’s all about ANIMAL ABUSE! Do we want our kids to learn that it’s ok to tell Fido to go beat up Fluffy?

-Tetris may LOOK fine, but it’s also a bad choice for our kids! Tetris teaches kids to stack lots of objects on top of each other, which causes the ENTIRE stack to eventually collapse right on top of them and injure them! Tetris is VERY DANGEROUS because of the bad physics in it.

Aliasundercover says:

Scapegoats

The gun industry has chosen scapegoats. They are gamers and anyone seeking the aid of a mental health professional. Time now to make a spectacle of beating them so everyone forgets the role of guns.

Now to be just over the top silly put yourself in the role of being on scene when the next killer starts spraying bullets around. What sort of weapon would help you stop the killing without endangering more people yourself? A machine gun isn’t it. If you fire large numbers of bullets you too will hit innocents. You need accuracy. Unlikely but you could possibly need to defeat body armor. You positively NEED to use as few bullets as can get the job done.

The point of citizens having guns is self defense so those guns should be made for accuracy and accident resistance, not rate of fire. Banning guns isn’t even on the table for discussion. Present proposals are aimed at limiting automatic weapons with large magazines, weapons of war which are poorly suited to self defense.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Scapegoats

One question for you. Which word of “shall not be infringed” do you not understand?

First of all automatic weapons are already highly restricted. Second, the number of violent crimes committed by legal gun owners is ridiculously small.

Yes I am embarrassed that the NRA has chosen the cheap route of playing the scapegoating game. But weapon bans will still do nothing but restrict law abiding citizens. The criminals don’t care about what the law says they are going to do what they are going to do anyway.

We have for years had an armed populace yet only recently has the frequency of these sorts of tragedies increased. If guns were the cause, then the increase would have happened a long time ago. How about actually addressing the issue of economic imbalance in society that that has sky-rocketed in recent years that could quite possibly be causing certain people to snap under the pressure and resort to drastic violent measures?

Aliasundercover says:

Re: Re: Scapegoats and fun with words

One question for you. Which word of “shall not be infringed” do you not understand?

The part where a well regulated militia is essential to the security of a free state. Until the loonies took over the Supreme Court we all understood that to mean the states can have militias, arm their citizens to serve in them and those citizens can retain possession of their guns. That would mean the states can regulate guns any way they please within their borders ranging from outright ban to any military weapon at all.

Of course the words have been tossed to the wind. With suitable irony the robed political hacks who did so are the same who sing the praises of pure textual interpretation of law. We all know the law means whatever they say it means just as Humpty Dumpty taught us so many years ago.

So, with the words of the Constitution trampled in the dust we are left searching for some kind of consensus. The closest we have is that distinction as to “weapons of war”. Bans on full blooded machine guns, rockets and other powerful weapons have long been enforced without controversy. We could perhaps follow that working thread and do something rational. Armed citizens defending the free state was the original goal of the second amendment. We can keep that goal realistically recognizing the threat armed citizens can handle is not a foreign army but criminal killers.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re: Scapegoats and fun with words

Actually it’s funny you mention state’s rights to violate the 2nd amendment. Comparing the words chosen in the 1st amendment as compared to the 2nd amendment, the equivalent language is “Congress shall make no law”, which would imply that STATES could make laws that restrict freedom of speech as long as Congress didn’t. However it is interesting that they changed the language for the 2nd amendment to “shall not be infringed.” That implies that they were perfectly ok with STATES or LOCALITIES restricting freedom of speech however the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed by ANY LEVEL of government.

btr1701 (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re: Scapegoats and fun with words

Until the loonies took over the Supreme Court we all
understood that to mean the states can have militias,
arm their citizens to serve in them and those citizens
can retain possession of their guns.

Sure, if you ignore the actual intent by the amendment you might be able to come to that conclusion. The Founders had just finished fighting a war against a government that had tried, among other things, to disarm the populace.

If you think they meant that people should only be able to possess guns with the government’s permission, while serving as part of the government, you’re nuts.

I also like how enforcing the Constitution as the Framers intended has now apparently become a ‘loony’ thing to do.

shane (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re: Scapegoats and fun with words

This is horse manure. Coupled with Article I Section 8 of the Constitution which states that Congress is tasked with regulating the militia, the Second Amendment very clearly establishes a method by which a large standing army is to be rendered unnecessary. The fact that we now have precisely such an army is just evidence that we have progressed way too far in the wrong direction.

The right to bear arms goes back to the Glorious Revolution and beyond. There is even mention of the right to defend one’s self from a solider in Roman law.

Why are you just making this up?

Why are some more afraid of their neighbors than of an abusive government, seeing how often throughout history abusive government has destroyed the lives of multiple millions, whereas individuals misbehaving simply cannot pull this off?

Serial killers tend not to use guns. The largest mass killers tend to use explosives. Nothing is ever going to prevent the occasional disaster. They are going to happen. These gun laws people seem so desperate to get in place serve absolutely no purpose except to leave decent people defenseless, and yet you will mislead people by pretending to know the history of this amendment in order to promote further violations of its tenets.

Niall (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:2 Scapegoats and fun with words

And yet, Western Europe, Canada and the Australasian countries don’t seem to feel they have to ‘protect’ themselves from their governments, and they have much lower gun-death rates. What’s the common factor?

By all means enact laws allowing a free-for-all of weaponry. Why abridge the people’s ‘right’ to tanks, RPGs or ICBMs? And why not throw out every other law that fails to stop people from doing dangerous stuff – you know, like all those pesky drug and speeding laws?

Seriously, watching you guys from the outside is like watching the asylum inmates arguing for bigger padded jackets to stop the guards supposedly pickpocketing you.

shane (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:3 Scapegoats and fun with words

People in Western Europe, Canada and Australasia constantly whine about their government over reach while refusing to acknowledge the lessons of history concerning how your government is able to ignore you if you allow it to maintain standing armed forces while disarming the public.

Again, the Constitution’s combined statements concerning the requirement of congress to maintain a well ordered militia coupled with the second amendment prohibition of ever infringing the right of the people to keep and bear their own arms is intended to avoid situations such as exist in Syria right at this moment, where the army is the means of control of the nation. Only when part of the army split off was there a revolution. Indeed, that is the heart and soul of the entire so called “Arab Spring”. It took massive social pressure, but FINALLY the armies in charge of these places began to splinter, with factions supporting interests besides the existing power structure.

By keeping people armed and intimately involved with the national defense, such issues cannot evolve.

When you act as if these ideas are somehow backwards, anyone who has studied the history behind it all and observes how it is relevant to this very day then sees how out of touch with reality you are.

It doesn’t even occur to you that the powers you list are the very powers we rebelled against, and that interference from outside forces was the primary motive for uniting the states to begin with.

You’re not being intellectual. You’re utterly, painfully, and seemingly stubbornly and willfully uninformed.

DCX2 says:

Re: Re: Scapegoats

The criminals don’t care about what the law says they are going to do what they are going to do anyway.

Allow me to elucidate why a weapons ban works. The typical claim goes something like “if you ban weapons, then only criminals have weapons”.

We banned fully automatic weapons back in the 80s. How many crimes are committed using fully automatic weapons today?

Practically zero. Why? Because a fully automatic weapon costs tens of thousands of dollars. Supply and demand; if you drastically reduce the supply, the price will skyrocket.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re: Scapegoats

The cost of a LEGAL fully automatic weapon that a US citizen can own without having a FFL has gone through the roof thanks to the Hughes Amendment (which didn’t really pass out of committee, but was illegally railroaded through by Rangel BTW). That doesn’t mean that the black market supply of unregistered ones from through foreign suppliers has.

shane (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re: Scapegoats

You have no idea what you are talking about.

In Mexico, fully automatic weapons are used in crime constantly despite their far more restrictive gun control laws. The reason cartels don’t do that here is because they know the US would invade Columbia and burn their crops if they behaved towards us the way they behave in Mexico.

Being the biggest kid on the block still has SOME fringe benefits.

DCX2 says:

Re: Re: Re:2 Scapegoats

This isn’t about Mexico, though. This is about the US, and whether the ban on fully automatic weapons has succeeded in its goals.

It appears to have done so. http://www.guncite.com/gun_control_gcfullau.html

Since 1934, there have been two known crimes committed with legal fully automatic weapons. I wonder how many crimes have been committed with legal semi-auto weapons in the intervening time (hell, in the last twelve months alone). I’m going to bet that it’s higher than two.

Between 1983 and 1992, there were 713 LEOs killed. 651 died by firearms. 4 of them were killed by fully automatic weapons.

In 1980, only 1% of homicides committed in Miami (the “machine gun Mecca” at the time) used fully automatic weapons.

Between 1987 and 1989, Minneapolis police recovered over 2,200 guns. Not a single one was fully automatic.

Between 1980 and 1989, in the Chicago area, 375 guns were seized during drug warrant executions and arrests. Not a single one was fully automatic.

Here, maybe this will make you feel better. 16 of 2,359 guns seized in Detroit between 1991 and 1992 were fully automatic.

Sorry, man. As much as you don’t want it to be true, banning fully automatic firearms has resulted in very, very few criminals having them. Supply and demand at work.

shane (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:3 Scapegoats

You didn’t even begin to address my objection. If the cartels were running rampant in this country the way they are in Mexico, one of two things would happen.

1. Our government would invade whatever nation they were operating from and assassinate their leaders. (See Al Quaeda)
2. People would demand access to automatic weapons and blow the heads off the Cartel operatives themselves.

Mexico proves it is not the ban that is achieving the result. It is our culture. We don’t tolerate that level of corruption, or at least, we used to not tolerate it.

shane (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:3 Scapegoats

And the more I think of it, how do you even dare to pass off that obvious evidence that the ban has nothing to do with automatic gun violence, and even get smarmy at the end of your post about it? Of course it’s relevant…

This is why I have absolutely no trust in anyone who is for gun control. I can’t even begin to relate to the mind set you would have to have to just dismiss out of hand that a nation who has stricter gun control laws than we do has more gun violence.

shane (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re: Scapegoats

“Because a fully automatic weapon costs tens of thousands of dollars.”

It costs a few moments of a machinists time. That’s another aspect of gun control few people want to address. Just how far down the food chain of technology would you like us to ban to prevent simply work-arounds for your myopic bans?

I am so sick of people who have not a single, solitary clue what they are talking about spewing off as if they have moral and intellectual insights about something that has been settled for two hundred plus years.

DCX2 says:

Re: Re: Re:2 Scapegoats

Ugh. You know, you’re an asshole on the Internet. I’ll have to make a note to just ignore your comments from now on, as it seems that you don’t treat anyone you don’t agree with in a civil manner.

For the record, sure, it only takes a few moments of a machinist’s time. But have you ever heard “don’t let perfect be the enemy of good enough”? You and those like-minded to yourself think that banning weapons doesn’t end massacres, so don’t ban weapons. But we will NEVER stop massacres and murder. What we can do is MITIGATE the damage. One way to mitigate the damage is to reduce supply. Even if you can just go to a machinist – assuming you can find one who is willing to machine parts for such weapons, which is probably not quite as easy as you think it is – it will still reduce the supply.

After all, why register guns? People can just machine their own. It’s so easy to circumvent gun registration, so everyone must be doing it, right? eyeroll

shane (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:3 Scapegoats

I wish people like you would follow up on those kinds of threats. I have not used any profanity. I have presented my arguments in a logical manner. And you respond with insults.

I did not argue that banning things doesn’t end up causing them to be less common. Obviously, if something is less common, then it will be less used, whether for good or evil. What I have said is it will not result in any specific increase or decrease in the use of assault weapons for crime, and I have demonstrated that point.

People who are against gun control are not against gun control, as folks like you love to accuse them, because they are backwards luddites who just don’t get it. They tend to be people who have at some point in their lives dealt with guns and realize there is nothing magical about them. They are a tool, like a car or a hammer or a nail gun. A culture awash in violence is going to have guns, and those guns are some of them going to be automatics if enough money is involved. We have less of that here because of our culture, not because of your bans.

btrussell (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re: Scapegoats

Allow me to elucidate why a drug ban works. The typical claim goes something like “if you ban drugs, then only criminals have drugs”.

We banned drugs back in the 80s. How many crimes are committed because of drugs today?

Practically zero. Why? Because a kilo of coke costs tens of thousands of dollars. Supply and demand; if you drastically reduce the supply, the price will skyrocket.

shane (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:2 Scapegoats

How many times does this canard of yours have to be disproven?

Twice?

Three times?

It’s not even mildly difficult to find these studies anymore. Let alone the experience of prohibition. And let’s not even talk about the prison/industrial complex, by which the US jails more of its population than any other nation we can document and sets them to work as slaves for the same people busy banning everything.

I doubt twelve thousand studies would work. You fear, therefore you ban. Ban everything. Ban technology itself. Let us go back to a simpler time when people merely died at the age of 35 from disease.

shane (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:4 Scapegoats

Why does it not surprise me you didn’t even bother to read them. Your argument was as follows –

“Because a kilo of coke costs tens of thousands of dollars. Supply and demand; if you drastically reduce the supply, the price will skyrocket.”

Problematically, all the statistics show repeatedly that the crime increased along with the cost of the drugs, and decreased when the prices came down.

Exactly as it did with prohibition.

shane (profile) says:

Re: Re: Scapegoats

This.

“How about actually addressing the issue of economic imbalance in society that that has sky-rocketed in recent years that could quite possibly be causing certain people to snap under the pressure and resort to drastic violent measures?”

Amen. I do believe you could even find a study or seventy that point out that economic imbalance causes social unrest and violence, not to mention a goodly fistful of historic examples.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Scapegoats

Furthermore, since the creation of the NFA in 1934 (including all of those years prior to the Hughes Amendment) that required all Title II weapons (including fully automatic weapons) be registered with the federal government, there has been only ONE (count it ONE) case of a legally registered fully automatic weapon being used in the commission of a crime and THAT perpetrator was a POLICE OFFICER yet there are thousands of cases of law abiding citizens with legally registered firearms that are harassed by the government for no reason other than the fact that they possess a firearm which is something that should not happen according to the 2nd amendment. So how exactly is legislation like this going to reduce crime again?

shane (profile) says:

Re: Scapegoats

Yeah. That’s why they use them in war. Because they are poorly suited for defense…..

You should love Yee then, he is an anti gun activist as well.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leland_Yee#Rewriting_of_SB249

While you’re at it, can you Cali kids get busy childproofing that San Andreas Fault? THAT thing’s gonna cause some problems eventually.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re:

And Verizon wants everyone to have to switch from wired (cable and fiber) lines, many of which are faster and have a more reliable connection, to wireless lines that are slower and more subject to atmospheric interference (ie. lag) just so that they can escape regulatory control and add data caps which increase their profit margins. I think you may be on to a viable theory there.

jjmsan says:

Hi Minded principles

I don’t know I might agree with his principle. If you stand to benefit from arebe injured by a regulation or law your views may be biased and should not count. So the Oil industry should not have any say on environmental regulations. Doctors cannot comment on laws to regulate medical treatment and lawyers cannot comment on well anything.

Anonymous Coward says:

If they regulate/remove ALL media that portrays fake violence,
it would be like taking the release valve off of a boiler.

Every time the “government” prohibits anything they exacerbate the problem. Alcohol>Mafia Drugs>Cartels
What would the result of of ban on fake violence be?

I’m thinking Real Life Violence.

logic says:

yee

hello ladies. look at yee… now look at me…now back to yee…now back to me. sadly he has none of me. but if he stopped blaming inanimate objects so he can advance an agenda while being a condescending ### with fake maturity he could seem like he has me. look down…back up where are you? your in your house and yee has been charged with bribe taking! whats in your hand? back at me. its a supreme court ruling that says video games are protected speech. look again: its the rage of thousands of corrupt free speech hating politicians after losing the fight. anything is possible when you have logic and the courts on your side.

im in saints row.

*whistle*

Marc Potter says:

Don’t bitch here. Bitch there..

These so called representatives need to be held responsible for what they say and do.

http://sd08.senate.ca.gov/

OFFICE LOCATIONS

Capitol Office
State Capitol, Room 4074
Sacramento, CA 95814
Phone: (916) 651-4008

San Francisco Office
455 Golden Gate Avenue,
Suite 14200
San Francisco, CA 94102
Phone: (415) 557-7857

San Mateo Office
400 South El Camino Real,
Suite 630
San Mateo, CA 94402
Phone: (650) 340-8840

Anonymous Coward says:

Gun owners have got to just quiet down about gun control. Gun owners have no credibility in this argument. This is all about their lust for violence and the gun manufacturing industry’s lust for money. This is a billion-dollar industry. This is about their self-interest. The NRA should just shut up and let the grown-ups talk about gun control.

Niall (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re: ROFL

Wow, are you really trying to be insulting about any post I make? Even the non-serious ones? Grow a real pair and stop being so thin-skinned! Your comment would have been so much better if you’d stopped after the first line. It’s a shame, you’ve said some good stuff in this thread.

If the best country you can compare yourself with is Uganda, with its “kill the gays” mentality and actual African mad dictatorships in its relatively recent past, either the US in a really bad way, or you have a very poor perception of yourselves.

And yes, you were the only ones we let go with a bit of a fight. All the others we let go more peacefully. Guess it’s only the one violent ‘child’ we had πŸ™‚ It’s a shame you can’t grow out of it though…

Anonymous Coward says:

I wonder how many copycats this guy has created, just for the accusation itself, regardless if it being truth or not. Those who have nothing left, how does this affect them…..theres a study for you.

All for the slimy fact of, in this day and age, if you have power and influence in relavant fields, and want rid of something, all you have to do, is repeat somethings evil, enough times, and the majority will form a “gang” behind him, well thats the idea, sometimes, sometimes, you get blowback

Jake says:

Saying people who play violent video games are going to be violent is like saying people who play racing games are going to speed. The “aggressive” behavior exhibited while playing and shortly after playing violent video games, most often cited as a concern, is no different than the behavior found on the schoolyard in games of tag and dodge ball.

Boys will be boys. Quite trying to wussify the nation by turning it into a nanny state.

HumbleForeigner (profile) says:

A different take

I find the words “This is a billion-dollar industry. This is about their self-interest.” to be interesting. Could he be inviting, subtly, the game industries to send a few lobbyists his way? With some nice “campaign contributions” in their briefcases to make this go away?

The open corruption within the politics of the USA raises this as a strong possibility in my mind.

Anonymous Coward says:

What’s with all these sociopaths in positions of power, anyway? Just recently we had the US attorney’s refusal to even consider that she might have gone too far with the Swartz case, and now here’s a senator literally saying “either you agree with me or you’re wrong”.

How do people even get to be that egotistical?

shane (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:

I used to see such comments as petulant and cynical, but it does seem to me that we as a whole do not frown quite emphatically enough upon the concept of greed. Power seeking appears to be an outgrowth of a need for security. This legitimate need, when fed beyond reason, leads people to never feel they have quite enough in comparison to others, and this leads inexorably to imbalances.

Putting a lid on greed is a moral imperative. In recent decades, morality itself seems to have come under increasing fire though, and as we abandon all sorts of ancient concepts to do with social expectations, greed seems to have fallen by the wayside as well.

Here’s an interesting little blurb about the concept of a leader being “open handed” in older days.

Simple Mind (profile) says:

all of this is a distraction

The relatively few deaths caused by psychotic gun wielders is but a scratch on the body of humanity. But the emotional response of seeing an innocent killed causes humanity to thrash about in the dark trying to hit the thing that scratched it. Meanwhile humanity ignores the ton of bricks that are still a mile up, but clearly falling its way.

That One Guy (profile) says:

I object!

I’ve played plenty of ‘violent videogames’ and yet when I went down to the gun range, none of the knowledge I learned from them was any use!

I couldn’t find the blasted X button, so after one clip I wasn’t able to reload.Then after the clip was empty I couldn’t find the blasted Y button so I could switch to another weapon!

The only thing that was the same in fact, was that after the first clip was empty, I was offered the option to pay to get another full clip, so apparently DLC is alive and well in both the digital and physical worlds of shooting things.

Anonymous Coward says:

how about a study on the effects of government-sanctioned violence?

kidnapping and rendition
years to decades of incarceration without a trial
assassination of U.S. citizens without a trial
assassination squads in ally countries
drone strikes on civilian women and children
assault gun sales to drug lords
material food aid to enemy countries so they can allocate resources to militarization instead of feeding their own people

Anonymous Coward says:

Violent cards

When I was a kid I wound up in bed for a few weeks to let some broken bones heal.
I played all kinds of games including solitaire, but with a Analog deck of cards so I had to reload manually.
So every now and again I play a game of solitaire on the computer and put it on FULL AUTO just for the excitement of it! Some people around me have been bored to death!
Clearly games are dangerous.

Gene Cavanaugh (profile) says:

Gaming

First, I agree the ignorant should stop finding arbitrary straw men that are “destroying culture”, “harming culture”, and other trivia.

At the same time, extremist positions “for” are just as much of a turn-off as extremist positions “against”.

Guns, games, cars, airplanes … I could go on and on … can be good, bad, or indeterminate. I personally prefer games (any games) to guns, but that’s just me. However, we need REASONED discussion, as in, “Yes, there are pros and cons”, not childish “is – is not – is – is not”.

timtlc says:

Emperer Leland Yee

Yee’s doing the same thing with modern firearms – it’s the firearms that do the killing (all by themselves) with no bad people involved. Yee’s solution, turn law-abiding citizens into criminals if they don’t give up their 2nd Amendment constitutional rights. Although gun violence has been decreasing steadily for the past 30 years while firearm ownership, especially modern sport rifles (Yee’s Assault Rifle)has more than doubled…Yee doesn’t let the facts get in the way of his opinion that he’s going to force down everyone’s throats, like it or not. To Yee: ESFOAD. What a toady!

Add Your Comment

Your email address will not be published.

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here

Comment Options:

Make this the or (get credits or sign in to see balance) what's this?

What's this?

Techdirt community members with Techdirt Credits can spotlight a comment as either the "First Word" or "Last Word" on a particular comment thread. Credits can be purchased at the Techdirt Insider Shop Β»

Follow Techdirt

Techdirt Daily Newsletter

Techdirt Deals
Techdirt Insider Discord
The latest chatter on the Techdirt Insider Discord channel...
Loading...